How Berkeley Banned Fur Sales

Berkeley recently became the second city in the United States to ban fur sales, following the lead of West Hollywood. The city council passed the motion by a vote of 6-3, with the only ‘no’ votes coming from those who believed the ban should be more robust — according to Berkeleyside, a local news site. Zach Groff, a Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) activist, was involved in the grassroots push for the ban. In this exclusive interview, he discusses the activism which inspired the motion, exemptions to the ban, and what comes next.

JON HOCHSCHARTNER: How did this fur ban come to be?

ZACH GROFF: The fur ban was a spontaneous idea that coupled well with a growing strategy to change institutions on the ground in the Bay Area. DxE started in the Bay Area, and based on our research, we’ve been putting lots of resources into building up a thriving animal rights community here in Berkeley. We opened the first community center for animal rights last year, we have a half-dozen houses filled with activists here, and we’re making animal rights an issue that’s regularly discussed here.

This past year, activists formed a political group called Berkeley Coalition for Animals that seeks to build alliances between relevant stakeholders to work for animal rights, building off the vibrant grassroots energy here. A friend and activist with our network, Rocky Schwartz, mentioned to me the possibility of banning fur as an easy win with important value both symbolically within Berkeley and as precedent for outside of Berkeley. I brought this to Berkeley Coalition for Animals, where I’m sort of a liaison with DxE organizers, and BCA thought the idea had the same potent emotional and precedential value Rocky and I saw.

JH: I’ve heard there are some exemptions to the ban that you’re trying to get removed. What are those?

ZG: At the last minute, a city councilmember pulled the fur ban from the consent agenda (it had been uncontroversial) and proposed to amend the ban to exempt “sheepskin and cowhide” from the ban. She expressed two concerns. First, she was concerned that these were byproducts of animals who were already murdered for meat. Second, she had a nostalgic attachment to some sheepskin childhood blanket, a sentiment that the councilmember next to her apparently shared (even though the ban only covers apparel). The first concern besides being morally wrong (we should just not objectify animals, period) makes a mistake in that selling an animal’s skin increases profits considerably, and therefore increases the number of animals put through the horrors that the city council itself condemned. We’re hopeful that these exemptions will be struck in the final version of the bill, though, as we believe we have the votes for the full ban.

JH: Were you inspired by the 2013 ban in West Hollywood? Was that the first of its kind?

ZG: We were inspired by and in touch with the creators of that ban. It was the first of its kind in the United States, although whole countries like New Zealand and India have banned the fur trade, and many countries, including the UK and the Netherlands, have banned fur production.

JH: Perhaps this is obvious, but why did you choose to target fur as opposed to, say, leather?

ZG: Fur has a massive amount of social stigma behind it; many people are surprised it’s not illegal already! Leather, by contrast, has a lot less support. The idea with this bill was to cement a social consensus and therein create this idea that animal rights is a movement happening now and a political movement rather than one that is all about individual habits.

JH: I’ve heard there’s actually no fur currently sold in Berkeley. Is that true? And, if so, why was working for this ban necessary?

ZG: There are a few items sold, and there are of course uggs depending on what happens with the exemptions. More importantly, though, we see this ban as serving two direct functions for animals. First, within Berkeley proper, it prevents a comeback by the fur industry. There have been signs around the country of a fur comeback from its late-90s infamy through things like fur trim. This law makes sure that the social consensus sticks. Second, it builds on the West Hollywood precedent so that people in other cities can ban fur. If San Francisco banned fur, for instance, it would be huge. San Francisco often follows Berkeley’s precedent.

JH: Do you hope this ban can serve as a model for other activists in other locations?

ZG: Absolutely! We hope to see San Francisco take this up, as I said. DxE activists in other chapters could form political arms to work on this. We could imagine a range of other cities working on this, ideally building up to state bans and some day a national one.

JH: What else can be achieved for animals at the local level of government?

ZG: Come back to me in ten years and I can give you a better answer! It broadly depends on the state since different states have different laws, but we are exploring lots of things we’d love to see others consider. I’d tell advocates to just explore what can get traction at the local level and let’s learn from each other’s success and failure!

More articles by:
March 21, 2018
Paul Street
Time is Running Out: Who Will Protect Our Wrecked Democracy from the American Oligarchy?
Mel Goodman
The Great Myth of the So-Called “Adults in the Room”
Chris Floyd
Stumbling Blocks: Tim Kaine and the Bipartisan Abettors of Atrocity
Eric Draitser
The Political Repression of the Radical Left in Crimea
Patrick Cockburn
Erdogan Threatens Wider War Against the Kurds
John Steppling
It is Us
Thomas Knapp
Death Penalty for Drug Dealers? Be Careful What You Wish for, President Trump
Manuel García, Jr.
Why I Am a Leftist (Vietnam War)
Isaac Christiansen
A Left Critique of Russiagate
Howard Gregory
The Unemployment Rate is an Inadequate Reporter of U.S. Economic Health
Ramzy Baroud
Who Wants to Kill Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah?
Roy Morrison
Trouble Ahead: The Trump Administration at Home and Abroad
Roger Hayden
Too Many Dead Grizzlies
George Wuerthner
The Lessons of the Battle to Save the Ancient Forests of French Pete
Binoy Kampmark
Fictional Free Trade and Permanent Protectionism: Donald Trump’s Economic Orthodoxy
Rivera Sun
Think Outside the Protest Box
March 20, 2018
Jonathan Cook
US Smooths Israel’s Path to Annexing West Bank
Jeffrey St. Clair
How They Sold the Iraq War
Chris Busby
Cancer, George Monbiot and Nuclear Weapons Test Fallout
Nick Alexandrov
Washington’s Invasion of Iraq at Fifteen
David Mattson
Wyoming Plans to Slaughter Grizzly Bears
Paul Edwards
My Lai and the Bad Apples Scam
Julian Vigo
The Privatization of Water and the Impoverishment of the Global South
Mir Alikhan
Trump and Pompeo on Three Issues: Paris, Iran and North Korea
Seiji Yamada
Preparing For Nuclear War is Useless
Gary Leupp
Brennan, Venality and Turpitude
Martha Rosenberg
Why There’s a Boycott of Ben & Jerry’s on World Water Day, March 22
John Pilger
Skripal Case: a Carefully-Constructed Drama?
March 19, 2018
Henry Heller
The Moment of Trump
John Davis
Pristine Buildings, Tarnished Architect
Uri Avnery
The Fake Enemy
Patrick Cockburn
The Fall of Afrin and the Next Phase of the Syrian War
Nick Pemberton
The Democrats Can’t Save Us
Nomi Prins 
Jared Kushner, RIP: a Political Obituary for the President’s Son-in-Law
Georgina Downs
The Double Standards and Hypocrisy of the UK Government Over the ‘Nerve Agent’ Spy Poisoning
Dean Baker
Trump and the Federal Reserve
Colin Todhunter
The Strategy of Tension Towards Russia and the Push to Nuclear War
Kevin Zeese - Margaret Flowers
US Empire on Decline
Ralph Nader
Ahoy America, Give Trump a Taste of His Own Medicine Starting on Trump Imitation Day
Robert Dodge
Eliminate Nuclear Weapons by Divesting from Them
Laura Finley
Shame on You, Katy Perry
Weekend Edition
March 16, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Michael Uhl
The Tip of the Iceberg: My Lai Fifty Years On
Bruce E. Levine
School Shootings: Who to Listen to Instead of Mainstream Shrinks
Mel Goodman
Caveat Emptor: MSNBC and CNN Use CIA Apologists for False Commentary
Paul Street
The Obama Presidency Gets Some Early High Historiography