A movement to outlaw fur is currently trying to create its statement yet.
Lawmakers are pushing a measure that would prohibit the sale of all new fur products in the city where such garments were common and style-setters such as Marilyn Monroe, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis, Joe Namath and Sean”Diddy” Combs have rocked furs through the years.
A similar step from the state Capitol at Albany ban the production of goods manufactured from fur and would impose a ban on the sale of any items created with fur.
“Cruelty shouldn’t be confused with economic development,” said state Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal, a Democrat from Manhattan, who is sponsoring the nation laws. “Fur is based on violence to innocent animals. That needs to not be any one’s business”
Though fans acknowledge the step of New York City has a better likelihood of passing than the state legislation, the destiny of the proposals could be determined in the coming months.
The fur trade is recognized as so significant to New York’s growth two beavers decorate the city seal, a reference.
In the peak of the fur business in the previous century, the New York City fabricated 80% of their fur jackets made at the U.S, based on FUR NYC, a group representing 130 retailers and producers from the city. The team states New York City remains the biggest market for fur products in the country, with fur.
When passed, New York could become the biggest American city with such a ban, after San Francisco, this season, in which a ban has effect, and Los Angeles.
Elsewhere, Brazil, Sao Paulo, started its ban on the import and sale of all fur in 2015. Fur farming has been banned in the United Kingdom almost 20 years back, and London fashion week became the first big fashion event to go last year.
Fur business leaders warn that if the ban passes in New York, animal rights activists that are emboldened 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 is likely to visit wool, to leatherto beef “
When asked exactly just what a fur ban could mean for him, Nick Pologeorgis was blunt:”I’m out of business.”
Pologeorgis’ father, who emigrated from Greece, started the fur layout and sales business in the city’s”Fur District” almost 60 years back.
“My employees are worried,” he said. “If you’re 55 or 50 and all you’ve trained to do is a fur employee, what exactly are you really going to do?”
Supporters of the ban argue those employees could discover jobs which don’t involve animal fur, even noting that an increasing number of fashion designers and merchants refuse to sell animal fur and also substitutes are every bit as persuasive.
They argue their skills can be transferred and that fur retailers and manufacturers represent a fraction of the estimated 180,000 people who are employed in the fashion sector of the city.
“There’s a lot of space for job growth developing environmentally and environmentally friendly substances,” said City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, who introduced the town measure.
New Yorkers this week asked about the ban came back on both sides, together with some questioning when a law was really needed.
“It is an issue of private choice. I really don’t think that it’s something that must be legislated,” said 44-year-old Janet Thompson. “There are lots of folks wearing leather and suede and other creature hides on the market. To pick on fur seems a bit one-sided.”
Joshua Katcher, author and a Manhattan designer who has taught at the Parsons School of Design, says he considers the proposed bans signify an increased desire to know where our products come from and to allow them to be ethical and sustainable.
“Fur is really a relic,” he explained.