During Burlington’s Mardi Gras celebration last February, a city employee ordered a band of people dressed as furry animals to remove their masks. The charge: They were “performing” on Church Street without the required permit.
The revelers were members of Vermont Furs — people known as “furries,” who share an interest in anthropomorphic cartoon animals. They had attempted to renew their permit prior to Mardi Gras, according to Jessica Owens — whose “fursona” is a race car-driving corgi — but had been told to hold off while the Church Street Marketplace revamped its permit policy.
Marketplace executive director Ron Redmond said he supported allowing the Vermont Furs to return to Church Street, but he first wanted to ensure patrons would be safe. He noted that in New York’s Times Square, people dressed as the Cookie Monster and Spider-Man had pickpocketed and groped people.
In the meantime, the Vermont Furs learned that Church Street wasn’t the only place that was off-limits to them. An obscure city ordinance prohibits people over age 21 from wearing masks in public, effectively barring their kind from Burlington.
UPDATE: The Church Street Marketplace updated its process for permitting street performers, and, as a result, it’s a lot harder to make the cut. In the past, “99 percent” of applicants got approved; now, just 40 percent.
Nonetheless, Redmond said the Vermont Furs would likely pass muster.
Why haven’t they auditioned?
The marketplace also upped the price of permits. The group of 12 would have to pay $540 for a one-year permit, which would cover background checks and administrative costs. That’s not feasible for the Vermont Furs, who entertain for free, Owens said.
In their quest to do away with the mask ban, the furries have gained an influential ally: Allen Gilbert, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Vermont. In early November, Gilbert urged Burlington to repeal its ordinance after police detained two men wearing Guy Fawkes masks at an anti-Ku Klux Klan rally. Gilbert argued that masks can be a form of political expression — and therefore protected speech.
In response, Burlington’s city attorney, Eileen Blackwood, is analyzing the ban. She expects to recommend “potential revisions” to the city council’s ordinance committee in January.
This article appears in Dec 30, 2015 – Jan 5, 2016.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Less than $50 per person for a summer plus worth of wearing furry costumes hardly seems not feasible. I’d say that is quite fair.
I think the whole thing raises a lot of questions.
Why does the CSM need back ground checks done on these folks when the entertainers permit process clearly asks for the ID from each performer? They are not being employed or paid by the CSM to do their service.
What is being done with the money the CSM is making off these guys?
According to the previous article the fuzzies have been around for a while, WHY is it NOW the CSM is barely asking them pay to be there?
Why should they pay $50 per person to provide a free service or in the case of Mardi Gras to simply exist and revel with the rest of the masked folks?
I feel Burlington’s Mask Law is outdated, and needs some changes. These furries are clearly around for the theatrical and entertainment purposes. They don’t panhandle unlike some the other garbage on Church St. They bring a unique flavor to Burlington and Burlington is missing out.
After reading the first article I went and research furries and the like to educate myself. Seems to me furries could bring a lot of money to the city if they could actually hold the convention they mentioned in the article. It would be an economic boom for the city especially in the form of hotels, restaurants and shops.
The local furries in the past have met in downtown Burlington two or three times per year, for an hour or two each time. They just show up on a random sunny day and have lunch/dinner, hang around on Church St, and then leave. That’s not much time and certainly not enough to warrant them paying for a permit. I think it would just encourage them to go elsewhere.
All of these “mask laws” are completely ridiculous and should be repealed. As long as you’re not committing any crime, what’s the problem? I’m currently living in Virginia, which has a similar bulls*** law.
A permit and a fee makes no sense, because furries are not performers, they are merely dressing differently. The comment that people are molested in New York’s Times Square is just ignorant. People are much more frequently robbed by people in pants, and I don’t see Burlington police making that argument to ban people in pants.
The Burlington furs are not preformers, asking for donations, pan handling or employeed by anyone. Or bothering anyone unless poseing for photos, shaking paws and giving hugs is a crime?
I have experience performing on Church St and have gone through the permitting process. Every performer/group has to pay ~$50 per person to receive a permit on Church St in order to *receive tips* for performing. There is no fee for performers that do not ask for tips/donations. I’m surprised this distinction wasn’t made in the article.
Guys, it’s not all that hard. People act like the city is singling the furries out for no reason, but that just isn’t true. There is already a law on the books (mentioned in the article if you bothered to read it) against adults wearing masks in Burlington in public.
In addition, we have crazy people running around dressed like spiderman and elmo groping people in other states. What do you want to bet that the city would get it’s ass sued off if something went down like that here and they didn’t enforce a law that was already on the books? It’s about accountability. As a business district, they can’t allow masked people who haven’t been vetted. It costs them money to do background checks on these folks, so all they are doing is asking the furries to pay for their own background checks. $50 per person sounds about right.
And that’s not even getting into the weird sexual subculture that we all know is linked to furries. You wouldn’t let fetish gear doms and subs run around church st hugging kids and taking pictures outside your business without know who they were either…
Its funny how people always seem to bring the racy side of the furry fandom to light. These furs have never displayed anything sexual in nature. They clearly stated in the previous article that is not what they are about. Frankly what is done in each persons bedroom is their own business. Sounds like some people are just uneducated and unwilling to learn and believe everything they see on TV. Every fanbase rather it be starwars, walking dead, star trek, air planes they all have those romantic themes. Its called Rule 34 google that!
Maybe people always seem to bring up “the racy side” as you put it, because it is an inseparable component of their identity? You don’t have to like that there is an association there, but that doesn’t change the fact that it exists. The difference between the fandoms that you mentioned and furries is that while some might have a sexual component to them it’s not one of the primary pillars of those fandoms, unlike furdom where it is nigh inescapable. I’ve talked with dozens of furries, and I have yet to meet one that doesn’t weave sexuality into their fursona in some way or another. Like I said before, you wouldn’t want your kids getting their picture taken with a sub or a dom because their costuming is linked to their sexual identity, and it’s no different for a fursuit. As far as how the money is being spent? $50 just about covers the price of a background check, so no, the CSM isn’t buying coke and hookers.
If the issue with masks was as stated, that it would be “political expression”, can’t they just ban politically based attire so that my fellow New England fursuiters can wear their suits? I find it rude, especially because these are people who don’t ask for money (sometimes suiters will do this for charity, but I’m not sure about this group) and just want to suit and make others happy and have fun. It’s already expensive enough for conventions as well as said fursuits.