At its simplest, Ballot Question 301 would – with exceptions – make it illegal to “manufacture, sell, display for sale, distribute, or trade…any Fur or Fur Product in the City” of Boulder, beginning Jan. 1, 2022. Rather than explaining the exceptions, readers can find the entire section of effective legal language for the initiative at right. Question 301 is a citizen initiative that, if passed by at least a simple majority of voters, would amend the Boulder Revised Code (BRC), not the City Charter.

Boulder is not typically known as a fur hotbed, but if 301 is passed, the city would join other cities, states, and nations that have some type of law prohibiting types of fur sales, or regulations regarding humane treatment of animals often raised to be killed for their fur. While it’s tough to say that the world is anywhere near ending the fur trade, it is possible to say that minimizing consumer demand could have some impact on the industry.

To keep it short, animals with the types of fur consumers might desire may be trapped with leg-hold traps, raised in farms under overcrowded or unsanitary conditions, and of course they must be killed – plus the means of execution might also be seen as inhumane. For sensitive readers, you can read more at this Humane Society link or simply keep scrolling.

But fur has a long history of being used for its warmth and durability, and it was considered a valuable cold weather near-necessity in centuries of the past. In more modern times, fur has continued to be used in high fashion or accessories for its beauty. For one isolated statistic, U.S. mink farming was still roughly a $50 million industry in 2020, and fur sales in general are still legal across most of the United States.

In late September 2021, an opposition group called “NO on 301: A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” filed as an issue committee with the City of Boulder. Its campaign treasurer Laurel Tate is a co-owner of Two Sole Sisters, a specialty store located on the Pearl Street Mall that does sell fur products.

The proponents of 301, “The Humane Clothing Act Committee,” filed as an issue committee with the City of Boulder in July 2021. Its campaign treasurer Brent Johannes was also a proponent of a state initiative in 2020 called the Protect Animals from Unnecessary Suffering and Exploitation Act, or PAUSE Act, which in short would have placed new restrictions on certain activities involving livestock. The PAUSE Act did not qualify for the 2020 ballot.

Question 301 does not include any new funding or specific mechanisms for enforcement. If passed, 301 would become a new 17th item in a section of BRC (Section 5-6-17) called “Miscellaneous Offenses.”

PRO ON 301:

  • Methods of obtaining fur such as trapping or farming can be cruel to animals, and of course the animals must be killed before taking the pelts.
  • Fur is not necessary for many people in our modern age, since most people can and do use other materials for coats or for other items of clothing.
  • It’s probably not likely that many businesses in Boulder intend to sell fur anyway, because there isn’t a lot of customer demand here.
  • The initiative has a number of exceptions – for example, allowing indigenous people to use or trade fur products – so 301 would still allow certain traditional practices and activities.

CON ON 301:

  • 301 would only be valid in the City of Boulder, while people who want to buy fur could simply travel to other cities or order online.
  • The measure could persuade businesses interested in selling fur or fur products to locate elsewhere.
  • The measure could cost Boulder some jobs and economic activity, even if it’s in small amounts.
  • The definition of “fur product” in the initiative might be seen as overbroad, and it seems possible that it would impact at least one existing merchant in Boulder.

ON THE WEB:

PRO ON 301: https://www.furfreeboulder.com/
CON ON 301: no301wolfinsheepsclothing@gmail.com (as of early October I haven’t seen a website, just this email address)

RICHARD’S TAKE

From the highest-level view, I have no problem accepting that some practices in the fur industry are cruel or extremely cruel to animals, and today there isn’t a real necessity for most people to use fur at all. Trust me on one thing – you’d never see me buying a fur coat in the first place – but it would be fairly normal for voters to look at 301 from no other level than as an animal protection measure.

But as I’ve done with other 2021 initiatives, I feel it’s good for voters to take a closer look at the technical language, with an eye on whether the totality of 301 should really become Boulder’s law.

I personally have a concern that the definition of “fur products” is a little bit broad. With a policy analyst’s hat on, I would urge voters to give closer consideration to section (d), defining “fur product” as “any article of clothing or covering for any part of the body or fashion accessory made in whole or in part of fur, including, but not limited to, a coat, jacket, handbag, purse, wallet, shoe, slipper, hat, earmuff, scarf, shawl,  glove, jewelry or keychain.”

In real life, the Boulder business opposing 301 doesn’t sell fur coats, but does carry items containing fur products. I could understand looking at 301 from an economic freedom angle. While it doesn’t seem likely that fur will ever become a major industry in Boulder, would banning it citywide be fair if someone wants to offer fur products as just a part of their business? And would it be of any benefit to animals if a person from Boulder simply moved a business that sells fur or fur products to Louisville or Longmont?

I’m not sure if these few concerns will rise to the level of making me vote “no” on 301, and I don’t have to endorse or oppose ballot measures anyway. My ulterior motive this year is to start getting more voters to read the actual ballot measure language, and then they can make better-informed decisions on whether an initiative is really what they want in the books. Voters – you’re making law right now, not just a value statement, so please give the language and potential consequences some thought when making your decisions – even if the value statement eventually wins out.

BALLOT QUESTION 301 TEXT

In the Boulder Revised Code, add Section 5-6-17 of Chapter 6 of Title 5 to read as follows: 5-6-17. – Fur Products.
(a) It shall be unlawful to manufacture, sell, display for sale, distribute, or trade for monetary or nonmonetary consideration any Fur or Fur Product in the City.
(b) This prohibition does not extend to:
(1) A Fur Product where the activity is expressly authorized by federal or state law;
(2) A Fur Product used by or traded with an American Indian, Alaskan Native, Indian tribe  member, and/or persons having origins in any of the original peoples of North, Central, or South America, as a sacred object, funerary object, cultural item, or object of cultural patrimony, as these terms are defined under state and federal law, Referencing the American Indian Religious Freedom Act (42 USC 1996), and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 USC 3001 and 43 C.F.R. Part 10);
(3) A Used Fur Product bought, sold, donated or owned by a person not in the primary  business of selling Fur or a Fur Product, including a Non-Profit Organization, second hand store, or pawn shop; and
(4) The manufacture for sale of a Fur Product using Fur sourced exclusively from a Used  Fur Product.
(c) For the purposes of this section, the term fur means any animal skin or part thereof with fur,  fleece or fur fibers attached thereto, either in its raw or processed state.
(d) For the purposes of this section, the term fur product means any article of clothing or covering  for any part of the body or fashion accessory made in whole or in part of fur, including, but  not limited to, a coat, jacket, handbag, purse, wallet, shoe, slipper, hat, earmuff, scarf, shawl,  glove, jewelry or keychain. “Fur Product” does not include any of the following;
(1) A dog or cat fur product, as defined in Section 1308 of Title 19 of the United States  Code;
(2) An animal skin or part thereof that is to be converted into leather, or which in  processing will have the hair, fleece, or fur fiber completely removed;
(3) Cowhide with the hair attached thereto;
(4) Lambskin or sheepskin with the fleece attached thereto; or
(5) The pelt or skin of any animal that is preserved through taxidermy or for the purpose  of taxidermy.
(e) For the purposes of this section, the term non-profit organization means any charity or  corporation that is authorized under United States Code 26 Section 501(c)(3) for charitable,  religious, philanthropic, educational or other similar purposes.
(f) For the purposes of this section, the term taxidermy means the practice of preparing and  preserving the skin and Fur of a deceased animal or part of a deceased animal that is stuffed  and mounted in a lifelike form.
(g) For the purposes of this section, the term used fur product means fur or Fur Product in any  form which has been worn or used by an ultimate consumer.
(h) This section shall be effective on January 1, 2022.