Community Chat

[SilleeMee]

Whatever the case may be, fur or anything else, I find it disturbing when the government steps in and eliminates our right to choice. 

[Drythe]

---

@Sooner wrote:

Well, did CA ban horse racing too?  Or is it about the money the state gets?  And did they also ban animals used in making movies?  Did they do that?   Or is that about the money and influence rather than the animals? 

I'd say this is a tell-tale moment for that.   No, sounds more like a publicity stunt to me. 

---

@Sooner 

No, but they didn’t ban eating meat either.  That doesn’t make this change any less of a sincere attempt to right a wrong.  

All change must start somewhere, and move and adapt. 

Hopefully this will be a START, which animal lovers, and those who respect life, will support rather than cast shade at.

While not a fan of animal racing, or using them in movies,  I can see a clear difference in that and killing an animal in order to wear their skin/fur.  

🍏/🍊

• @KingstonsMom  Good, it is a start.  Thanks for the information.

[Anonymous032819]

Here is my take on why dog and cat fur wasn't in the ban.

There are breeds of dogs and cats that have long fur, or a thick undercoat, such as the Siberian Husky.

If you ever brushed a husky, you know that you come away with mounds and mounds, and mounds of fur.

Well, that fur can be carded, spun in to yarn, and that yarn knitted in to scarves, hats, sweaters, etc.

Here is one rescue group for Siberian Huskies, that takes their fur and turns it in to yarn, which is in turn knitted in to clothing items, which is then auctioned off, to raise money for the rescue group.

https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?hsimp=yhs-att_001&hspart=att&p=how+to+turn+dog+hair+into+y...

[september]

I think with many posters on this board, when it comes to new California laws....dammed if they do, dammed if they don't. 

maybe some of the other changes suggested WILL come later.  What (if anything) are the states where you critics live, doing about these issues?

[shoekitty]

Oh for petes sake. If you want a fur coat go buy it out of state or have your friends send you one. No one in california really wears fur. We never have the weather and it looks horrible. Bu faux fur. Whats the big deal. Geesh

[shoekitty]

That emu gets paid good money plus residusls. Those on set animals are pampered. I have watched Frank the poodle work. That dog makes 1500@hr. He has his own trailor

[sunshine 919]

---

@dex wrote:

---

@MarieIG wrote:

---

@dex wrote:

@KingstonsMom I think that the love of our domestic Pets is so strong that there would not be any market for such a vile product.I have never seen dog or cat hair goods made in the USA.I would hope that none would be imported.

---

I recalled looking at a leather bag a while back on HSN and then reading what the leather was.  It was imported. Well I'm still not sure which animals were used to make the leather, so decided not to buy the bag.  I'm not saying it was dog or cat fur, but my point is sometimes the details of what you are actually buying are sketchy. 

---

You are right but you chose not to purchase so that is a win for animal rights.

---

What about people who carry doonies and other leather bags?  Is it just fur that people are upset about?

[shoekitty]

---

@september wrote:

I think with many posters on this board, when it comes to new California laws....dammed if they do, dammed if they don't. 

maybe some of the other changes suggested WILL come later.  What (if anything) are the states where you critics live, doing about these issues?

---

Shoekitty

I agree september.  I for one am sick of everyone trashing california.  It is all political. We are the 3rd largest economy IN THE WORLD. We not only are inovators for the world stage and the US, but we provide a lot to other states.  Most of us who live here enjoy it.  I am sure everyone enjoys where they live, and thinks their state is the greatest...as they should.  Every state has something to enjoy.  We are a populated state and the environment and other issues are very important. To us.  Many of us can remember the birth defects from contaminated water, the smog, air that made many sick. We have lived through all that.  Luckily IMO we do have a legislature that carries out the will of Californians.

i am sure many stores like Neimans, nordies who sell fur will have a little time of it.  But they didnt sell it anyway. They will adjust.

i am going to New York with grands in December.  We are all looking for coats. I haven't bought a coat in 20 years.  A light jacket and layering for the coldest day. It can get cool at night. But gone are my days of running around at night!  I do see christmas tree salesmen with coats on.. Lol. My last coat was moth eaten by the time I needed it.  Those who live up north usually wear northface or parkas.  Some climates might need fur, but with lightweight , but warm parkas and such, why? 

[suzyQ3]

I don't generally consider myself particularly naive, but I actually opened this thread thinking that it would be primarily positive, given all that I read here about animal rights.

It's just one law. It doesn't mean that the state is overlooking other problems. And if you aren't pleased about what's included or not included, remember that creating a bill that will eventually become law is all a matter of compromising.

I'm proud of my state for taking this step.

[chessylady]

@shoekitty Thanks for defending California. I live here and love it. I knew people would be casting shade on California. Like someone said, if you want a fur garment buy it from another state. California has been trying to solve many problems despite efforts to weaken our air quality standards or allow drilling on park lands and the ocean.