San Francisco Board of Supervisors made the controversial call Wednesday night. The ban will go into effect January 1, 2019 with several stipulations: it does not apply to fur sold secondhand, and retailers will have until 2020 to get rid of their fur inventory.
It was no small decision for the NoCal metropolis; San Francisco's Chamber of Commerce estimates annual fur sales amount to $40 million.
"The sale of fur products in San Francisco is inconsistent with the City's ethos of treating all living beings, humans and animals alike, with kindness," supervisor Katy Tang said in a statement. "There's no humane way to raise an animal to peel its skin off."
But some San Fran furriers are already fearful of what the city's progressive lawmakers might do next, some even speculating that they'll ban all manner of meat, reports the Los Angeles Times.
Skip Pas, chief executive officer of West Coast Leather, said fur items make up only a small portion of his inventory so he won't be affected much.
But he's appalled that 11 people on a board can tell retailers what they can sell, without a vote by the public, and at a time when the city has more pressing issues, such as dirty streets and homelessness.
"It's the people of San Francisco who should say, 'Yes, it's too much,'" he said. "What's next? They're going to say that you can't have beef and you can't have pork and duck in Chinatown? I mean, it's a little too much."
Looks like PETA has effectively mobilized the anti-fur crowd in California. Berkeley and West Hollywood have also banned fur sales.
Their decisions reflect a broader cultural shift most saliently hitting the fashion industry.
Recently, Donatella Versace announced she would stop designing clothes with fur, joining the ranks of Armani, Gucci, Hugo Boss, Calvin Klein, Ralph Lauren, Tommy Hilfiger and more.
Do you think wearing fur is appropriate?