I wonder do the sell the meat to the French

Gordon

CATS 'FARMED FOR SKINS IN EU'
May 8, 2003
BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3009537.stm
BBC News has seen evidence which suggests that cats are being farmed for
their skins in the European Union.
It is thought that tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands of cat
and dog skins are traded in Europe each year.
Campaigners say that now is the time for national governments or the
European Commission to act.
Europe, it seems, is a magnet for cat and dog fur.
Cat blankets, so the aficionados say, are good for rheumatism.
Dog pelts are often labeled misleadingly and sold as the fur of some
exotic, even mythical beast.
Since the US has banned the trade of cat and dog skins, the European market
has expanded.
A video seen by BBC correspondent Tim Franks shows one Belgian furrier
displaying a blanket he says was made from cats farmed in Belgium.
What is more, he says that stray cats and dogs are rounded up and skinned.
That would seem to contradict the assertion from the officials who help run
the EU at the European Commission that there is no cat or dog farming inside
the union.
"Let me say that cats and dogs are not farmed for their fur in the 15 member
states of the European Union," EU Health and Consumer Protection
commissioner David Byrne wrote to a British member of the European
Parliament last year.
Officials in Brussels repeated on Thursday that they had no evidence of cat
or dog farming in the EU.
They said it was up to national governments to ban the trade in cat and dog
fur.
Alsatian coat
So far, though, only Italy has brought in such a ban.
British MEP Struan Stevenson told the BBC that two million cats and dogs are
being killed in China alone each year, in order to satisfy demand in Europe.
He also said that he has seen videos of animals being skinned alive.
As evidence of the trade he has collected:
A blanket made out of four golden retrievers, bought in Copenhagen
Individual cat skins complete with eye-holes, paws and tails, bought in
Barcelona
A full-length coat made out of up to 42 Alsatian puppies, bought in Berlin
Campaigners accuses the European Commission of lacking the political will to
address the issue, arguing that the trade is not only morally repugnant, but
also a case of consumer fraud.
The British Department of Trade and Industry says it is examining the case
for more scientific testing and more accurate labelling.
But it says that scientific testing very difficult to do on account of the
expense and the shortage of laboratories capable of doing it

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ebb7fb5_4@newsfeed...
CATS 'FARMED FOR SKINS IN EU'
May 8, 2003
BBC News
Since the US has banned the trade of cat and dog skins, the European
market
has expanded.
[snip]
Campaigners accuses the European Commission of lacking the political will
to
address the issue, arguing that the trade is not only morally repugnant,
but
also a case of consumer fraud.


Why would it be worse to kill a cat or dog for their fur, than to kill a
beaver, fox, rabbit or mink?

M

"Michelle Fulton" wrote in message
igy.com...

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ebb7fb5_4@newsfeed...
CATS 'FARMED FOR SKINS IN EU'
May 8, 2003
BBC News
Since the US has banned the trade of cat and dog skins, the European
market
has expanded.
[snip]
Campaigners accuses the European Commission of lacking the political
will
to
address the issue, arguing that the trade is not only morally repugnant,
but
also a case of consumer fraud.


Why would it be worse to kill a cat or dog for their fur, than to kill a
beaver, fox, rabbit or mink?

House cat fur is very poor quality It is brittle and does not last. Dog fur
would depend on breed.

When bob cat fur was $200 USD per hide a cat might bring 3 dollars.Opossums
were bringing 6 bucks.

Even bob cat fur will not stand up like mink or other better quality fur.

Gordon

"Gordon Couger" wrote in message
news:3ebc08ee$1_4@newsfeed...

House cat fur is very poor quality It is brittle and does not last. Dog
fur
would depend on breed.

When bob cat fur was $200 USD per hide a cat might bring 3
dollars.Opossums
were bringing 6 bucks.

Even bob cat fur will not stand up like mink or other better quality fur.

I understand all of that, but what has that to do with the law being that
you can kill one kind of creature for it's fur and not another?

By the way, how are you and yours doing after the storms? I hope all is
well :-)

M

On Fri, 09 May 2003 12:31:01 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
wrote:

Campaigners accuses the European Commission of lacking the
political will to address the issue, arguing that the trade
is not only morally repugnant, but also a case of consumer fraud.

Why would it be worse to kill a cat or dog for their fur, than to kill a
beaver, fox, rabbit or mink?

Well, it does not come out very clearly from the quote you make above,
although the text does indicate the direction of stated concerns.

'morally repugnant' points to cat and dog skins frequently originating
from animals kept, treated and slaugtered in ways that are in
disaccord with our standards of animal welfare, and 'consumer fraud'
points to the likelihood that the skins are brought to market and sold
to consumers as being from something else than cats and dogs.

For completion, and behind this, cats and dogs are by a combination of
nature and tradition 'companion animals' -- a cat or a dog partake
in many people's lives as a companion or friend, naturally leading to
a higher than normal interspecies empathy.

Why, certainly it could be expected that an aging broad who had cherished
the company of her pussy cat of puppy dog would be pleased as peaches to
have a lovely stole or pair of cuffs made of their familiar remains to
comfort her yet again through the long and lonely days and nights.

I vote for it. Lead me to the polls.
-=-
Jim Cluny


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 May 2003 12:31:01 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
wrote:

Campaigners accuses the European Commission of lacking the
political will to address the issue, arguing that the trade
is not only morally repugnant, but also a case of consumer fraud.

Why would it be worse to kill a cat or dog for their fur, than to kill a
beaver, fox, rabbit or mink?

Well, it does not come out very clearly from the quote you make above,
although the text does indicate the direction of stated concerns.

'morally repugnant' points to cat and dog skins frequently originating
from animals kept, treated and slaugtered in ways that are in
disaccord with our standards of animal welfare, and 'consumer fraud'
points to the likelihood that the skins are brought to market and sold
to consumers as being from something else than cats and dogs.

For completion, and behind this, cats and dogs are by a combination of
nature and tradition 'companion animals' -- a cat or a dog partake
in many people's lives as a companion or friend, naturally leading to
a higher than normal interspecies empathy.

On Sat, 10 May 2003 01:14:49 GMT, "Jim Cluny"
wrote:

Why, certainly it could be expected that an aging broad who had cherished
the company of her pussy cat of puppy dog would be pleased as peaches to
have a lovely stole or pair of cuffs made of their familiar remains to
comfort her yet again through the long and lonely days and nights.

I vote for it. Lead me to the polls.

Sure, Old Clunker, to kick out those responsible for the anti-fur
trade law you so detest, you just cast your vote he
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...

Well, it does not come out very clearly from the quote you make above,
although the text does indicate the direction of stated concerns.

It was quoted that the US has banned the trade of dog and cat skins, but I
don't believe the trade of other animal skins has been banned. I understand
your statement about dogs and cats having a *closer* relationship with
humans, but they are still just animals. If I have a pet rabbit, which many
people do, I think it would be legal to kill it and sell it's skin/fur. It
just doesn't make since to me.

M

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 May 2003 12:31:01 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
wrote:

Campaigners accuses the European Commission of lacking the
political will to address the issue, arguing that the trade
is not only morally repugnant, but also a case of consumer fraud.

Why would it be worse to kill a cat or dog for their fur, than to kill a
beaver, fox, rabbit or mink?

Well, it does not come out very clearly from the quote you make above,
although the text does indicate the direction of stated concerns.

'morally repugnant' points to cat and dog skins frequently originating
from animals kept, treated and slaugtered in ways that are in
disaccord with our standards of animal welfare, and 'consumer fraud'
points to the likelihood that the skins are brought to market and sold
to consumers as being from something else than cats and dogs.

For completion, and behind this, cats and dogs are by a combination of
nature and tradition 'companion animals' -- a cat or a dog partake
in many people's lives as a companion or friend, naturally leading to
a higher than normal interspecies empathy.

The status of dogs and cats depends on the culture. I have a friend that
taught on an Indian reservation in the southwest US. He was very careful not
to tell his wife what some of the meals were for a while. Dogs are a food
animal to some Indian cultures and 40 years ago some of the reservation were
not much changed from the way they had lived before Americans came. Part of
them still stay separate from the rest of the culture in spite of all the
scholarships and opportunities available to them. The ones that do choose to
take our way do for the most part do very well.

It is a really big deal in California that horses are slaughtered and sent
to France.

People should be more tolerant of others culture.

Gordon

Michelle Fulton writes
Why would it be worse to kill a cat or dog for their fur, than to kill a
beaver, fox, rabbit or mink?

Dunno, but my cat has really nice soft fur.

--
Oz
This post is worth absolutely nothing and is probably fallacious.
Note: soon (maybe already) only posts via despammed.com will be accepted.

"Michelle Fulton" wrote in message
om...

"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...

Well, it does not come out very clearly from the quote you make above,
although the text does indicate the direction of stated concerns.

It was quoted that the US has banned the trade of dog and cat skins, but I
don't believe the trade of other animal skins has been banned. I
understand
your statement about dogs and cats having a *closer* relationship with
humans, but they are still just animals. If I have a pet rabbit, which
many
people do, I think it would be legal to kill it and sell it's skin/fur.
It
just doesn't make since to me.

no sense in it at all, it is the area of emotion and sense doesn't come into
it

Jim Webster

M

(Oz) writes:

Dunno, but my cat has really nice soft fur.

Yes, but domestic cat fur is not durable and makes a very poor quality
pelt. The only domestic cat pelt I have ever seen was a wall hanging.
OTOH, the canines and cynodonts like fox and raccoons make very nice
pelts. The only reason you don't see coyote muffs is that coyotes
don't have very interesting coloration. The Chinese could probably
develop a nice sideline to their food dog industry by breeding for a
meaty animal with an attractive coat.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

(Gordon Couger) writes:

It is a really big deal in California that horses are slaughtered and sent
to France.

It is now illegal to sell horse meat for human consumption in California,
so either the horse is shipped out of state for slaughter or it goes into
the grinders at the pet food plant. I always marvelled at the split
personality of the animal lovers who can't stand the idea of Trigger on
the BBQ, but would never tolerate a shortage of cat food.

--
http://home.teleport.com/~larryc

On Sat, 10 May 2003 03:40:45 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
wrote:


"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
.. .

Well, it does not come out very clearly from the quote you make above,
although the text does indicate the direction of stated concerns.

It was quoted that the US has banned the trade of dog and cat skins, but I
don't believe the trade of other animal skins has been banned.

In fact there are dozens and dozens of other animal species, the skins
of which it is illegal to trade in the US, but that is of course
another story.

I understand your statement about dogs and cats having a *closer*
relationship with humans, but they are still just animals. If I
have a pet rabbit, which many people do, I think it would be legal
to kill it and sell it's skin/fur.

Yes, that is a fact, there is no law in the US against trade in rabbit
skin.

It just doesn't make since to me.

Well, if the question is framed into a sufficiently limited view of
things, e.g. why you can trade the skin of your pet rabbit but not of
your pet cat, the legislation does not make sense.