FWD: (CN) Animal Cruelty in Chinese Fur Trade

[Guest guest]

AnimalVoicesNews

 

MOUNTAIN VIEWS: ANIMAL CRUELTY IN CHINESE FUR TRADE

 

By John Hanchette <Hanchette6 @ aol.com> (Close spaces)

 

OLEAN -- Warning: You are about to encounter below yet another teary-

eyed, bleeding-heart column concerning unspeakable cruelty to

animals.

 

If you don't like that subject, or think I dwell on it too much, turn

to other pages in this fine publication or click on another screen if

you're reading this on the Internet. I'm going to write about it

anyway because it needs telling. Sit there and fume for all I care.

 

Previous columns on the profitable slaughter of American horses for

foreign consumption drew more reaction than just about anything I've

ever written, and a vote outlawing killing horses for such purpose --

an act that ostensibly would shut down European-owned slaughter

plants in Texas and Illinois -- is supposedly headed for floor action

in Congress on Sept. 7.

 

(My prediction? The bill will die in the House Rules Committee, even

though surveyed Americans are overwhelmingly for it, because the pro-

slaughter opponents have had all August recess to spread enough money

around Washington and legally or illegally fill up campaign war

chests in an election year. On Capitol Hill, money talks and

constituent opinion walks.)

 

About 90 percent of the feedback to me on this subject was favorable,

but aside from the smattering of laughable wingnut letters, I was

surprised to note that several serious critical correspondents

immediately upon reading the pieces assumed I was:

 

1. A vegetarian (I'm not),

2. A member of PETA (I'm not),

3. A liberal Democrat (I'm not),

4. All three (I'm not).

 

PETA stands for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and the

assumption I belonged usually came in the form of strident

accusations, as if belonging to this group is akin to membership in

the Hitler Youth, or growing up a Communist, or joining the Taliban,

or something equally nefarious. I don't get it.

 

This well-organized group has been around for a while and it always

seemed to me its outraged stances against needless and outdated

animal lab research and killing of animals for consumerism, business,

so-called sport or fashion were solid, logical and righteous.

 

PETA and other similar groups from allied countries in the " western "

culture are currently fighting an under-the-radar practice that will

be the subject of this column: the skinning of cats and dogs, many of

them household pets and many of them alive when flayed, their fur

suffered up for later sale of little pieces of their pelts on the

fashion market.

 

(There, I finally got to my lead subject in the ninth paragraph -- my

journalism students who may be reading this are requested to ignore

the format, but not the message.)

 

The prime culprit is China. There was a time in America when

politicians, presidents and other national leaders would speak out

against a country that was routinely doing something Americans

obviously didn't like, but that time is not today. Our political

culture -- its emotions molded by Wall Street -- is all about

globalization and free trade and business, business, business. Mammon

is today almighty, and American policy is all about doing anything we

can -- anything -- to accommodate our former enemies if it means some

profit for us, or the ability to export some more American jobs there

for doing-business costs that are far cheaper than those in the USA.

 

Oh, sure, we've had " preventative " federal law on this since way back

in 1951, when the Fur Products Labeling Act required fur garments

sold in this country to be labeled both by country of origin and

species so conscientious buyers would be able to shun a purchase if

it offended them. At first, it seemed to work, but the lobbyists

finally got to the executive branch through a loophole in the law.

Products with a " relatively small quantity or value " of fur on them

were exempted. In Washington, anytime the amorphous word " relatively "

is included in an enactment, lobbyists see it as an opening one could

drive the Queen Mary through.

 

The Federal Trade Commission for decades defined " relatively small "

as selling for $20 or less.

 

By 1998, under constant pressure, the FTC had expanded that exemption

to any fur-bearing piece of clothing that sold for $150. So, today

you can buy a $300 leather jacket with half its value comprised by

collar and cuff fur, and find no reference on the tag that it is from

a fox pelt in China.

 

And if it's from China, it probably isn't fox. It's probably sheared

dog or cat.

 

The Chinese have discovered how to game the marketplace. According to

The Humane Society of the United States, in its June

publication, " When garments are sheared or dyed to look fake -- as so

many of today's fur-trimmed garments are -- consumers are even more

likely to mistakenly believe they're purchasing faux fur. Add to this

the increased realism of faux fur, and the stage is set for confusion

in the marketplace. "

 

Another dodge around the FTC regulation is that it is now legally

interpreted to mean that any single piece of it must be worth $150 or

more to carry the origin-species tag. A mink coat would be not made

from a full fur (unless it was very tiny), but from as many as 30 or

40 individual pelts, so the label carries no hint that the fur is

real, or where it's from. In fact, the number of animals killed

specifically for trim probably exceeds the number killed for " full-

fur " garments, as they're called in the trade.

 

So the existing law, like so many others, is basically useless. And

that's the way the furriers want it. Imagine your inclination to buy

a coat if the label read " Made in China -- Labrador Retriever Skins. "

 

Affronted yet? Read on.

 

The HSUS sent investigators to China. They found the Chinese are

killing " an estimated two million dogs and cats a year for the fur

trade. " The labels don't reflect this. Another 45 million dogs and

cats are being raised in cramped cages in the expectation the current

booming fur market will keep going.

 

Even if it's referred to at all on a label for American reading, dog

fur is usually and misleadingly called " Asian wolf " or " Sobaki "

or " Pommern wolf " or " loup d'Asie. "

 

Cat fur is usually passed off as " rabbit " or " goyangi " or " gatto

cinesi. "

 

Congress in 2000 actually banned the import of fur products made from

domestic dogs and cats, but the humanitarian groups think it's still

going on because without the labels, who can tell without testing

every garment? Dog and cat fur for trim, and sometimes whole garment,

is still sold legally in Europe and Russia, and the Czechs are also

killing animals for this purpose, according to HSUS.

 

Here, according to " Human Activist, " the HSUS newsletter, are some of

the methods used to kill the dogs and cats in obtaining their fur:

 

* Gassing

* Injection with pesticides

* Snapping of necks

* Anal electrocution

 

Yes, this last means what you fear it does. The executioner sticks a

wired metal prod up the dog's or cat's ass and hits the switch. Nice,

huh?

 

PETA actually obtained film footage of some of the kill practices.

The films show cats struggling inside a closed sack before it is

thrown into a vat of steaming water.

 

" They are boiled to death and skinned by a fleecing machine similar

to a launderette tumble drier, " according to a recent report on

England's BBC network and the evening news.

 

Another kill method captured by PETA and shown by the BBC features

dogs and cats deliberately being thrown from the top deck of a

special bus -- onto concrete pavements below. According to a report

by Adrian Addison of the BBC: " The screaming animals, many with their

paws now smashed from the fall, are then lifted out with long metal

tongs and thrown over a seven-foot fence. They are then killed and

skinned for their fur. Animal welfare group PETA believes many of

them are still alive as their skins are peeled away. "

 

Yet more PETA film showed raccoons and foxes slammed to the

ground " and still struggling " as their skin was removed. Sir Paul

McCartney -- and his wife, Heather, while they were still living

happily together -- were so stricken by this last November, they

urged consumers to boycott Chinese goods. And the famous Beatle

McCartney, who viewed the smuggled kill film and called the Chinese

methods " barbaric, horrific, " vowed never to perform in China.

 

" I wouldn't even dream of going over there to play, in the same way I

wouldn't go to a country that supported apartheid, " Sir Paul told the

BBC. " This is just disgusting. It's just against every rule of

humanity. ... How can the host nation of the Olympics be seen

allowing animals to be treated in this terrible way? ... If they want

to consider themselves a civilized nation, they're going to have to

stop this. "

 

Good for McCartney. So, according to the BBC, how did the Chinese

react to Sir Paul's outburst? A spokesman at the Chinese Embassy in

London said, " We do not encourage the ill treatment of cats and dogs.

But, anyway, the fur trade mostly feeds markets in the U.S. and

Europe. Most of this fur is not for the Chinese market. So the

Americans and Europeans should accept the blame. We have no plans to

clamp down on this internally that I am aware of -- it is for the

U.S. and Europeans to take their own action. They should boycott fur

as a fashion material. "

 

Translated: We didn't do it, but even if we did, you guys are

encouraging us to do it, so stop complaining.

 

This, of course, is the same argument used by cocaine smugglers who

grow blow in South America: It's the fault of the consumer, not the

supplier. And there is some merit to it. When I learned late in life

that Koreans prize dogs as a delicacy, I stopped buying Hyundais.

 

But it didn't shut down the Hyundai factories, or keep the Koreans

from chowing down dogs.

 

When McCartney blew his stack, the British Fur Trade Association

insisted its members do not knowingly use dog and cat fur, and other

pro-furrier groups claimed it would be hard to find any evidence of

such in all of Europe. But the BBC and Adrian Addison found a member

of the European Union parliament (Struan Stevenson) who bought in

Europe -- and displayed in his Brussels office -- a nice coat made

from an Alsatian hound, a pelt made from four golden retrievers and a

warm blanket made from about 70 cats.

 

Two other groups, Britain's Care for the Wild and the Swiss Animal

Protection organization, put together a horrific report last year

from undercover investigators who -- among others, too -- noticed

many of the dogs and cats had collars and were obviously stolen

gentle pets. They reported the animals were " swung against the

ground " and then were hung upside down:

 

" Starting from the hind legs, workers then wrench the animals' skin

from their suspended bodies, until it comes off over the head ... a

significant number of animals remain fully conscious during this

process. "

 

If you want to view the cruelty, go to www.furisdead.com or

www.petatv.com.

 

But don't do it at dinner time. If you want a list of the 30-plus

Chinese fur manufacturers who are complicit in this trade, go to

chinasuppliers.alibaba.com.

 

This is no small cheese. The Standard, a Chinese business daily,

estimates the country's fur business amounted to $998 million three

years ago and has grown about 40 percent since.

 

So, let's do two things. Let's take the advice of the Chinese Embassy

in London and complain to someone. Let's make it the Chinese

ambassador to the United States. Write to:

 

His Excellency Zhou Wenzhong

Ambassador of the People's Republic of China

2300 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20008

(Or call at 202-328-2574)

 

Then contact your own member of Congress and tell him or her to

support and co-sponsor the bipartisan House Bill No. 4904, which is

called the Truth in Fur Labeling Act. It requires all garments

trimmed with real animal fur be clearly labeled by species,

regardless of value. It is authored by Republican Congressman Michael

Ferguson of New Jersey and by Democrat James Moran of Virginia.

 

Meanwhile, if you want to write me telling me what a blithering old

softy I am, save your time. If you do write me, include the names,

breeds and locations of your own dogs and cats. I'll put them on the

Internet. The Chinese will probably be interested and grateful.

 

--------------------------------

John Hanchette, a professor of journalism at St. Bonaventure

University, is a former editor of the Niagara Gazette and a Pulitzer

Prize-winning national correspondent. He was a founding editor of USA

Today and was recently named by Gannett as one of the Top 10

reporters of the past 25 years. He can be contacted via e-mail at

Hanchette6.

 

Niagara Falls Reporter www.niagarafallsreporter.com August 29

2006

 

~~~~~~~~Letter Preview~~~~~~~Unedited/j

 

Also send this directly.

 

CALL/EMAIL/FAX your U.S. House Representative

Locate your representative here: <http://www.congress.org/>

 

 

Your U.S. Representative

 

Re: We Want Truth in Fur Labeling!

 

Support H.R. 4904, the Truth in Fur Labeling Act

 

 

Dear Representative,

 

I strongly urge you to co-sponsor H.R. 4904, the Truth in Fur

Labeling Act. Your support will help ensure that consumers can make

informed decisions about the products they choose to purchase. Dyed

fur, shaved fur, and other manipulations of animal fur make it very

difficult to determine what is being sold in stores.

 

Consumers should have a right to know whether they are purchasing

animal fur and, if so, which country produced the fur used. I am

concerned that dog and cat fur could be entering the country

illegally as unlabelled fur trim.

 

Sincerely,