Los Angeles may ban the making and selling of fur products within its city limits, making it the largest U.S. city to do so if the city council passes a proposal now under consideration.
About a dozen animal welfare activists attended a city meeting Wednesday where they argued that the fur trade is inhumane and unnecessary, the Los Angeles Times reported. The proposal, which was offered by city council members Bob Blumenfield and Paul Koretz, would outlaw fur products from being sold or made in the city.
"The bottom line is that humans do not need to wear the fur of another animal," Brian Ruppenkamp, a member of Los Angeles Animal Save, said, according to the Times. "Not in Los Angeles, not in any other city . . . To continue to allow the sale of fur is to condone violence."
Fur industry representatives have long disputed charges of animal mistreatment made by activists, claiming the industry is highly regulated and that some gruesome footage peddled by activists has been staged, the Times reported.
While West Hollywood had previously instituted a fur selling ban, critics said shoppers were able to snatch up available furs in Los Angeles and Beverly Hills. West Hollywood eventually created an exception to its rule, saying that it made it easier to defend in court, the Times stated.
"What has the ban in West Hollywood really achieved? Nothing," Keith Kaplan, spokesman for the Fur Information Council of America, a trade group that represents fur manufacturers, retailers, and wholesalers, said to the Times. "If they can't find it in West Hollywood, they go right outside West Hollywood to buy it."
Last year, San Francisco became the first major U.S. city to ban the sale of new fur products, with the ordinance going into effect Jan. 1, KABC-TV reported. That ban does not include second-hand items, sheep, or lambskins.
San Francisco supervisor Katy Tang told KABC-TV at the time that the cruelty animals endure for the purposes of becoming clothing and accessories was not consistent with the values of the city.
Kaplan argued in the Los Angeles Times, though, that fur bans hurt long-standing businesses, unfairly single out one industry, and ignore customer preferences.
Paul Naim, who owns a fur shop in the city's fashion district, told the Times that it would be not be fair to force his customers to stop buying his products.
"First it's what you wear, then it's what you can eat," he said. "It's not what democracy is supposed to be."
© 2026 Newsmax. All rights reserved.