TOPIC: Humane Society Report on Dog Fur

I know there are many pet owners here so I thought I would share this disturbing report from the Humane Society as reported on CNN.<br /> www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/07/dog.fur/index.html <br /><br />David (S.)

<br />I know there are many pet owners here so I thought I would share this disturbing report from the Humane Society as reported on CNN.<br /> www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/02/07/dog.fur/index.html <br /><br />David (S.)<br />

<br /><br />the fur came from raccoon dogs, nocturnal residents of Asian and northern European forests that bear a remarkable resemblance to raccoons.<br /><br />Ya. I guess the only problem with this alert is that these things _aren't_ dogs. Wiki also backs that up but I guess a badger by any other name....<br /><br />The faux/real mislabel should be the actual focus of the press release, but they probably knew no one would pay attention unless they tossed in a good chunk of sophistry.

From Wiki:<br /><br />'The Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides "nycto-" = Gr. "night," "ereutes" = Gr. "wanderer," "procyon" = "raccoon," "-oides" = Gr. "-oid") is a member of the canidae family (which includes dogs, wolves, and foxes) and is indigenous to east Asia. It is named for its superficial resemblance to the non-canid raccoon.'<br /><br />So he is not incorrect, it is in the dog and wolf family.<br /><br />'The animal carries historical and cultural significance in Japan, where it is called tanuki, usually translated as "badger."'<br /><br />Translations are not always precise, as Badgers belong to the mustelidae family. The Tanuki or Raccoon Dog does belong to that family.<br /><br />Agreeably, though proper labeling should be proceedure.

I'm not sure how to attach the link to the video portion of this article in this post but, in the previous link to cnn, on the left hand side there is a video. In the video they mention some of the fur is also domestic dog and wolf. Henwy, you are right that the raccoon dog is not a domestic dog and thank you for mentioning wikipedia. I have looked up the article and see that it has a good picture of them. The video also explains that the methods to harvest the furs from raccoon dogs are often cruel in nature which include skinning while alive. I see wikipedia also mentions some news reports dating back to 12/22/06 so maybe this isn't news to everyone.<br />David (S.)

<br />'The Raccoon Dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides "nycto-" = Gr. "night," "ereutes" = Gr. "wanderer," "procyon" = "raccoon," "-oides" = Gr. "-oid") is a member of the canidae family (which includes dogs, wolves, and foxes) and is indigenous to east Asia. It is named for its superficial resemblance to the non-canid raccoon.'<br /><br />So he is not incorrect, it is in the dog and wolf family.<br />

<br /><br />What? Of course he's incorrect. It's _NOT_ a dog. You just agreed as such. At no point in the cnn article do I see anything about fur from the 'canidae family'. Instead, I see repeated references to dogs, which this thing is clearly not.<br /><br />It is sorta disturbing if you think about it that actual fur might be cheaper than faux fur since you have to believe that there's no reason a manufacturer would actually spend more on production if they could help it. On the upshot, since it's almost certain to be a chinese company making these, you know that at least someone will be eating them so it's not just skin and toss.<br /><br />ETA: watching the spokesman video I see he also made the mistake of calling the raccoon dog as being of the 'dog species' and that it's a 'type of dog'. It's also a little disturbing that he dosen't break down what the actual stats were. He's saying that 24 out of 25 had problems in their labeling but one of the labeling problems he lumps in with the fact that it might be Spot the Dalmation is that it was simply unlabeled. That's a bit problematic.

And yet according to you, its a badger.<br /><br />Its name is Raccoon Dog, and its in the Dog family, so for terms of simplicity and general understanding what would you have him refer to it as? It can't call it a raccoon because thats not in the family, and its name is because of its superficial resemblance to the raccoon.<br />What is your better suggestion?<br /><br />And why because this is done in china makes you automatically think that these animals are also being used as food and not skin and toss?<br />And did you miss the part where these animals are being skinned alive? And the pictures. *shudders* <br /><br />The unlabeling is mentioning a loop hole which should be closed. Because of a value things didn't have to be labeled and things were also being mislabeled. It is because of these things that these garment items were making their way into the local retail establishments. There is a reason why it was being mentioned.<br /><br />The whole thing just makes me feel ill. *shakes head* I just don't understand how people can do that to a living creature. The pictures are highly disturbing.

<br />And yet according to you, its a badger.<br /><br />Its name is Raccoon Dog, and its in the Dog family, so for terms of simplicity and general understanding what would you have him refer to it as? It can't call it a raccoon because thats not in the family, and its name is because of its superficial resemblance to the raccoon.<br />What is your better suggestion?<br /><br />And why because this is done in china makes you automatically think that these animals are also being used as food and not skin and toss?<br />And did you miss the part where these animals are being skinned alive? And the pictures. *shudders* <br /><br />The unlabeling is mentioning a loop hole which should be closed. Because of a value things didn't have to be labeled and things were also being mislabeled. It is because of these things that these garment items were making their way into the local retail establishments. There is a reason why it was being mentioned.<br />

<br /><br />Did you even read the wiki article you quoted? Look at where it mentions badger and you might get what I was referring to and why the 'by any other name' applies.<br /><br />There is also no 'Dog Family' if we're going to get nitpicky. It's in the same Family as the domesticated dog, but that's hardly the same thing. Humans and gibbons also share a Family but I'd hardly invite them over for christmas dinner.<br /><br />My better suggestion? Why not simply state the truth and remove the falsehoods. It's not a type of dog. If they wanted to refer to its nomenclature and taxonomy they should have spoken of the Family Canidae. It would have also been factually accurate, though deceptive in meaning, to have referred to them as canines. <br /><br />As for how I'm sure they're eating them....I can only assume that you haven't been to a marketplace in china anytime recently. Meat's still very expensive there for the average person and the idea they would toss this is just not believable. Hell, even the japanese eat these suckers.<br /><br />Lastly, at no point did the spokesman mention that not labeling is a loophole. I can only assume because that would be blatantly false rather than simply sophistry. By law, it must be tagged. So your premise is off there.

It amazes me that the only thing you seem to take away from this article is what they called the poor animals that were being skinned alive and passed off as fake fur. *shakes head*<br />*is saddened*<br />I just don't understand how people could do that to animals.<br />

I figure the fact that I just had a couple chunks of chicken for lunch makes any arguement against killing animals problematic. My internal hypocrisy can only extend so far.

I agree with Joyus - It doesn't matter if they were skinning sewer rats for the fur, the fact that they are being skinned alive is awful.<br /><br />I am a carnivore, but at least there are rules for the humane treatment of those animals.<br /><br />Brian<br />

<br />I agree with Joyus - It doesn't matter if they were skinning sewer rats for the fur, the fact that they are being skinned alive is awful.<br /><br />I am a carnivore, but at least there are rules for the humane treatment of those animals.<br />

<br /><br />So it's the mechanism of fur removal with which you have the problem? That seems to be distinctly different from the focus of the Humane Society Report. If these companies were actually using dog (beagles, collies, etc) fur, but killed them through throat slitting after a bolt pistol to stun them like cattle, you'd be okay with that?<br /><br />If that's the case, I think I can jump on board with it. If there's no good and justifiable reason for it, suffering should be reduced.

I certainly have less of a problem with food animals than I do with fur.  Unless you are living in Outer Mongolia or Lapland and need to wear furs to survive, I feel than ANY method of killing animals for their fur/skin is unacceptable.<br /><br />Brian<br />