HB 1775 Prohibiting the production of fur products

[Frank The Tank]

This is (one of)my response...I also emailed Rep Engell, my 7th district rep who happens to sit on the Ag committee.  CCed my other rep and State Senator Short.  I focused on how this would target the Tribes as shutting down any fur related business would by default give them no outlet for their furs.  I'm having lots of support from both Colville and Yakima Nation.  Whether they contact the committee is another story. One hopes...

Response to HB 1775
In reading the proposed bill to stop all fur farm as well as production of fur related products, I have found so many errors, fallacies, and untruths to make this bill a proposal of ideology than are real legislative production.  To those actually open-minded and willing to listen, I will stick to one main point: To be anti-fur and anti-trapping is to be Anti-Native American.  There is a poor attempt in the proposed bill to use the Native community as an unwitting pawn to achieve the goal of destroying the economies of fur related businesses. However any basic understanding of the Native community in relation to the culture of fur and trapping, or the negative impacts economically as well as socially would show that this bill is in fact an ATTACK on the Native communities. 
(b) A fur product used for traditional tribal, cultural, or spiritual purposes by a member of a federally recognized Native American tribe…
This sounds like it is protecting the Native communities, but as mentioned before, any basic understanding of the Native communities’ gathering and uses of fur and fur related products would see the truth.   I work closely with Native tribes, mainly the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Yakima Nation. I am a second-generation fur buyer.  This means I am dealing with multiple generations within the same communities.  These Natives trap furbearers as a part of culture, just like their non-Native neighbors.  What this proposed bill will do is destroy these Natives’ ability to trade, sell, or process their harvests. The vast, vast majority of fur taken by Natives leaves their respective tribes and reservations.  One Native customer shared a picture of her great, great grandfather of the Moses Lake band proudly displaying his furs across his horse on his way to sell them to a non-Native fur buyer.  This continues to this day. 
As a fur buyer, I see Natives almost daily bringing in their harvests to sell or trade.  Many work seasonally so they can trap during the fur season and depend on the sale of their furs for their home economics.  As a fur buyer I grade the fur, offer a price, then find a way to use the fur in a variety of ways. Many people in the craft and manufacturing industry actively seek out Tribal furs.  Other Natives will trade one species for another.  Many a native has traded a recently trapped bobcat for tanned otter pelts.  These pelts, tanned under strict US EPA guidelines within the USA, may come from a variety of places, such as the Native majority owned Fur House in Canada.  Otters are used in headwear due to its long, black silky fur.  Other Natives may trade for porcupine hair or quills. These porcupine will regularly be bought by me from non-Natives off reservation specifically to supply these Tribal members.  Other Natives will seek me out to have fur headbands or hats made by one of my skilled textile workers on the East Coast. In short, the fur trade is an appropriate term.  Furs move in and out of Tribal and non-tribal persons and businesses. Even the ranch furs are sought out by Natives due to their quality that the wild cannot reproduce.  These ranch furs usually come from the same Native owned fur house in Canada I mentioned earlier.  Any negative legislation regarding furs or trapping will end up targeting the Native community and hurt them economically and culturally.  It will target Native owned businesses internationally.  In conversation with my Native customers and neighbors, I explain that if this bill passes I and any other fur buyer will be out of business. It only takes a few seconds before they realize the negative effects.  “What would you do?” I ask.  “Well, I guess I will just have to stop trapping.  So much for tradition.”

[Katalla]

Sent comments to all committee members.

[Elkaholic daWg]

What a bunch of pussies

You have hunters in this State who actually vote for these "ussies".  Be sure to thank them.

100% and on this site!    The dems have lost their minds!!

But you don't usually find them on posts like this.
Commented to all 3 but mine are all from the sensible side

[dwtraut7]

Wouldn't a bill like this even effect certain fishing flies? Sometimes this state feels like a prison the way it is run

[Humptulips]

Wouldn't a bill like this even effect certain fishing flies? Sometimes this state feels like a prison the way it is run

Yes it would.

[Ric0]

I believe it would also outlaw fishing jigs. A lot of them use rabbits fur.

[Skyvalhunter]

I would think that presenting what's going on with this bill to the different tribes would have a huge impact to it being shut down.

[Humptulips]

Several people asked me to report on how the hearing went. Well, it is sometimes hard to gauge how the testimony was received but I am optimistic. We had I thought some good testimony from a diverse group. Trappers, fur dealers, fur farmers, fly tiers, Fur Commision, Colville tribe and a biologist. Karen, I thought was particularly good as someone who likes to wear fur. Of Course, the other side had their shot, but I was not real impressed with their performance.
It is easy to critique our testimony but consider they only gave a person 90 seconds. You can't make all the good arguments that come to mind. You pick something and try to get across your argument the best you can in the time allotted.
What's next?
The Committee will, at some point vote on whether to move it to the House floor for a vote or not. The Chair can hold it in Committee without a vote and it holds over till next year. If they move it to the floor and it gets a yes vote it goes to the Senate and starts all over again.
You can still send in comments.

[Humptulips]

I went up this morning to see The House Ag and NR Committee's Executive Session on 1775. They passed a substitute Bill on a straight party line vote Dems, aye/ Rep, nay. I'm not sure what all is in the substitute Bill as they have not published it yet that I can see. It sounds like they did make changes to accommodate fur farmers and fly tiers. I can't say the same for furriers, but it doesn't sound good from what I heard. Not sure until I can read the Bill. On to the full House with a do pass recommendation.
I also gave testimony on HB 1685 and HB 1930. Those are the restructuring of the F&W Commission Bills in the House. I don't think I made any impact but from hearing what I did and reading faces I think neither Bill is going far. Overwhelming sentiment against 1685 and for 1930 if you go by pro/con voting by the public. Seemed like the hearing comments were heavily by anti-hunters and they hate 1930 but not fully behind 1685.

[Frank The Tank]

I went up this morning to see The House Ag and NR Committee's Executive Session on 1775. They passed a substitute Bill on a straight party line vote Dems, aye/ Rep, nay. I'm not sure what all is in the substitute Bill as they have not published it yet that I can see. It sounds like they did make changes to accommodate fur farmers and fly tiers. I can't say the same for furriers, but it doesn't sound good from what I heard. Not sure until I can read the Bill. On to the full House with a do pass recommendation.
I also gave testimony on HB 1685 and HB 1930. Those are the restructuring of the F&W Commission Bills in the House. I don't think I made any impact but from hearing what I did and reading faces I think neither Bill is going far. Overwhelming sentiment against 1685 and for 1930 if you go by pro/con voting by the public. Seemed like the hearing comments were heavily by anti-hunters and they hate 1930 but not fully behind 1685.

Bruce, here's the substitute bill text.  This is NOT good at all.  If this passes I (and many others) are done, business wise.

"Replaces the prohibition on fur farming with a requirement that a fur farm be a member of an organization recognizing a professional certification program that includes animal welfare and environmental standards and requires fur farms to be fully in compliance with inspection and certification requirements. • Requires the production and manufacture of fur or fur-related products made from farmed fur to be sourced from a farm that is a member of an organization recognizing a professional certification program that includes animal welfare and environmental standards and fully in compliance with inspection and certification requirements. • Exempts products used in fishing gear from the prohibition on producing and manufacturing fur products. • Deletes the intent section"

OK my questions...
Requirement on fur farms  may not be a high hurdle to pass as just about all if not ALL fur farms belong to a professional organization.  Fur Harvesters may have this requirement.  What this WILL stop is any ranch fur-say I buy one at Glenn's Ferry sold by another private person. This hangs in my shop. I buy something manufactured by another business in New York etc.  We all know that furs change hands many times, and anyway, fur doesn't come with a tag showing origination.  Even CITES tags can be removed once the hide is tanned.  What nightmare administrative burden does this require that can never be met?
"exempts products used in fishing gear from the prohibition on producing and manufacturing fur products".  First, this shows the power of some outdoor groups.  Great, just NOT US.  However this implies that any other activity/manufacture with fur, wild or ranch, is prohibited.   
"Deletes the intent section"  What's this? 

All of this, BTW will seriously impact the economics-and by default severely restricts-Native American use, pruchase, movement of furs outside of their inner tribal use, in effect a law against them.

I look forward to yours and other's response as I draft my letter to my Reps.

Frank

[Humptulips]

I would like to read the Substitute Bill rather than a summary but here is my take on it starting with your last question.
What is the intent section? That is section 1 where they say why they are doing this. Basically, furs are bad, climate change, cruel, small part of economy, pollution so we are outlawing them.

Effect? I'm no lawyer but I think it ends making anything out of furs in WA.
Frank,
You selling tanned furs would be OK, having something made out of furs out-of-State and bringing them back and selling them, OK. Any of your customers that sew furs, no can do unless it is for a Native American of a federally recognized tribe and you would have to keep records on those sales. I guess not only Native Americans, anything for religious proposes so a shtreimel would be OK too. Someone like D. Stanley, out of business.

[Ric0]

Thank you Bruce for the update.

[Humptulips]

HB 1775 is still alive and headed towards the House floor. This is the Bill that would make "Fur Production" illegal in WA. It has been modified from the original Bill but it still will impact fur manufacturers in WA. We need to send in letters to our Representatives asking them to vote no on this Bill. Please take the time to contact your Legislators about this Bill at
 https://app.leg.wa.gov/BillSummary/?BillNumber=1775&Year=2025&Initiative=false 
 You can read the Substitute Bill there and there is a link to send comments. Please take the time. It matters. Best to write something of your own but I have provided a few talking points below.
Commented earlier? Doesn't hurt to do it again since the Bill had been modified.

Talking points for HB 1775 rebuttal
State gets to decide what is traditional, cultural
Will put small crafters and furriers out of business because a significant portion of their business is ranch fur.
Majority of these crafters making fur items are female or minority owned businesses.
Even if fur farms are part of a certification program there is no labeling program that carries with it proof of certification through the levels of brokers and auctions, ranch furs go through before they reach the manufacturer.
There is no allowance for current inventory of ranch furs that will be impossible to document as coming from a certified fur farm.
The proposed Bill covers fur farmed mink, marten, fox and chinchilla and yet we legally harvest wild mink, marten and fox that are acceptable to use in fur production under this Bill. How are those to be differentiated? 
 The Bill originally was purported to champion animal welfare and environmental pollution but now only impacts crafters trying to make a living sewing. 
If passed it will be an unenforceable mess.

[Ghost Hunter]

Wonder where all the barter fairs and communities are on this?

[Humptulips]

Good update to post, HB1775 died in the Appropriations Commitee Friday after failing to make it to the floor before the out of committee cut off date.
Thanks for everybody's help in killing this Bill by writing to their Reps.