Relating To Animal Fur Products.
SB687 would prohibit the sale, offer for sale, possession with intent to sell, display for sale, distribution, or other trade of fur products in Hawaii. The bill defines “fur product” broadly to include clothing, accessories, and home decor made in whole or in part with fur, while carving out several exclusions such as used fur products, items used in the exercise of traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights, and activities expressly authorized by federal law. It also excludes certain materials and items, including leather-bound animal skins, fibers from specified livestock species, loose fur fibers not attached to skin, raw or tanned pelts not made into consumer goods, and taxidermy items.
The bill would add a new section to chapter 183D, Hawaii Revised Statutes, creating a statewide ban on new fur product commerce and authorizing the department to adopt rules to implement and enforce the law. Violations would be subject to civil penalties of up to $1,000 per fur product and per day of violation, with each separate item and day treated as a separate offense. The act is set to take effect on June 30, 2025, and it preserves rights, duties, penalties, and proceedings that arose before the effective date.
SB687 would create a new statutory prohibition in chapter 183D against the commercial sale and distribution of fur products in Hawaii, effectively regulating retail, resale, and trade in fur goods statewide. It would affect sellers, distributors, retailers, and others handling fur products, while preserving limited exceptions for used goods, constitutionally protected traditional and customary practices, and federally authorized activity. The measure also gives the relevant department rulemaking authority and establishes a civil enforcement framework with per-item, per-day penalties.
The bill text reflects a strongly supportive policy position toward animal welfare, public health, and environmental goals, stating that eliminating new fur sales would reduce cruelty, lower public health risks, and improve the state’s reputation. No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or formal vote history to indicate broader support or opposition. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer and animal-welfare restriction rather than a controversial regulatory expansion, but the available record does not show how lawmakers or stakeholders reacted.
The main potential points of contention are the breadth of the ban and its impact on commerce, especially because the bill covers not only sales but also possession with intent to sell, display, distribution, and trade. Another likely issue is the scope of the exceptions, particularly the carveout for traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights and the exclusions for used fur products, taxidermy, and certain animal-derived materials. Businesses in the fashion, retail, and resale sectors could object to the economic effects and compliance burden, while supporters would likely emphasize animal welfare and public health benefits.