Boulder voters will decide whether to ban sale and manufacture of fur products - Boulder Daily Camera

Boulder could become the first city in the state to ban the manufacture and sale of fur products, depending on the results of the Nov. 2 election.

Voters at that time will cast a vote on the Humane Clothing Act — known formally as Ballot Measure 301 and informally as Fur Free Boulder — a measure that would make it unlawful to “manufacture, sell, display for sale, distribute or trade for monetary or nonmonetary consideration any fur or fur product” in Boulder.

It’s a measure that opponents worry may have unintended consequences, despite campaign organizers’ view that it would be largely symbolic.

Though it bans the manufacture and sale of fur products, the measure, if approved, includes a number of exemptions. For example, the ballot language states it would not apply to used or secondhand products, nor would it apply to animal products other than fur — such as leather or wool.

Additionally, it excludes fur items that are used for sacred or religious purposes in Indigenous cultures, namely those that fall under the American Indian Religious Freedom Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.

Campaign organizers Brent Johannes and Lucy Heller felt compelled to bring forth the measure because of their view that the fur industry is cruel and unethical. According to the Humane Society of the United States, animals on fur factory farms spend their entire lives in cramped cages deprived of the ability to engage in natural behaviors.

Further, Johannes and Heller argue fur is purely aesthetic, often a symbol of fashion and wealth, and have said the measure wouldn’t significantly impact local businesses, rendering it largely symbolic.

“If Boulder can be the first of its kind in Colorado, then that would make way for legislation like this to move forward in Denver or the state as a whole,” Heller said in an earlier interview with the Camera.

However, some local business owners disagree and feel the ambiguity of the ballot language could have a major impact. Laurel Tate, co-owner of downtown Boulder’s Two Sole Sisters, has been one of the most vocal voices in opposition to the ballot measure.

“There is an absolute negative impact on independent businesses in Boulder,” Tate said.

In addition to her shop, which sells shoes, Tate said the measure would impact a number of others, including Alpaca Connection, Royal Stag Hats and Cedar & Hyde Mercantile.

The ballot language is vague, and the measure isn’t clear about how the ban would be enforced, Tate noted.

“At a time when the city is coming out of COVID, and their resources have been stretched, and their sales tax revenue has been so highly damaged, I can’t imagine that the city has the resources to police this,” she said.

In the August hearing, when the City Council agreed to send the three resident-initiated measures to the ballot, campaign supporters requested some changes to the text of the measure that they felt would clarify some of the ambiguity in question.

However, the Council did not approve the changes, arguing changes should happen ahead of signature-gathering to avoid changing the intent of the measure people supported when signing.

Generally, the Humane Clothing Act has mixed reviews in the community. Some community organizations, including PLAN-Boulder County, have taken no position on it. In a newsletter explaining its endorsements, the organization said it does not view the initiative as a local one but instead something that should be approached more broadly.

The local chapter of environmental advocacy group the Sierra Club supports it, arguing Boulder should take the lead on “this important environmental and justice initiative.”

“The fur trade is horrendous for animal well-being and violates an individual animal’s rights to an existence free of cruelty with adequate space, stimulation, ability to move and carry out natural behaviors,” the group explained in a news release expanding on its 2021 endorsements.

Originally, the Boulder Chamber did not take a position on the measure but has since decided to oppose it.

“We encourage the humane treatment of animals, a value shared in common with our community,” the Chamber wrote. “With respect to this specific initiative, we have concerns about the unintended impact on our local retailers that carry products, such as shoes, boots and hats that incorporate certain natural fibers.”

As for Tate, she said she and other members of Boulder’s retail community may oppose this particular measure but are “all for the ethical treatment of animals.” She very much supports initiatives such as Furmark, a new global certification and traceability system for sustainable natural fur. According to Furmark’s website, it ensures the highest animal welfare and environmental standards.

Adblock test (Why?)