That would be a good thing, even absent anything else. But maybe the ban on fur will, if it does nothing else, spare a subset of the animals who would otherwise have been tortured and killed. People use leather and food, by contrast, for necessities—everyone needs shoes and food—so harming animals for these products is justified. We have an unwritten agreement. And perhaps because so many people draw that line, it seems unlikely that a fur ban will lead to a ban or, even better, a refusal to consume the more common animal products. Some have hailed the new law as an important victory for animal rights. The music video I Just Had Sex feat. There is no good reason to invent spurious contracts and entitlements just because we are talking about nonhuman animals and we want to rationalize exploitation. Shoes and food may be a necessity, but leather shoes and animal-based food are not. San Francisco has not legally prohibited the wearing of fur, just the sale of it. Incidentally, the San Francisco law draws that same line, exempting lamb and sheep skin from the ban. A defender of the distinction might say that wild animals are entitled to live on their own and be free of human intervention and violence, because they ask nothing of us but to be left alone. And as long as it is not, the ban might not actually save any animals, especially if the people who previously sold fur in San Francisco move to selling other animal skins including the fur of lambs and sheep instead, a seamless transition. I have spoken to at least one person, for instance, who says that hunting is wrong but feels no hesitation about paying for slaughterhouses to terrorize and end the lives of farmed animals.