California girls: Ban on Exotics?!

I had two independent SAs reference something similar over the past year. They each said something about H was planning to start making fewer and fewer exotics due to various regions clamping down on the sale of them. I got the feeling in the convos that similar legislation is slotted for France/Europe as well. I didn’t pay it much mind as I’m not interested in exotics but the convo was basically “well if you’re considering getting one ever, now would be better than later...”

ETA neither of these conversations were in California.

I can't find any such proposals for France after a quick search and I think if it does happen in Europe, I think it'll be in the UK first or some other country where fashion and the luxury industry isn't so important for the economy and the culture for obvious reasons. Although you never know. I don't mean to say that French (or say German) people are less environmentally aware on average than people in the US (or in California specifically) or the UK and this is more of a very specific animal welfare issue that I have a hard time seeing as a great step for the environment. in terms of US vs. EU There are some cultural differences at play here too, like the French government has done a lot to combat plastic waste so far, French farming is less industrial and emissions in general are way below those in the US (and in California), but more "traditional" practices like leather craftsmanship are often given exemptions on a smaller scale to protect cultural heritage or something similar. I presume it might happen to exotic skins too. You can still get very exotic skins in France legally if you know where to go. But in quantities that make luxury brands' use of exotic skins look mass market, which really is a big part of the problem.

On a related note, Chanel stopped selling exotics this year and a big UK department store Selfridges did too. LVMH also took measures to have greater control of the provenance of exotics.
 
Gosh where the heck have I been I usually keep up on these laws pretty well. I knew about python and I know about California wants to ban sale of fur statewide, but when did this other exotics happen? Was it under the radar, as I never saw in info about it in the SF Bay Area...
 
So I just heard from my SA that the bill has not been officially signed yet... she said not to worry yet.. I really, really hope it doesn’t get signed LOL. If anyone hears anything else from their boutiques, please share! And thanks to everyone who responded!
 
So I just heard from my SA that the bill has not been officially signed yet... she said not to worry yet.. I really, really hope it doesn’t get signed LOL. If anyone hears anything else from their boutiques, please share! And thanks to everyone who responded!

Oh no, your SA is incorrect. Cal. Penal Code Section 653o is the law and will be enacted on January 1, 2020. Your SA may be talking about Assembly Bill 719 that would amend the current law using the following language:

This bill would require manufacturers of products that use the hides of crocodiles or alligators, after consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, to submit to the Director of Fish and Wildlife proposals for technologies or processes that allow for the tracking or tracing of the source of origin of crocodile or alligator hides used to manufacture products sold in this state and require humane treatment of farmed crocodiles and alligators, as well as humane slaughtering techniques. The bill would require the director, on or before March 30, 2021, to approve technologies or processes that meet those requirements.

Oh boy! What a ridiculously overwrought attempt by the Croc & Gater Lobby.
 
I heard this too from LV SA. I asked my H MD and she said it hasn’t passed yet. But from reading the last message, seems it passed. Ugh! I had a few CDCs in mind. I guess, I can shop in Vegas etc to acquire.

As others have said, illegal to sell. You can still own and wear.

I would agree that CA based resellers will move stock out of state to sell ...think TRR and Fashionphile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haute okole
I can't find any such proposals for France after a quick search and I think if it does happen in Europe, I think it'll be in the UK first or some other country where fashion and the luxury industry isn't so important for the economy and the culture for obvious reasons. Although you never know. I don't mean to say that French (or say German) people are less environmentally aware on average than people in the US (or in California specifically) or the UK and this is more of a very specific animal welfare issue that I have a hard time seeing as a great step for the environment. in terms of US vs. EU There are some cultural differences at play here too, like the French government has done a lot to combat plastic waste so far, French farming is less industrial and emissions in general are way below those in the US (and in California), but more "traditional" practices like leather craftsmanship are often given exemptions on a smaller scale to protect cultural heritage or something similar. I presume it might happen to exotic skins too. You can still get very exotic skins in France legally if you know where to go. But in quantities that make luxury brands' use of exotic skins look mass market, which really is a big part of the problem.

On a related note, Chanel stopped selling exotics this year and a big UK department store Selfridges did too. LVMH also took measures to have greater control of the provenance of exotics.

Culturally we are one of the most influencial and economically fashion is one of the most important.

From Sophia Sleigh, the Evening Standard 13 Sept 2018

"Last year the fashion industry contributed £32.3 billion to UK GDP, a 5.4 per cent increase on 2016. The growth is higher than the figure for the UK economy as a whole. Fashion remains a major UK employer, with 890,000 jobs supported across the industry, making it almost as big as the financial sector. "



 
A lawyer friend confirmed this is true and I assume this will affect California consumers of Hermes. I wonder if there will be ways to circumvent that though, such as buying bags in other states and having them shipped in California? In the same vein, if one buys a pre-owned item, nothing prevents one from having it shipped to a friend in a different state first... Pretty easy and inexpensive.

I will point out that while foie gras is illegal for sale in California, my local farmers' market has a French stall that happily sells it...
 
Parts of California also bans fur and python sales. I remember looking at a Fendi bag with python handle, and the SA said that the one they sold in SF were made of water snake instead. I wonder if the fox fur bag charms are also faux in California.

Seems cost ineffective for the fashion houses to produce and source differently for various regions.
 
As others have said, illegal to sell. You can still own and wear.
.
I am delighted to hear about the ban, and although it is legal to own the stuff, it’s worth investigating WHY there is a ban. I am not going to elaborate here because it’s not the right platform, but the use of ‘exotics’ is one of the most wasteful environmental practices.
 
I am delighted to hear about the ban, and although it is legal to own the stuff, it’s worth investigating WHY there is a ban. I am not going to elaborate here because it’s not the right platform, but the use of ‘exotics’ is one of the most wasteful environmental practices.

You should probably stop driving a car and start walking then. The manufacturing, disposal, and use of vehicles is the utmost wasteful environmental practice.
 
You should probably stop driving a car and start walking then. The manufacturing, disposal, and use of vehicles is the utmost wasteful environmental practice.

I don’t think that is a solid argument. It’s like saying if you don’t do A then you also can’t do B. Like if you aren’t vegan you shouldn’t also recycle (both help environment). If you can’t solve world hunger you shouldn’t donate to charity. It’s not a either or thing at all. I don’t get why this logic fallacy is so common and why people believe it makes an argument.

Sorry to be off topic. I personally have no problem with exotics actually and I feel sad for California people who want these products but this particular form of illogical argument always gets me.
 
I'm glad you have such a high horse to stand on. Many jobs will be effected by this.
I am sure those people rather have an earth to live on, clean water and clean air because it damages the ecosystems you cannot come back from, but okay

Also want to point out, the people hunting and/or farming are not the ones that make any money but the brand.
 
  • Like
Reactions: eunaddict
By the way I do think this ban is more framed as an animal rights thing than an environmental issue, based on the articles I find...I don't know anywhere near enough on this particular topic to say if that is the right decision or not.

Anyways, I think the real question isn't whether this should be a law or not but how this can affect us right? To stay focused on the handbags :smile:

I am not in California and my H SA apparently hasn’t heard anything about this, but an SA from another brand that I work with told me he knows about this ban coming. He also said California has banned python for a while now and it's not that shocking...and the fashion brand isn't really going to be super affected by one state ban. But those who live in California and want the leathers are for sure affected. I think even more so with H, with the quota system and royalty to a home store thing. I honestly don't know what H would do...I think maybe those who live in California and can ask their SAs about this are the only ones who can get useful information on that regard.
 
  • Like
Reactions: aksaiyo
I don’t think that is a solid argument. It’s like saying if you don’t do A then you also can’t do B. Like if you aren’t vegan you shouldn’t also recycle (both help environment). If you can’t solve world hunger you shouldn’t donate to charity. It’s not a either or thing at all. I don’t get why this logic fallacy is so common and why people believe it makes an argument.

Sorry to be off topic. I personally have no problem with exotics actually and I feel sad for California people who want these products but this particular form of illogical argument always gets me.

The logic makes sense to anyone who understands hypocrisy.

In your prior comment you said you were delighted about the ban. That is in direct conflict with saying you "feel sad for California people who want these products". You can't be delighted for an outcome and at the same time feel any genuine empathy for the opposing side. Also hypocrisy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sparkletastic