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 also defining “fur” as animal skin with hair, fleece, or fur fibers attached. It also specifies when a transaction is deemed to occur in the state, including when the buyer takes possession in Hawaii or when the seller is located in the state.
The bill includes several exemptions. It would not apply to used fur products, fur products used in the exercise of constitutionally protected traditional and customary rights, or activities expressly authorized by federal law. It also excludes certain materials and items from the definition of fur product, including leather-bound animal skin, fibers from specified livestock species, unattached animal hair or fibers, raw or tanned pelts not made into clothing or accessories, and taxidermy items. Violations would be subject to civil penalties of up to $1,000 per offense, with each item and each day of violation treated as a separate offense. The measure is set to take effect on June 30, 2025.
If enacted, SB687 would add a new prohibition to Chapter 183D of the Hawaii Revised Statutes, creating a statewide ban on commercial activity involving new fur products and authorizing the department to adopt implementing rules. It would affect retailers, distributors, and others engaged in the fur trade in Hawaii, while preserving limited exceptions for used goods, cultural practices, and federally authorized conduct. The bill would also establish a civil enforcement framework for violations.
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest a strongly supportive policy rationale centered on animal welfare, public health, environmental concerns, and Hawaii’s reputation. There is no recorded committee testimony or vote history in the provided materials, so the available record does not show organized opposition or amendment activity. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to be framed as a consumer and animal-protection bill rather than a controversial regulatory expansion.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the ban and the scope of the exceptions. Retailers and trade interests could object to the prohibition on possession with intent to sell, display, and distribution, as well as the per-item and per-day civil penalties. On the other hand, supporters of cultural rights would likely focus on the explicit exemption for traditional and customary practices, while businesses and enforcement agencies may scrutinize the definitions of “fur product,” the treatment of mixed-material goods, and the practical reach of the in-state transaction rules.