Frequently Asked Questions
Purpose and Scope:
What Will the Ordinance Do?
Ordinance 308 is a citizen-initiated ballot measure that will make it unlawful to sell new fur products in Denver, Colorado. The initiative includes commonsense exemptions for used fur products and those purchased for tribal, cultural, or spiritual purposes by a member of a federally recognized or state recognized Native American tribe. It does not prohibit the sale of taxidermy, leather goods, and hides or fibers from animals that are typically classified as livestock and therefore protected by the federal Humane Methods of Slaughter Act. This includes sheep and alpaca wool as well as mohair.
The proposed ordinance does not apply to fur pelts which have not yet been manufactured into consumer products, as they do not fall under the definition of “fur product”. As such, hunters and trappers can still sell furs they have obtained through their legal activities.
Why are leather goods not included?
Leather and fur are two distinct materials used for fashion with different sources and ethical implications. Leather is a co-product of the meat industry and is primarily sourced from animals raised for their meat, such as cattle. In contrast, fur is mainly produced by breeding and confining wild animals, such as mink and foxes, solely for their fur. Unlike the fur farming industry, leather and meat production are regulated by the Humane Slaughter Act. Fur farming, on the other hand, is not covered under the Humane Slaughter Act as the animals used are not classified as livestock, nor is the industry subject to federal animal welfare laws. The key difference lies in the primary purpose of raising these animals (meat vs. fashion), and the lack of regulations for the fur production industry.
Other countries that allow fur factory farming similarly lack sufficient regulation of the humane care and slaughter of animals held captive within this industry. Decades worth of undercover footage across multiple countries, such as China, Finland and Romania, clearly depict the severe animal cruelty that pervades the fur industry.
Why should we prohibit fur sales in Denver rather than prohibiting fur factory farming?
Ending the sale of new fur products in Denver is the best action residents can take to eliminate cruel and harmful products from the marketplace. Fur farms across the U.S. and other countries throughout the world are closing down because the market has plummeted, and these operations are no longer profitable.
· The U.S. makes up a small fraction of the global fur industry. According to Fur Commission USA, fewer than 100 fur farms remain in the U.S., confining around one million animals total.
· We are not aware of any fur factory farms in Denver or the state of Colorado, though these facilities do exist in neighboring states including Utah and Wyoming. The overwhelming majority of U.S. fur farms are located in Wisconsin.
· China is the largest fur producing country in the world with an estimated 30 million animals confined in fur factory farms.
Representative Adriano Espaillat (NY-13) has introduced H.R. 3783, a bipartisan bill to phase out mink production in the U.S. due to public health concerns. The bill includes funding to help transition the few remaining fur farmers in the U.S. to other industries. For Denver, the most impactful thing we can do is remove ourselves from this industry on the consumer end.
Enforcement Mechanisms:
How Will the Law be Enforced?
Once Denver voters pass Ordinance 308, we will work with the city council to determine the best enforcing agency. Per current Denver code penalties, violators will receive an administrative citation and may be fined a civil penalty. We recommend the enforcing agency set up an online public complaint system to aid in the detection of suspected violations. Furthermore, the enforcement of fur sales bans is bolstered by existing federal regulations, specifically the Fur Products Labeling Act, which requires clear labeling of fur products, aiding enforcement officers in quickly and accurately identifying new fur products subject to the measure’s provisions.
Does the bill prohibit online sales?
In addition to physical sales, this measure also seeks to prohibit the online sale of new fur products in Denver. This comprehensive approach aligns with existing regulations on various products like e-cigarettes and firearm components, which already face state-specific online sale prohibitions. Retailers are already accustomed to navigating state-specific sales laws, so adhering to fur product regulations should be considered a feasible extension of existing business practices. For example, Amazon prohibits the online sale of new fur products into California as a result of the state’s fur sales ban.
Economic Impact:
How will this legislation impact fur-related businesses in Denver?
This legislation will create a more humane marketplace for Denver’s consumers while having minimal impact on businesses that sell fur products in the city. According to Economic Census data, 181 retailers sold new fur garments in all of Colorado during 2017, the most recent year this data is available. Yet, fur sales accounted for less than 1% of their total revenue, which indicates that phasing out these products would have a negligible impact on their businesses. This is because most retailers that sell new fur products stock only a limited range of these items, such as fur-pom hats or fur-trimmed gloves, which can easily be substituted with non-fur alternatives.
In areas where similar bans on new fur products have passed, such as California, fur retailers remain in business. They continue to provide fur-related services such as storage and cleaning, sell used and vintage fur products, and transition to faux fur options which are increasingly made of sustainable, bio-based materials. With growing awareness of the fur industry’s inherent cruelty and the advent of innovative, cruelty-free, bio-based faux fur alternatives, retailers now have the opportunity to adopt more ethical options.
What about fur-based products that hold cultural significance, like western hats or Native American attire and accessories?
Ordinance 308 includes an exemption for new fur products purchased for traditional tribal, cultural, or spiritual purposes by a member of a federally recognized or state recognized Native American tribe. The measure also allows for the sale of fur products made from livestock as defined by Colorado law¹, as it seeks to target and put an end to the killing of animals solely for their fur. This means materials like sheep and alpaca wool as well as mohair will not be affected. Denver retailers can still manufacture cowboy and other “western style” hats made from cow leather, sheep wool, and animal-free materials. There is simply no reason to continue killing animals for their fur when a wide range of other materials can be used to produce consumer products.
¹Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-201 (“(2.9) "Livestock" means bovine, camelids, caprine, equine, ovine, porcine, and poultry.”)
Alternative Regulatory Approaches:
Why not regulate fur products to make them more humane?
Unfortunately, fur cannot be sourced humanely. The fur industry is inherently cruel, predicated on animal suffering for the mere sake of fashion preferences. Wild animals confined to barren enclosures are denied natural behaviors such as swimming, digging, and socializing, leading to inevitable distress and suffering for the animals. This cannot be remedied humanely. Additionally, fur farming operates on slim profit margins, making even minimal improvements for animal welfare, like allowing animals’ feet to touch the soil instead of cage flooring, economically unviable. For instance, In 2017, Germany implemented rigorous welfare standards for fur-farmed animals, including a five-year transition period. While there wasn't a direct ban on fur farming, these enhanced regulations, which mandated larger cages and additional facilities for animals, resulted in the shutdown of the country's final fur farm in 2019, two years ahead of the full implementation of the new law.
Prohibiting the sale of new fur products is the most effective measure legislators can implement to disassociate from an industry that does not align with most Denver voters' ethics.
Current State of Fur Industry Regulation:
Where have fur bans already passed?
In the U.S., 16 municipalities and the state of California have passed and implemented similar bans on the sale of new fur products. This includes boulder, CO which passed a ban in 2021. Internationally, Israel has also implemented a ban on the sale of new fur products and the UK and Switzerland are currently looking to do the same.
Representative Adriano Espaillat (NY-13) has introduced H.R. 3783, a bipartisan bill to phase out mink production in the U.S. Internationally, 20 countries have banned fur factory farming, including Norway, France, Italy, the United Kingdom, Latvia and, Lithuania. The European Union is currently considering a fur production ban for all remaining member countries.
How is fur farming regulated?
Fur factory farming, both in the U.S. and abroad, is largely unregulated. In the U.S., no federal laws protect animals on fur farms. Fur-bearing animals are also not covered by humane slaughter or animal welfare laws. Additionally, there are no mandatory inspections or required veterinary care or testing for infectious diseases like COVID-19 or avian influenza. Most fur factory farms are located overseas, primarily in China, where regulations for these facilities are similarly nonexistent. The fur industry is essentially self-regulated, with fur farmers setting their own guidelines for best practices, which are not obligatory and focus on efficiency and cost-effectiveness, not humane care or slaughter of the animals.
Fur farms produce an estimated 90-95% of all fur, with the majority produced in China. In the U.S., the number of mink fur farms has dwindled to around 100, according to Fur Commission USA. Data from the USDA confirms this steep decline in fur production and plummeting pelt prices in the U.S. over the last few decades. The number of U.S. fox farms remains unknown because they are so few that neither state nor federal agencies track these operations.
Environmental and Public Health Considerations:
What about the public health impact of fur?
Extensive research shows that fur factory farms pose a significant health risk to humans, with these facilities harboring several high-risk viruses known to infect humans. The ongoing sale of new fur products in Denver facilitates the spread of disease and the potential for future pandemics.
Confining wild animals in close, unsanitary quarters with no monitoring for infectious diseases poses a serious biosecurity risk. Fur farms house animals in crowded environments that create an ideal setting for pathogens to circulate among and across species. The confined conditions cause these animals to become highly stressed and thus immuno-compromised, making them more susceptible to infection. The absence of legal requirements for veterinary care or disease monitoring only compounds the problem, with contagious diseases left unchecked.
Mink farms pose a high risk to humans because their upper respiratory tract is physiologically similar to ours, which means they can become infected by — and potentially transmit to people — some of the same influenza viruses. In addition, mink are vulnerable to both human and animal influenza viruses, making them effective “mixing vessels” to create novel pandemic viruses.
COVID: Mink are highly susceptible to COVID-19, which has infected tens of thousands of farmed mink in the U.S. and millions abroad. Moreover, they can pass the virus back to humans. Human transmission of the virus from mink on fur farms has been detected in at least six countries, including the U.S.
HPAI: A highly pathogenic avian influenza virus (HPAI) has recently infected tens of thousands of foxes, mink, and raccoon dogs on multiple European fur factory farms. As a result, officials have culled millions of fur farmed animals to prevent spread of the disease. However, a lack of disease detection and prevention protocols at fur farms in the U.S. and most countries means this highly pathogenic disease will likely continue to spread to fur farms in additional countries, each time with the possibility of mutating to become transmissible between humans.
What about the environmental impact of fur?
Fur production poses significant environmental hazards, including high energy consumption, pollution, animal emissions, and wildlife deaths due to trapping. Waste runoff from fur factory farms contaminates both soils and waterways. Furthermore, the processes of tanning and dying fur involve toxic, carcinogenic chemicals, such as formaldehyde, which are used to prevent the skins from decaying.
The U.S. EPA has previously fined six fur processing plants for causing high levels of pollution and for using solvents in fur dressing that "may cause respiratory problems, and are listed as possible carcinogens". These chemicals can leak into waterways, posing a broad risk to public health. In fact, fur products can contain such high levels of toxic substances and carcinogenic chemicals that the Italian Ministry of Health ordered the withdrawal of certain children’s fur clothing from the market in 2016 as they exceeded safety standards and were deemed ‘dangerous products’.
The fur industry has the largest negative environmental impact of any material used for fashion, in terms of greenhouse gas emissions, waste runoff, and toxicity. The water consumption for fur production is extraordinarily high, being 104 times more than for acrylic, 91 times more than polyester, and 5 times more than cotton. The climate change impact of mink fur is at least 6 times greater than that of faux fur.
Consequently, advertising standards committees in France, the UK, Denmark, Holland, Finland, and Italy have ruled advertisements promoting fur as environmentally-friendly as “false and misleading.” In 2018, France’s advertising authority stated, “Numerous reliable reports show that the production of fur is extremely cruel and polluting, and that the final product contains toxic substances.”