So it's not about animal welfare or environmental issues and more about who has the most powerful lobbyists then ... I am sure you are right! This is the time we live in!
California girls: Ban on Exotics?!
- Thread starter runner1234
- Start date
It is definitely about animal rights, which has been a big issue in Calif for decades. PETA is a powerful lobbying group. There was an attempt to exempt some croc/gator from the ban. Paraphrasing and generalizing - if one could show that the animals were ethically raised, one could be exempted from the ban. That amendment went nowhere and has been tabled.
Calif is used to going our own way on many issues and we have many laws that go farther than anyone else. Some of them are great, some are borderline ludicrous, but on we go. Others can follow us or not. Don’t see Calif ever re-thinking the python ban because of something Florida is doing.
Erh... you just proved what I said was right, whoever have the hardest lobbyists get what they want. It's not because the government just love the animal rights so much. It's because they are pressurised by the lobbying groups.
I think it makes sense that H is being safe and not allowing you to have your bag shipped to another State’s store because you can argue that the CA store worked on selling it to you. Definitely feel bad for those who have pending orders, and also with existing bags that you have to go out of state for service (this one feels like it makes less sense but maybe H just wants to be extra cautious).
I guess the work around is to establish a relationship with an SA/store in a different state...not impossible and I know there are many H customers who are able to do this (or are already doing this). But it still makes it more difficult and that is perhaps also part of the point (making it more difficult still helps in dissuading people from buying the bags even though you can’t get them banned everywhere).
Also on a more policy / politics point: I think as much as lobbying is a huuuuuge factor in these things, customer trend and demand is ultimately the backdrop against which things are happening. There has definitely been increasing customer appetite for sustainability, animal welfare, and so on. It’s like nowadays every new cosmetics brand are asked to be “vegan” and “cruelty-free”, and people are showing that they are willing to pay more for brands with sustainability goals and increasingly consider it a factor in deciding their purchase. I think Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s just said they will be fur-free? Now whether these bans are the most correct way to do things is a different question, but I think they illustrate overall something about consumer and market trend. That is to say, I’m one of those cynical people who think as much as businesses should have a “conscience”, the only real motivation for them to change is profit driven. These changes suggest to me that increasingly businesses believe making these kind of decisions don’t hurt their profit or maybe can even help. Ultimately I think we are seeing a market / mindset shift. I’m sure there are many intricacies and details! But it ultimately feels like a part of a greater - I guess for the lack of a better word - cultural change.
I guess the work around is to establish a relationship with an SA/store in a different state...not impossible and I know there are many H customers who are able to do this (or are already doing this). But it still makes it more difficult and that is perhaps also part of the point (making it more difficult still helps in dissuading people from buying the bags even though you can’t get them banned everywhere).
Also on a more policy / politics point: I think as much as lobbying is a huuuuuge factor in these things, customer trend and demand is ultimately the backdrop against which things are happening. There has definitely been increasing customer appetite for sustainability, animal welfare, and so on. It’s like nowadays every new cosmetics brand are asked to be “vegan” and “cruelty-free”, and people are showing that they are willing to pay more for brands with sustainability goals and increasingly consider it a factor in deciding their purchase. I think Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s just said they will be fur-free? Now whether these bans are the most correct way to do things is a different question, but I think they illustrate overall something about consumer and market trend. That is to say, I’m one of those cynical people who think as much as businesses should have a “conscience”, the only real motivation for them to change is profit driven. These changes suggest to me that increasingly businesses believe making these kind of decisions don’t hurt their profit or maybe can even help. Ultimately I think we are seeing a market / mindset shift. I’m sure there are many intricacies and details! But it ultimately feels like a part of a greater - I guess for the lack of a better word - cultural change.
Last edited:
wait until people start to realize and accept the fact that faux fur breaks down into millions of microplastic particles that can be much more harmful to the environment and animals than actual biodegradable fur products. By then we will just ban everything and go back to the primeval age hehehe.
I know you are joking but...firstly that implies that you think there won’t be new innovation or technological advancement
recently we are already getting good at fake meat (impossible burger is really delicious!) and there’s now lab grown meat. Especially when there is enough market demand, it tends to drive innovation. Maybe we will find a way!Secondly, I always remember that when it comes to how humanity’s impact on the earth the truth is not that we are destroying the earth. The earth itself will be fine and exist for many more eons. It’s whether humanity will remain on it that’s the question. The current ways of treating the earth can actually mean us going back to primeval times or worse wiping ourselves out. I always get very pessimistic when I think about this particular topic, as I don’t think generally countries are willing to forgo economic growth to address environmental issues, so unless we get some super technological advancement, say, find a way to terraform Mars, I do see that possibility. Probably far in the future but still. I just find it funny that you joke that people deciding to ban stuff to be the cause but I’d argue allowing no policies and for us to continue our current ways will get us there too.
Ah this is enough non H conversation...it’s one of those topics that warrants a lot of discussion and also something people are passionate about. I think some of us even escape to this forum to share our love for bags and to specifically avoid these kind of heavier topics! I guess that is too naive now because as the problem gets big enough it seeps into affecting things even as frivolous as a love for certain bags.
Consumer behaviour changes product offering, but they don't result in change in law. Lobbying changes the law. I don't buy synthetic material clothes any more (no faux fur for me, I'd rather just wear a wool coat) but they are not illegal. That's just how it is. No more to add to this since it is really drifting from the actual topic here.
Yes agreed we are really drifting far! As just a last note, I do think laws change because the society they govern changes. It’s not like lobbying exists in a vacuum by itself, there are things driving them. Lobbying may be the “how”, but not the answer to the “why”. What orgs are powerful and what do they lobby for? Where is the financial support and motivation coming from? It’s almost always going to be a question of where the $ is, and that comes back to where is the market. If nobody buys fur and the fur industry dwindles, then who can lobby against a ban on fur? On the other hand, if the industry is thriving and has strong population support and demand, they can afford to do so. Lobbying is the medium and not the source, it reflects something further down the pipeline. Think of how much things have changed say in the last century and what was once commonplace that is now illegal. Laws change with the times, it’s not that things get lobbies just because. They reflect something behind them.
I will also let this be the last comment on the policy side of things, let’s try to focus more on the specifics of what H is doing!
I will also let this be the last comment on the policy side of things, let’s try to focus more on the specifics of what H is doing!
I wonder if H is nimble enough to change their direction with removal of products from stores and/or send back to CA stores. I think they already started the process earlier this month. I’m headed in there today and will see if I can get any info.
Here’s my report:
items that were removed from stores have been/ are being sent back to the CA stores and they will keep those products for 3 months (end of March). No other info available.
items that were removed from stores have been/ are being sent back to the CA stores and they will keep those products for 3 months (end of March). No other info available.
Exotics (croc/gator) are back in CA stores for now. I got to see some recently.
Will this have any effect on Hermes croc items regarding the price? Will the price go up or down in the Hermes boutiques that are not in California? Does anyone know?
I don't know about other states or outside the US, but I think the pricing will stay the same (at least until the injunction ends). Some people probably will get a "FOMO" moment. I did.
This is just speculation, I'm not an exotic expert by any means.