Letters: Proposed ban on fur sales in Chicago is just performative
Chicago Tribune Letter to the Editor
There are a lot of supportive readers here in the Duncan’s Drafts community. One reader suggested I start submitting these pieces to a real paper…and while I was flattered with the suggestion I was skeptical. Sure enough, they only gave Paul Krugman 800 words at the New York Times, so my 2,000 poorly edited words on the electoral college would not be welcome.
But the Chicago Tribune does accepts letters of 400 words or less on current events, so I decided to respond to a recent story in the Tribune. You can find my letter in full, here. If you do not have a subscription, I’ve also pasted it below.
Thank you all for the continued support and if you have ideas for future Drafts, Letters to the Editor, or just want to say hi, DM me!
Ald. Raymond Lopez’s Trade in Fur Products ordinance is an exercise in performative position-taking. Lopez and the co-sponsors want to cloak themselves in moral superiority and call it a day. If aldermen were serious about furs and animal harm, they would address meat production, leather goods and other animal byproducts. But doing so would be unpopular. So, they opt for the appearance of activism. A faux fur-like approach. Visually similar but not the same.
Walking around the Loop in the middle of the cold Chicago winter, you will see hundreds of Chicagoans trying to stay warm with the aid of a fur-lined hood or maybe a full fur coat. These people might even go eat a burger, beef or hot dog on their lunch break.
Let’s give Lopez some leeway and assume that he is acting in the best interest of his constituents. What are his reasons? According to the text: “Animals raised on fur farms typically spend their entire lives in cramped and filthy cages.” That is a justification to eliminate furs but not meat consumption or egg production?
The ordinance also cites environmentalism: “The fur production process is energy intensive and has a significant environmental impact, including air and water pollution.” Do synthetic furs represent a smaller environmental impact?
Finally, the City Council preaches the availability of alternatives, “Considering the wide array of alternatives … the City Council finds that the demand for fur products does not justify the (harm).” Does it mean alternatives like leather? Cowhide? Deerskin? Does the length of an animal’s hair equate to its inherent value? Why are cows less deserving than the humble beaver?
I do not wear fur, but it is the principle of the matter. Incremental change is a valid political strategy, but people have already voted with their dollars. Go to Bloomingdale’s, and nearly all offerings are faux or synthetic alternatives. Canada Goose discontinued the use of fur in 2022.
The market has spoken, and the people of Chicago don’t have time for silly and performative actions when there are real problems to solve.
— Duncan Heidkamp, Chicago
An update on the story, the City Council defeated the measure 26-19!