I m so pleased to report that import and trade of dogs and cat fur has been officially banned since yesterday in France.
Hopefully it will really be the year of the dogs and cats and the ban will be extended to other european countries which has not made the move yet. Cats and dogs fur are mainly sold to European countries
I agree that wearing fur is a vile practice, but can someone please explain again why it’s worse to kill cats and dogs for their fur then it is to kill minks or racoons or whatever other animals?
Or is it solely a matter of this being a first step towards banning the killing of other animals, also, for their fur?
If it were for me, I d ban all fur. We have now very nice synthetic products looking like fur.
I suppose people are more touched by dogs and cats because they share our daily life and we understand their pain better. Also we don t eat them (except in a few countries)
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]I agree that wearing fur is a vile practice, but can someone please explain again why it’s worse to kill cats and dogs for their fur then it is to kill minks or racoons or whatever other animals?
Or is it solely a matter of this being a first step towards banning the killing of other animals, also, for their fur?[/quote]
blargh dee blargh blargh dogs and cats are cute blargh blargh blargh they’re our friends blargh blargh blargh cows and goats and rabbits we just don’t see often in real life, so fuck em. They can be made into leather and fur blargh blargh blargh
Why don’t we shoot every person for owning an item of leather while we’re at it, then replace all leather used in manufacturing with their hides?
Why isn’t it as sad that millions of cute fluffy bunnies get killed and skinned every year?
Well it probably is for rabbit owners. But the rabbit is widely accepted as a commerical animal/pest/food source. And it’s cheap. It’s just not as much fun when you yell at some kid for having a pair of bunnyfur boots as yelling at someone rich and important for wearing a mink coat.
If wearing fur is vile, then surely wearing leather is vile, and perhaps eating meat is vile too.
Anyway. Most people couldn’t care less if cows and goats and minks and foxes and whatever else gets made into pelts, cause they haven’t kept one as a pet. Or even seen one in real life. So they don’t have nearly as much pity for the animals as they do for cats and dogs, which they most likely have come in contact with. So thinking about Old Yeller getting beaten to a pulp and skinned alive raises more concern than some trash-rummaging raccoon facing the same fate.
Hell, pigs are smarter than dogs, but we find absolutely nothing wrong with killing them everyday.
What’s the difference between eating a slab of pork coming from a pig farm and eating a slab of dog coming from a dog farm?
Just your consience.
lullipus, what’s your viewpoint? Are you 1) merely criticizing these people for saying that skinning dogs and cats is bad (while implicitly condoning the skinning of other animals for their fur/hides) and therefore saying that skinning/commercially farming dogs and cats is fine or 2) are you saying that we shouldn’t use any animal fur/skin and that none of these practices are ok?
Don’t assume that everyone who is anti-dog/cat fur is a hypocrite. I for one would love to see a ban on all fur, whether it comes from minks, rabbits, cats, dogs, whatever. I don’t eat meat and don’t think that commercial factory farming is OK either. I don’t feel that it’s more acceptable to kill a pig than a dog.
BUT as much as we can do, we’re only human. We can’t uproot our entire lives and go and live in the mountains, surviving off roots and wild fruit. We’re all hooked up to the matrix, and like the movie says, the longer you’ve been hooked up, the less chance there is that you can safely and happily unplug yourself. The whole world is based on supply/demand and trading of commodities, of which animals happen to play a large role. Yeah, I do my little part and try to abstain from anything which comes from the death or suffering of an animal. But in the big picture, one person doing this is not going to make a huge difference, and you’re right, it is largely about conscience.
But is that any reason to attack and criticise people who are at least doing something to reduce some of the suffering and cruelty in this world? Would it be better if they did nothing, and just let the trade in dogs and cats continue? Is it not better, even if you think they’re hypocrites, that at least some of the creatures of this world have been spared what would’ve been a horrible existence?
Well, that’s how I try to look at it. It’s all too easy to criticise and pick on people who are doing something worthwhile, and try to “show them up”. If you really think they’re such hypocrites, what are you doing about it?
You make a good point, that people are more concerned about the plight of dogs and cats because they’ve owned them as pets, and are therefore familiar to them. But it’s the same thing with humans. You hear about genocide in Africa, about mothers and children being gang-raped and then being blown away with AK-47s. Do you (I’m using the impersonal “you”, not referring to “you” as in lullipus, I mean “you” as in the average Joe) drop everything, pick up a gun and go and hunt down the perpetrators of this evil to mete out justice? Not likely. However, someone does the same thing to your sister and you won’t rest until they are dead or in prison. Correct? Why? Because your sister is familiar to you, whereas strangers in a faraway land are not. See where this analogy is going? Pigs or cattle in a factory farm are not familiar to the average person. That’s why it’s easy to eat meat, or wear leather. (Please not, I’m not judging anyone who does these things. I’m just trying to make a philosophical point). But cats and dogs generally are, so when we see images of them being tortured or killed, it has a much greater impact - just like seeing a family member or a friend being harmed.
So don’t come down too hard on these “hypocrites” who oppose dog and cat fur. Because when it comes down to it, every human being is essentially a hypocrite.
Signing out,
a hypocrite.
I weren’t trying to call no one a hypocrite. I was trying to answer the question Mother Theresa asked.
I’m sure most of the people who feverently oppose fur are also vegetarians too. So unless they insist upon outfitting their entire houses with leather funiture and choose only to wear leather, I think they’re safe from being hypocrites.
[quote=“Mother Theresa”]I agree that wearing fur is a vile practice, but can someone please explain again why it’s worse to kill cats and dogs for their fur then it is to kill minks or racoons or whatever other animals?
Or is it solely a matter of this being a first step towards banning the killing of other animals, also, for their fur?[/quote]
I said there ain’t no difference and one is not worse than the other. All animal products are on an equal level of “badness” regardless of which animal they come from. We just selectively ignore the death of animals which make life convenient for us. And that’s the way things are.
Yeah but we’re omnivores, not herbivores, so do you have sympathy for the endless microorganisms and brine related shimp that you swallow with every cup of water?
Animals are not the only living things, but I’m in no position to argue…
Besides I eat veggies because I hate veggies. Damn plants.
But while we’re on the issue of skin-use, do you happen to own a belt?
Lullipus, ok I understand where you’re coming from now. Yeah, selective sympathy is the way of life, whether we’re talking about humans or animals.
[quote=“ShrimpCrackers”]Yeah but we’re omnivores, not herbivores, so do you have sympathy for the endless microorganisms and brine related shimp that you swallow with every cup of water?
Animals are not the only living things, but I’m in no position to argue…
Besides I eat veggies because I hate veggies. Damn plants.
But while we’re on the issue of skin-use, do you happen to own a belt?[/quote]
I thought that I had already pointed out that almost everyone, no matter how hard they try, is essentially a hypocrite in some way. Try rereading what I said. Sympathy is relative. Also, some people try harder than others, some just dont care.
OK, so your point is, why bother having sympathy for animals (which are merely one example of a category of life-form) when every action you take on earth results in the consumption of life, be it microbes, plants or brine shrimp in the water we drink. You seem to be taking the value of “sympathy” as absolute. If this is the case, that sympathy has an absolute value (ie, we should value the lives of everything equally, from brine shrimp to dog) therefore we should a) use meat and animal products completely free from guilt or b) not use any animal products whatsoever, not eat plants, or even drink water because otherwise we are hyprocrites for valuing some lives above others. If you take the line of (a) then you would surely have no problem with killing/factory farming humans, because you have stated that the value of sympathy for every form of life is an absolute (constant), so we should have as much (or as little) compassion for our fellow humans as we should have for a germ. Do you see the flaw in that argument?
I would argue that sympathy is not absolute, iand s not a constant. It’s the way life is. Every form of life exists by consuming other forms of life, whether plants or animals. Because animals, especially mammals, are like me, in that they have brains and a central nervous system, my sympathy for their lives is greater than my sympathy for that of a microorganism which is basically unicellular or has no brain/central nervous system. Basically, it boils down to the fact that I believe that most animals are sentient beings; ie, they are capable of feeling emotions such as pain, fear, distress or anger, or love, as pet owners would surely testify. Although it has been proven that plants can respond to stimuli, and some people would call this “pain”, it is in nowhere near as complex and intense a manner a mammal would react.
Therefore I try to reserve my sympathy for humans and animals, beings which can think and feel.
And yes, I do own a leather belt, which I’ve had for years, bought before I was really serious about this stuff. But anyway:
Did I not say that we’re all hypocrites? When it wears out, I’ll replace it with something synthetic.
In pre-columbian south america, dogs were farmed for food - mainly on scraps.
Until the sheep was domesticated, we would rely soly on bark clothing and fur to keep us warm. Where I am from, bark clothing would not have been enough.
I can’t see what the problem with fur is, honestly. We raise pigs for their meat, we raise mink for their hide, we raise chickens for their eggs. I am pro all of those things.
[quote=“ShrimpCrackers”]
But while we’re on the issue of skin-use, do you happen to own a belt?[/quote]
I don’t have a leather belt but…My wallet has two words printed in it. Genuine Leather 
bobepine
[quote=“ShrimpCrackers”]
But while we’re on the issue of skin-use, do you happen to own a belt?[/quote]
Yeah, but it isn’t made from leather. 
Leather - durable, natural, and with strength. Used a fine pair of leather pants till only 2-3 years ago.
Very good for a wet Taiwanese winter BTW.
Eating steak and criticizing the use of fur and leather products. Oh well, I am proud of the fact that we are one of the biggest fur and leather exporters globally.
Thank you Trapjaw for your clear explanation
The world is not going to change because of this ban but it is a great step forward and surely less dogs and cats will be killed because of less demand in Europe.
Can t change the world completely but what I can personally do to help avoid cruelty, unnecessary suffering, I try to do it.
I eat no meat, only wear synthetic (even boots or shoes). It s not hard to do, I don t miss anything because I m fully convinced of what I do and there are plenty of other good things to eat or products to buy
in the parts of Europe dog and cat fur has not been a fashion item in living memory.
The ban in France is more symbolic than anything else - like Canada banning the sale of dog meat. Nice gesture, but won’t save any dogs.(There’s no-one to save.)
[quote=“Mr He”]in the parts of Europe dog and cat fur has not been a fashion item in living memory.
The ban in France is more symbolic than anything else - like Canada banning the sale of dog meat. Nice gesture, but won’t save any dogs.(There’s no-one to save.)[/quote]
So these are the findings of Mr. He. Let’s compare them to the findings of the US congress:
PDF: "U.S. Dog and Cat Protection Act of 2000
(a) FINDINGS- Congress makes the following findings:
(1) An estimated 2,000,000 dogs and cats are slaughtered and sold annually as part of the international fur trade. Internationally, dog and cat fur is used in a wide variety of products, including fur coats and jackets, fur trimmed garments, hats, gloves, decorative accessories, stuffed animals, and other toys.
[…]
(3) Dog and cat fur, when dyed, is not easily distinguishable to persons who are not experts from other furs such as fox, rabbit, coyote, wolf, and mink, and synthetic materials made to resemble real fur. Dog and cat fur is generally less expensive than other types of fur and may be used as a substitute for more expensive types of furs, which provides an incentive to engage in unfair or fraudulent trade practices in the importation, exportation, distribution, or sale of fur products, including deceptive labeling and other practices designed to disguise the true contents or origin of the product.
[…]
(5) Publicly available evidence reflects ongoing significant use of dogs and cats bred expressly for their fur by foreign fur producers for manufacture into wearing apparel, toys, and other products that have been introduced into United States commerce. The evidence indicates that foreign fur producers also rely on the use of stray dogs and cats and stolen pets for the manufacture of fur products destined for the world and United States markets.
(6) The methods of housing, transporting, and slaughtering dogs and cats for fur production are generally unregulated and inhumane. […]"
I also suggest watching the following video:
"HSUS’s Dog and Cat Fur Investigation
Millions of dogs and cats are slaughtered every year for the fur trade. Where their fur ends up may surprise you."
OK, so all those are supposed to come from Europe?
Honestly, then what you are talking is fur coming from 3rd world countries. In most European countries, you will find that there are no tradition for using this - and if a product is found out to contain dog or cat fur, then it would most likely see sales plummet rather fast.
Mr. He: see (3)
Actually, Mr He, one of the protestations made by the Chinese govt in light of the potential ban on Chinese dog and cat fur was that most of it gets shipped to the U.S. and Europe, and so why the hypocracy.
The answer is, of course, that the vast majority of people are buying it unwittingly.
C’mon, Mr. He. That’s what this is all about. Dogs and cats are raised and killed under appalling conditions in China and the fur is then exported, with Europe being a very important market, particularly after the US ban.
Therefore, banning the import and trade in dog and cat fur in France is not a symbolic act, but a necessary step in the right direction.
