Voters will decide whether to put strict limits on fur products, such as mink stoles or animal fur-lined coats, in the City of Denver, with some exceptions. The proposal would ban the sale, distribution and trade of such products within the city’s borders.
Proponents of the ban say the fur industry is cruel, wasteful and environmentally destructive.
Opponents argue the ban is too extreme, saying it would have significant consequences for local businesses. Sales taxes would be reduced. And Colorado’s Western heritage itself is at stake, they say.
Here’s the language you’ll see on your ballot:
“Shall the voters of the City and County of Denver adopt an ordinance concerning a prohibition of fur products, and, in connection, beginning July 1, 2025, prohibiting the manufacture, distribution, display, sale, or trade of certain animal fur products in the City; and providing limited exceptions to the prohibition?”
How would it work?
If this measure passes, stores and individuals could not distribute, sell or display most new fur products in the city. The measure would also ban the manufacturing of fur products. Companies would not be allowed to raise or slaughter animals for their fur in Denver. And people could not order or sell fur products from their homes.
Fur products used for Native American tribal, cultural or spiritual purposes would still be allowed. Used fur, also, could be sold, if the vendor was a company like a pawn shop or thrift store that does not primarily sell fur.
The measure would still allow the manufacture of recycled products made exclusively from used fur.
It also includes exemptions for fur products “purchased for traditional tribal, cultural or spiritual purposes” by a Native American tribe that is recognized by the state or federal governments, as well as fur products for activities “expressly authorized by federal or state law.”
The law’s definition of fur does not include animal skin being converted into leather or skin that has hair, fleece or fur fiber completely removed. Cowhide with fur attached could continue to be sold. So could lambskin and sheepskin. Wool and pelts or skin of animals preserved through taxidermy would also still be allowed.
There are several stores in Denver, including Overland Sheepskin, A. Tsagas Furs and Leathers, Jonval Leathers and Dan Sharp Luxury Outerwear, that would be hit hard.
The city would lose $240.50 in tax revenue for every $5,000 in fur products not sold. It’s impossible to know what the total reduction in sales-tax revenue would be.
The measure would require enforcement, too. The law, as written, does not define what sort of enforcement would be required. Without knowing that, it’s impossible to say how much these efforts would cost.
The ban would take effect July 1, 2025.
Who’s for it?
The Boulder-based Pro Animal Future describes itself as a national collective of voters, volunteers and donors advocating for animal rights ballot measures nationwide. The group says it’s fighting for a future without animal cruelty and is using local ballot measures to advance an animal rights agenda.
“This measure is an important step towards ending the cruel, unnecessary, and outdated practice of killing animals solely to wear their fur,” proponents argued in the city’s voter guide. “On fur factory farms, wild animals like foxes, mink, and rabbits spend their entire lives in tiny wire cages barely larger than their bodies. To preserve the ‘product,’ they are either bludgeoned to death, painfully gassed, or anally electrocuted.”
The group points to 25 countries and 16 cities that it says have passed anti-fur laws. Boulder was the first in Colorado, in 2021. That law, called the Human Clothing Act, passed with just 51 percent of the vote. Like Initiative 309, it prohibits the sale of new fur products but also makes exemptions for used products and fur used in Native American spiritual practices.
The organization opposes both trapping and caging animals to produce furs, argues the fur industry has an oversized impact on climate change compared to less resource-intensive fabrics like cotton because of the resources required to feed and keep animals and says that the industry involves toxic chemicals that pollute water and air.
Fur, the group argues, is outdated, and there are plenty of alternatives consumers can enjoy without harming animals.
The campaign for the ban, Pro-Animal Denver, has raised more than $244,000 for this initiative and Initiative 309, a slaughterhouse ban, as of Sept. 30. The committee’s largest donors, contributing over $30,000, include the Phauna Foundation, the Craigslist Charitable Fund and Animal Charity Evaluators. They are all based in California.
Other supporters include: The Oil & Gas Action Network, Impactful Animal Advocacy, Climate Save Movement, Friends of Animals, the Coalition to End Factory Farming, Broken Shovels Farm Sanctuary, Animal Outlook, Planted, Voters for Animal Rights, the Humane Society of the United States and others.
The proponents got the measure on the ballot by collecting more than 31,000 signatures.
Who’s against it?
Hands Off My Hat is the name of the campaign organized in opposition to the fur ban.
Opponents argue the fur ban is an attack on Colorado’s Western heritage and would hamper signature events like the Denver Powwow and the National Western Stock Show
“The Denver Fur Ban would mean that felt hats and other fur goods could no longer be sold at the Stock Show,” the group writes online. “Cowboys and cowgirls young and old adorn cowboy hats, a truly Western symbol, for this annual event.”
And while the law does protect cultural, spiritual and tribal uses of fur, events like the Denver Powwow often involve fur sales. How the law would impact those events is less than clear.
“Events like the Denver March Powwow are not just gatherings; they are vital expressions of our heritage and identity,” wrote Ernest House, Jr., a Ute tribal member and the former executive director of the Colorado Commission of Indian Affairs, in a statement. “Limiting our ability to share and sell our traditional crafts and goods would be a significant loss for both our communities and the broader public that values and supports them."
Opponents of the ban also argue it would harm small businesses, and destroy the state’s felt-hat industry and interfere with the production of fishing lures and flies.
The group lists dozens of opponents to the fur ban, including the Colorado Cattlemen’s Association, the Colorado Farm Bureau, the Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, the Denver Metro Commercial Association of Realtors, a number of hunting and preservation groups, Visit Denver, and former Mayor Wellington Webb, among others.
Hands Off My Hat had brought in more than $368,000 as of Sept. 30. The largest donation to the committee, $30,000, came from the National Western Stock Show. Hands Off My Hat is also one opponent of the proposed slaughterhouse ban.
Previous Denverite coverage of Ballot Measure 308
Denverites will vote in 2024 on prohibiting the sale of fur and closing slaughterhouses in the city
