West Hollywood’s fur ban — the nation’s first — went into effect over the weekend, garnering praise from animal advocates and displeasure from businesses in the city that deal in fur.

These boots were among the fur offerings at ARCADE Boutique prior to its closure. (photo by Aaron Blevins)

The ban prohibits retailers from selling, trading, distributing, importing or exporting any fur product, which can mean any item of clothing that is “composed in whole or in part from the pelt or skin of any animal with its hair, fleece (wool) or fur attached.”

“I think it’s really great,” said West Hollywood City Councilman John D’Amico, who proposed the ban. “I think it really reflects the values of the city.”

He said the ban has generated awareness around the world due to the international press it has received. D’Amico said he anticipates that the council’s 2011 decision will continue to do so.

“I think it causes people from Melrose Avenue to Fifth Avenue to think about the implications of their actions if they’re planning to buy fur,” he added. “That’s the way people change the culture, by getting thoughts and ideas into the talking stream.”

Ed Buck, co-founder of Fur Free West Hollywood, which helped D’Amico campaign for office in hopes of getting the fur ban passed, was also pleased.

“I’m proud to live in a city where my council members have a moral compass and aren’t afraid to use it,” he said.

Buck referenced several other animal welfare laws passed by the city: the resolution making West Hollywood a “cruelty free zone” for animals in 1989; the ordinance banning the practice of declawing cats in 2004; and its stand against puppy-mills in 2009.

“This is what we do,” he said. “We regard animal welfare as a very important … issue.”

Buck said the ban will have a minimal impact on the city of West Hollywood, other than further the city’s reputation as being humane.

“And it also says to cities all over the world, ‘Hey, you can do this,’” he added.

However, the fur ban has sent a different message to some businesses in West Hollywood. Genevieve Morrill, CEO of the West Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, said the ban could adversely impact the city’s title as a West Coast fashion capital.

“I think it’s potentially detrimental to an established district that is focused on the high-end fashion houses,” she said.

Since some designers like retailers to represent their collections as a whole, ordering a collection without the fur pieces was not an option for some businesses. Morrill reiterated that concern.

“It has long-range consequences,” she said.

Morrill said several stores, such as ARCADE Boutique, Goldsmith & Klein and Beckley Boutique, have either closed or relocated. The phone was disconnected at ARCADE on Tuesday, and Beckley has moved to West 3rd Street. Attempts to reach representatives of Beckley were unsuccessful by deadline.

David Klein, CEO of Goldsmith & Klein, said the fur ban was one reason that the retailer opted to close its doors. He said the business is now looking to open in New York City. In July 2011, when Goldsmith & Klein representatives were negotiating their lease in West Hollywood, they had no knowledge of the upcoming ban, Klein said.

“It was extremely upsetting that this was taking place,” he said, adding that he voiced his concerns to the city council. “It was apparent after that meeting that the city council was going to have their way. There was too much outside influence. …It was clear this was all going to go through. They didn’t have the business owners in mind when they did this. …We said that was enough. We weren’t going to do this. We weren’t going to be told what we can and cannot sell in our store.”

Klein said the city went through a lot of trouble to become known as a fashion-conscious city, only to “turn around and pick on fur.” He said the city had done a “marvelous” job marketing its fashion industry.

“We were shocked,” Klein added.

Like Morrill, he doesn’t understand why the fashion industry was targeted and not interior designers and other professions that utilize fur. D’Amico said the idea’s impact is the biggest around fashion and “how we decorate ourselves.”

“For me, it was about fashion and taking the skin of one animal and putting it on the skin of human beings,” he said.

D’Amico cited the city’s economic impact study that showed there would be “little to no impact.” With the economy improving, he’s fairly certain that the city will continue to rebound.

“It’s unfortunate when any business closes, but I’m confident that others will come in,” D’Amico said, adding that the ban should not affect businesses in a “dispositive” way. “I think it’s all a positive development for who were are as a city, what the residents want and how we can put our best face forward.”

Buck said the third-party study showed that the city would lose $28,000 in revenue from the ban, which was “not exactly a tough thing to pass up.” He said West Hollywood has prime real estate, and predicted that the vacancies will be occupied in three to six months.

“The economic impact — it wasn’t,” Buck said.

Klein certainly disagrees.

“We had a lovely little store. …It was just a shame that this all transpired,” he said.

D’Amico said compliance officers will issue warnings before doling out any fines, which are $250 for the first offense, $450 for the second and $850 for the third. Additional offenses within a 12-month period could result in infractions and misdemeanors, according to the city’s website.

For information, visit www.weho.org/index.aspx?page=1267.