HB 6294.....attempting to ban fur sales

[Millsfly]

Regulators, mount up

I have spent the last hour trying to decipher one of the clunkiest bills I have ever seen written, Washington state House Bill 6294, sponsored by state senator Stanford out of Bothel

Basically, it's trying to outlaw the sale of fur in the state.

Here's the opening paragraph...

NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. The legislature finds that eliminating the6 sale of fur products in the state of Washington will decrease demand7 for cruel products; reduce public health risks, including risks to consumers from toxic chemicals used to treat fur; protect consumers from false and misleading advertising and labeling of fur products;10 promote community awareness of animal welfare; promote environmental11 awareness of animal welfare; alleviate environmental burdens; andenhance the reputation of the state.

it's complete horse shit, clunky, misintended and an animal rights bill mascarading as animal welfare bill

There's a bunch of weird exemptions, but most concerning is what could it do to fly tying materials

Have a look at the bill, and start calling your reps, pronto

It's slated to have a hearing on Thursday and a vote on the 31st. Time is of the essence

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Senate%20Bills/6294.pdf

Here's the contact info of the sponsor, State Senator Stanford

Contact - Sen. Derek Stanford

Putting People First

senatedemocrats.wa.gov

Dont make this a red blue thing. Just get this fucking thing shot down...

 

[Salmo_g]

I think the new section should read: the legislature finds its head up its azz in ignorance . . .

Fur products often means cruel products, it's true. But has the good Senator thought through the alternatives? What about when beavers dam up the creek next to the Senator's house and begins to flood his driveway, yard, and crawl space under his house? Just let nature take its course and let his house fill up with black mold, and so on down the line. I'm not much of a fan of fur trapping, but I don't want to outlaw it. Looks like bad legislation.

 

[Salmo_g]

Hmmm, exemptions include fur that was trapped or hunted and the transaction occurs in a "place or location . . . used on a temporary basis." That could exempt every fur transaction if the people doing it are literate. Stupid waste of time legislation.

 

[Driftless Dan]

Just because some yahoo has entered this bill doesn't mean that it will be taken up by the legislature, and also doesn't mean that it represents the will of the people.

 

[Old406Kid]

the transaction occurs in a "place or location . . . used on a temporary basis."

So...maybe fur trucks kinda like food trucks?

 

[Jake Watrous]

So...maybe fur trucks kinda like food trucks?

Or samesies if you get the right food truck.

I just need to find one selling arctic fox kebabs…

 

[Millsfly]

Just because some yahoo has entered this bill doesn't mean that it will be taken up by the legislature, and also doesn't mean that it represents the will of the people.

I just want this senator to know how stinking bad of an idea this is and kill the mofo bill

 

[Driftless Dan]

I just want this senator to know how stinking bad of an idea this is and kill the mofo bill

No argument there!

 

[PhilR]

If he thinks treating fur is toxic, someone should tell him where fake fur or craft fur comes from...

 

[jact55]

Don't worry guys, I'll go to Idaho and get you what you need.

Prices:
Small squirrel chunk- 25.00
Artic fox ring (sound exotic, probably endangered)- 2000.00
Deer hair- definetly at risk of extinction due to damn hunters- 400.00

I'd offer to sell you weed with it, but government took away that fun black market product away from us. Bastards.

 

[Josh]

I'd offer to sell you weed with it, but government took away that fun black market product away from us. Bastards.

You're looking at it all wrong. You gotta get the weed in WA and take it to ID (where it's still illegal) to trade for fur that you then bring back here. Double the profit!

 

[Eastside]

Calling tomorrow morning. This is ridiculous.

 

[Northern]

It specifically bans "fur products" and not "fur."

"Fur product" means any article of clothing or covering for any part of the body, or any fashion accessory including, but not limited to, handbags, shoes, slippers, hats, earmuffs, scarves, shawls, gloves, jewelry, keychains, toys or trinkets, and home accessories and decor, that is made in whole or in part of fur.

I can't see anything in there that applies to patches for fly tying, unless you're wearing your flies as earrings or something.
Does Simms have a line of mink buffs?

I feel like bombing them with complaints might get fur tying patches added to the list

 

[Yard Sale]

It specifically bans "fur products" and not "fur."

"Fur product" means any article of clothing or covering for any part of the body, or any fashion accessory including, but not limited to, handbags, shoes, slippers, hats, earmuffs, scarves, shawls, gloves, jewelry, keychains, toys or trinkets, and home accessories and decor, that is made in whole or in part of fur.

I can't see anything in there that applies to patches for fly tying, unless you're wearing your flies as earrings or something.
Does Simms have a line of mink buffs?

I feel like bombing them with complaints might get fur tying patches added to the list

Can we add MOAL leeches to the list? Better for humanity.

 

[Millsfly]

this is about the hide/skin element. I got word that the bill sponsor wants to add a provision to exclude the fibers/hair.....but darn nearn all our "fibers" are attached to the hide.
So for instance, California passed a law recently like this and one of my friends who owns a pretty significant fly tying distribution company said..."we cant send rabbit, hide on, anymore to Cali."

 

[Josh]

I can't see anything in there that applies to patches for fly tying, unless you're wearing your flies as earrings or something.
Does Simms have a line of mink buffs?

I think this is what I decided the last time this came up. That my reading of it didn't seem to indicated that it applied to fly tying materials.

So for instance, California passed a law recently like this and one of my friends who owns a pretty significant fly tying distribution company said..."we cant send rabbit, hide on, anymore to Cali."

Though this is concerning. I'd have to see the similarities/differences in the bills I guess to have a definitive opinion.

 

[Flymph]

It specifically bans "fur products" and not "fur."

"Fur product" means any article of clothing or covering for any part of the body, or any fashion accessory including, but not limited to, handbags, shoes, slippers, hats, earmuffs, scarves, shawls, gloves, jewelry, keychains, toys or trinkets, and home accessories and decor, that is made in whole or in part of fur.

I can't see anything in there that applies to patches for fly tying, unless you're wearing your flies as earrings or something.
Does Simms have a line of mink buffs?

I feel like bombing them with complaints might get fur tying patches added to the list

Exactly! Much ado about nothing. Complaints without substance tend to make matters worse.

 

[SeaRunner]

The definition of fur product seems quite poor. I think one could at least claim that fly tying patches are "toys or trinkets" or "home accessories". I'm not sure I would agree with that, but what I think doesn't really matter. If I am a supplier do I want to be the test case on that definition when the potential penalty is $1000 per sale? Or is it just better business to stop selling to WA?

 

[FinLuver]

Oregonians weathered one of these asinine bills recently; I suspect Washingtonians will do the same.

Pick the scab…seems to be the typical tactics of a pita political party.

 

[Dustin Chromers]

This reminds me of when we banned horse slaughter in this country and now horses are sent on a train of tears to Mexico to ensure far worse treatment than a somewhat humane death. When are the peta style groups going to realise they are hurting more than they are helping? Maybe they don't care so long as it's getting the donations rolling in for their "non profit". Which let's face it, a tax status not a business plan.

But honestly where does this leave the merkin market? Asking for a friend.