Rover, Cruella and the MEPs
It鈥檚 just possible your child goes to bed every night cuddling up to that favourite toy, Hoofy bear or tiny Ted, unaware that its soft fur could, just could, be made out of Rover鈥檚 third cousin.
What is the subject that members of the find makes their postbag bulge? Not the constitution. Not relations with Russia. Not energy policy. But the trade in cat and dog fur. It seems that Cruella Deville is alive and well and operating from China. Evidently there are farms full of cats and dogs and their fur is used on toys and gloves, to be sold in Europe. So , making it illegal in the EU, as it is in America and Australia.
But hang on. Why is it vile? Is this sense or sentiment? Obviously, making a coat out of giant panda or tiger is wrong. They are rare. Cats and dogs are not. Is farming them for their skin or fur worse than using any other animal? Of course, many people hate all animal fur clothes, but they are not illegal. Is it just because we see them as pets that we find it gross? It seems to me animals have the best chance of being protected if they are cute, or look a bit like us. Saving the slug is not on anyone鈥檚 agenda, although a slug-skin jacket probably wouldn鈥檛 sell very well either.
I鈥檝e every respect for people who object to using animals for food, clothing or sport. Their position is coherent. Incidentally, do people object to, say, horse-riding or using bullocks for ploughing? I am sure the European Parliament could be persuaded to mount a campaign against animal slavery. But anyway, it鈥檚 a coherent position.
But if we eat beef, what鈥檚 wrong with leather? And if we wear leather, what鈥檚 wrong with fur? And if we allow fur, what鈥檚 wrong with Rover and Tiddles providing it?
Don鈥檛 worry, I鈥檓 not sitting at my dining room table typing this, wearing robes of red setter. I am as guilty of sentiment as the next person. I literally threw up when I once ate horse meat by mistake, and shiver when I pass horse butchers in France and Italy. I would never eat lion or monkey. Which is fine. I don鈥檛 have to base my personal choices on logic. And neither do you. I once knew a vegetarian who would eat chicken. Many eat fish. She had every right to be mammalist, and they have every right to be warmbloodist. But should lawmakers restrict our choices based on illogical sentiment?
UPDATE: Thank you for your comments. I have replied to some of them here.
I鈥檓 Mark Mardell, the 91热爆's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
颁辞尘尘别苍迟蝉听听 Post your comment
There is no such thing as a vegetarian that eats chicken or fish - by definition vegetarians do not eat any animal flesh whatsoever. I think you will find the correct word to describe these people is in fact deluded. You might as well say, "I am a pacifist, but I like a nice war now and again", or even, "I am a Christian, but I don't believe in God".
People who eat chicken or fish, but not red meat, are not 'vegetarians'. Only they classify themselves as such.
The proper term for the selectively flesh-eating is 'demi-vegetarian'.
You may be wrong about a Slug-skin jacket. I once knelt on a slug (squish!) and then put my blue jeans in a clothes dryer on hot. It made a patch on the knee that was like incredibly durable vulcanized rubber. The knee on those pants was still going strong when the rest of the jeans was in tatters.
So when petroleum becomes so expensive that it costs a small fortune for synthetic rubber or to ship natural rubber form the tropics, you may be glad that there are local slug farms to make the "Slubber" that keeps your raincoat waterproof.
While the idea of wearing a hat that could justifiably have carried the name Fluffy is indeed sickening, what disturbs me most is the way these animals are kept and slaugthered. I would have the same reaction if cows, sheep or any other animal was subjected to this kind of treatment. Those animals at least are not only kept for their fur, but we also eat the meat, which cannot be said for cats or dogs, who basically die for vanity. It is however indefensible to treat any creature this way.
Funny you should mention illogic, Mr. Mardell.
Your essay is full of it.
Horses and oxen are not slaves. Their partnership with humans is very ancient. The process of domestication has changed humans as well as horses and plough animals.
Even more ancient is the companionship of dogs and cats. They are not slaves either. For many humans, they are objects of love and even worship.
Cats in the wild live an average of one year. Dogs, a little longer. Wild horses and cattle are too rare to really compare.
You are arguing, basically, that if we deprive any animals of life for our own purposes (such as food) or of "freedom" (by confining them and using them to work) then it is illogical to maintain that anyone else may not or should not kill (or mutilate) or confine (or torture) any other animal.
You call that "coherence".
But it isn't "sentiment" that keeps a red setter's hide off your wall - as if we were all hardened murderers, except for the odd burst of teary "sentiment". It is the sense of self.
When no one's eyes meet ours in human recognition, the dog's eyes do. He cares about us even when we don't care about ourselves.
When the hammering of modern society reduces the movements of our bodies so that we barely drag ourselves along, the cat comes along to show us perfect grace and balance, even if it never leaves a single room.
Modern life breaks down our awareness. Constant distraction or discomfort turns our bodies into painful prisons. Dogs and cats reconnect us to nature, even if they cannot make us see it.
The idea you put forward - that we have pets because they are cute, or look like us - could only have come from someone who was aware of things, once, but who has since gotten lost is a hall of mirrors, where images of life are taken for real life.
I guess I feel sorry for you, sir, and all those like you, those who in trivializing the lives of dogs and cats trivialize their own lives as well.
The trade on cat and dog fur should have been banned a long time ago. I have seen photos in the web of Chinese fur factories, which can make a stone weep. Well, better late than never.
I think that the next crime to be targeted is the trade of tiger and leopard pelts in China and Tibet, as well as the "tiger farms" in China.
By your logic, what's to stop us from robing ourselves with human skin?
Every culture draws lines based on feelings which may seem illogical or arbitrary but there is typically a shred of logic in there.
Cats and dogs are intelligent animals who are very aware of their surroundings and experiences and are typically kept in completely inhumane conditions when being bred for fur, or food. They are crammed into cages which are so small they are completely immobilized, often with other animals, and are left to suffer there for long periods of time.
Surely it is not asking to much to treat them a little better than that.
All animals have a place in our society and we have chosen cats and dogs to be our companions, helpers, protectors, and family members. Not coats.
The logic in your article is 100% sound, and I enjoyed the humor immensely. And it's true, how can one eschew one type of leather/fur product but happily clad their feet in cow leather or a coat with a fur collar. It's clearly not logical, and I am a great fan of logical arguments in the face of mainstream, read-it-and-it-must-be-true society. But let's face it - this trade is being carried out under horrendously cruel and obscene circumstances. And consumers are being deceived thinking they are buying something else, and there is no choice involved here. At least the EU has strict regulation regarding the maintenance and slaughter of animals.
Whilst I agree with the author's comments that it is illogical to object to the use of fur from "cute" animals, the article about the abolition of the cat and dog fur trade contained worrying pictures and descriptions of the cruelty done to these animals in the process of killing them for their fur, for example slashing them and letting them bleed to death. So I'm glad they're going to ban it, for that reason.
It's the same argument that means I will eat beef or lamb that's been shot humanely with a bolt, and probably wouldn't have a problem with horse either, and I've shot and prepared rabbit myself, but I won't eat veal or fois gras or net-caught tuna.
I completely agree with the sentiments expressed in the blog. Rather than focusing on the kind of animal the focus must be on the method of killing. Although so called humane methods are often less than humane. In reportedly Europe鈥檚 largest slaughter house in France cows are electrified before being processed, the electrocution doesn鈥檛 always work and so the cows die by being cut in half with a chain saw.
Surely the point is that cats and especially dogs have been bred for thousands of years through countless generations from wild ancestors into "companions" of humans, whether as pets or as working "human-associate" hunters, herders, sled pullers, pest controllers, life savers, blind-human leaders, etc. Horses, too, have played an equally important role in the evolution of human society. It is no accident that theft of a horse was considered to merit a death sentence in many societies!
Over this long period of time these animals have developed an especially intimate relationship with - and utter faith in - their human "owners". To them, we are as God is to us - all knowing and all powerful. To breed and slaughter these animals (or any other animals, for that matter - including domesticated "food" animals and fowls!!) under such barbaric conditions shows a terrible indifference to suffering - which must reflect the general attitude of those who perpetrate it to all suffering, whether animal or human. Many who mistreat animals would also mistreat their fellow humans - were there no laws to prevent them - and many do (Hitler, Pol Pot, all people around the world who "keep or make work for them in their factories and sweatshops and brothels "domestic slaves".), where such laws either do not exist or or not enforceable.
Until humans in general evolve to "naturally" abhor all cruelty from within themselves, those who already do MUST make laws to control those who don't!!
Is any of this illogical? No. It is a simple move towards a respect on our part for animals and other life forms considered inferior to humans. All these discussions and considerations should make us think and examine our conscience: we have to move towards a different way of life on earth and we can only achieve this through a different way of thinking and behaving. However silly any of this may sound to some of us, the one thing we should bear in mind is the blatant fact that this earth does not belong to us humans alone.
Incidentally, a vegetarian is one who consumes animal protein in the form of dairy products and eggs but not in the form of white or red flesh. There are many people who are near-vegetarians in that they consume animal flesh occasionally. Vegans take no animal products what-so-ever. No one should be condemned of course for eating animal flesh but it would be better done in moderation and with every respect and care in the way we treat animals. Put simply, one does not have to love other life forms to realize that life is a question of checks and balances and that we humans need to redress the present situation on earth as a matter of urgency.
If, as Mr. Mardell states, one should not have to base one's personal choices on logic, then one (ethical) choice is as good as the next.
Simply because we are all (to varying degrees) ethical failures does not justify dispensing with ethical considerations altogether.
You're voicing the very same thoughts that occur to me when I read about this.
I don't think there should be any distinction for cats and dogs from other animals used for producing fur, leather, etc.
Personally I don't think we'd really need either fur nor leather, but it's not like I'm doing anything about it either. And I also eat meat so I'm not that sure if I've right to say anything about wearing animal skins either.
As long as the animals for food/fur/leather/etc production are kept in humane conditions and such, it should be fine for any animals that aren't too rare.
Now, I realize that in the news article it didn't seem that some of the dogs and cats were kept in such conditions, but that's surely not a problem with just dogs and cats and should be dealt with otherwise.
'But if we eat beef, what鈥檚 wrong with leather? And if we wear leather, what鈥檚 wrong with fur? And if we allow fur, what鈥檚 wrong with Rover and Tiddles providing it?'
You don't justify a case by pointing out something else is worse. Manson just killed a handfull of people so he is not that bad compared to Hitler,...? So we may kill a few people too?
What's wrong with human skin providing raw material for lamp shades or book covers,... ? I think you know.
The moral and ethic thing to do would be to reverse your logic, allthough that would require lots of personal effort, which the younger generations are willing to take more and more; IT'S WRONG TO TO USE ROVER AND TIDDLES TO PROVIDE FUR, FUR IS WRONG, WE DON'T WEAR LEATHER AND WE DON'T EAT BEEF BECAUSE IT'S MORAL AND ETHICALY UNJUSTIFIABLE.
I think once you see any of the video's avaiable of how these animals are treated and killed,It does'nt matter if a cat, dog or cow, the barbaric way in which they are killed is unforgivable. There are enough alternatives these days that can be used. I just find it sickening the way people treat another life in such a way.
I completely agree. I don-t eat meat but i have been saying for years that if you do, what is wrong with horse and dog meat. There is no difference at all.
And the important thing about fur is that it keeps you warm. So as long as it is properly labelled, then I don-t see the problem. Politicians should be fighting for proper conditions in the fur farms and slaughterhouses, whatever animal is in there.
I am fed up with people-s hypocrisy over the whole issue.
I agree Mark. There has to be a clear distinction in legislation between what is immoral a what is fueled by sentimentalism. I am a vegetarian and am one of those who eat fish and love wearing leather and i justify that because there is no piety in my choice. Leave piety to Benedict the millionth and let people wear puss n boot boots.
I live in Asia, (from UK); Korea and Taiwan. These two countries consume anything from puppy blood soup to whale shark sushi. Taiwan also consumes huge amounts of tiger and rare turtle products. I have seen many horrific conditions for animals through my travels, taking many pictures in countries like Vietnam, Philippines and Mongolia, where animals are relied upon. I think the main reason for this revulsion over cats and dogs are the methods involved within the practice. Dogs and cats are tortured, we know that. It's a common Asian process which is seemingly needless.
Animals die for food every minute; largely painless and relatively quickly, so generally the method is not seen or mentioned (although far more pigs and cows have horrific deaths).
If you watch a cookery program with Delia Smith remarking on the slaughtering of her ingredients, less people would want to eat it. I am a strict vegetarian but I cannot disagree with organic farming, I still don't eat it however. The process and connection drawn is the most important aspect for many people I feel....but the 'cute' and 'furry' does play heavy. And since I went swimming with whalesharks, I am spending much of my time (based on personal experience of these creatures), educating locals about the need to enjoy and not eat illegal supplies of the meat.
Thank you for your time.
One of the problems with fur is that animals die purely for fashion - at least leather is a by-product of the beef & dairy industry.
I am not particularly sentimental when it comes to meat - I would be prepared to eat just about any animal (except my own dog) as I'm not sure that eating one type of meat is any worse than another - while living in Australia, I was criticised by a friend for eating kangaroo and wallaby while she tucked into a steak. I couldn't understand why.
What I can't stand though, is cruelty to animals and there is no doubt that the fur trade, and it seems particularly the trade in cat and dog fur, is cruel - that is why it should be banned.
Mark Mardell is either joking or is new to the planet. Get a grip Mark -- and a dog -- perhaps you will then understand just how sentient they are. And yes, all other beings should be spared from your plate and the fabric of your bathrobe too.
But following your scant thread of thought, perhaps we should consider eating humans once they've deceased. If not, what a waste of meat. I heard the skin makes great lamps. Why shoud any resource be spared?
quote: "What is the subject that members of the European Parliament find makes their postbag bulge? Not the constitution. Not relations with Russia.."
To this I would like to add, war, hungering children, people under the poverty line.
I find the vegetarian view highly hypocritical.
I have seen so many vegetarians, worry about animals 100% more than they ever though about starving, sick people in other countries, yet they care about dogs more, who supposedly love them.. or at least they hope that is the case.
Thats the way the world works, stronger countries pursue their interest to the expense of others, killing tons of civilians as collateral damage to plunder oil in other countries.
I find it depressing thinking of some one from the west world like me, sitting comfortably on my desk, feeling so noble for caring about animals when there are people being treated like that and worse.. children not beeing electrocuted or shot, but dying of starvation while the final muscle in their body gets dissolved for protein. I would have 100 stray dogs shot in the head before a let a child die like that, or before I killed a family in the middle east for oil.
But in the end there is only one rule in this world, he who has the power is right. especially when it concerns his interests.
Ethically I can see no difference between cruelty to cute doggies and to hens or sheep. It is the treatment of the animal prior to its (quick and painless) death which should define our acceptance of the product - and China has an abysmal record in this respect.
I am delighted to see the EU moving to ban imports of these products until the farming of the creatures is carried out in an acceptable way. Now if we can just ban battery cages for hens and long-distance transport of animals for slaughter then we will have made a real difference to animal welfare.
If rich countries place such restrictions and high standards on the imports from poorer countries how can they ever prosper. Is this because Asia is booming? And is this just one way to retard it?
I completely agree with rebecca perret.
" What's wrong with human skin providing raw material for lamp shades or book covers,... ? I think you know.
The moral and ethic thing to do would be to reverse your logic, allthough that would require lots of personal effort, which the younger generations are willing to take more and more; IT'S WRONG TO TO USE ROVER AND TIDDLES TO PROVIDE FUR, FUR IS WRONG, WE DON'T WEAR LEATHER AND WE DON'T EAT BEEF BECAUSE IT'S MORAL AND ETHICALY UNJUSTIFIABLE. "
Yeah, sure, but show me why man! show me how it is wrong, show me why it is unjustifiable, or at least state something about which we can all agree! because as said above:
"one should not have to base one's personal choices on logic, then one (ethical) choice is as good as the next".
So, asking
'But if we eat beef, what鈥檚 wrong with leather? And if we wear leather, what鈥檚 wrong with fur? And if we allow fur, what鈥檚 wrong with Rover and Tiddles providing it?',
only asks why a beef-eater should be opposing wearing leather, why a leather-wearer should oppose wearing fur, and why a fur-wearer should oppose cat and dog fur. What is the logical argument that we can understand and justifies these statements? Is there more to be said about this than that this is the particular view of this person for today? And we should know that not because particular moral convinctions of ours are worthless or wrong, but because it is an empirical fact in this world that well-meaning people/beings/whatever tend to be found in both sides of fiercely fighting camps, inflicting much harm on each other. t
I really thought I would get a point of view, but the text only has questions and the author doesn't have the courage to answer any of them, except with new questions.
On one hand, I understand him, since in UK he might be easily targeted by animal-rights groups, his car spray painted etc.
The law seems crazy to me. Instead of banning the use of such fur, why not make sure that decent measures are used when farming these animals. I am waiting the day when vegetarian activists and animal-rights nuts are going to ban my steak... Personally, I don't see the difference between a sheep and a dog. And neither do farmers who - if you had the chance to notice - love their animals a lot, they give them names and at the time of Christmas, they still sacrifice them.
This should be linked to another article - the one pointing that there is a huge percentage of population who do not know where sausages are coming from. We, the human race, are a predator and as long as we do it with the least pain possible, there is nothing wrong but in the head of silly people.
" What's wrong with human skin providing raw material for lamp shades or book covers,... ? I think you know.
The moral and ethic thing to do would be to reverse your logic, allthough that would require lots of personal effort, which the younger generations are willing to take more and more; IT'S WRONG TO TO USE ROVER AND TIDDLES TO PROVIDE FUR, FUR IS WRONG, WE DON'T WEAR LEATHER AND WE DON'T EAT BEEF BECAUSE IT'S MORAL AND ETHICALY UNJUSTIFIABLE. " (Bogaert Pascal, above)
Yeah, sure, but show me why man! show me how it is wrong, show me why it is unjustifiable, or at least state something about which we can all agree! because as said above:
"one should not have to base one's personal choices on logic, then one (ethical) choice is as good as the next".(Fayaz Chagani, above)
So, Mark Mardell asking
'But if we eat beef, what鈥檚 wrong with leather? And if we wear leather, what鈥檚 wrong with fur? And if we allow fur, what鈥檚 wrong with Rover and Tiddles providing it?',
only asks why a beef-eater should be opposing wearing leather, why a leather-wearer should oppose wearing fur, and why a fur-wearer should oppose cat and dog fur. What is the logical argument that we can understand and justifies these ethical stands? Is there more to be said about this than that this is the particular view of this person for today? And we should know that, not because particular moral convinctions of each of us are worthless or wrong, but because it is an empirical fact in this world that well-meaning people/beings/whatever tend to be found in both sides of fiercely fighting camps, inflicting much harm on each other. To just state and serve personal moral convinctions is just not enough. sorry. t
Do those, who are appalled by the way that these poor animals are kept and slaughtered, seriously believe that the pork, beef and lamb on our tables stems from animals that have been kept in free range conditions without discomfort or fear until the day that they peacefully die without an ounce of distress? The next time you buy cheap meat or eat at McDonalds you should be aware that you may well be eating an animal that has never seen the light of day, lives in conditions so vile that it would make your stomach turn and died the most horrific death. I fully agree with the author - just because it's a horse, pig or chicken does not make it any way more acceptable. If you oppose the treatment of dogs and cats in this way, walk the talk and enjoy a life of vegetarianism!
While it's undoubtedly true that the lives and deaths of cats and dogs raised for fur are horribly brutal and cruel, the same holds true for all animals raised for fur. If we're to ban the trade in cat and dog fur for the ethical reason that the trade is steeped in suffering, we must ban all trade in fur. And while we're at it, presumably any other trade which is equally cruel - so that'll be the battery farming of poultry at the very least.
OR we could just be logical, and ban cruelty. Hold all producers of all animal products to high standards of care and only accept imports from those who are able to offer proof of this standard of care. It'd revitalise the farming industry in this country, too.
The millions of people across Europe who have signed petitions, sent emails and written letters over the past eight years will be delighted lawmakers have acted. Should lawmakers restrict choices? Shoppers in the UK and Europe who are buying products made from tortured cats and dogs don't make the choice. They are blissfully unaware that the items they purchase are actually made from the skins of cats and dogs. Labels give scant information of the source and often carry confusing names of non-existent animals. Fur has even been dyed pink or green to look like fake fur. Slaughter of these animals is horrific, with cats strangled outside their cages as other cats look on and dogs noosed with metal wires are slashed across the groin until they bleed to death as the wire noose cuts into their throat. The EU-wide ban on cat and dog fur imports being approved at the European Parliament today is predicted to save the lives of more than two million cats and dogs every year in China.
Surely the answer is clear and precise labelling and then let the consumer decide?
A car bumper sticker I saw last week:
"Support animal rights, eat a vegetarian."
Have you eaten dog, cat or horse . Horse and dog is absolutely delicious, don't you know!? Who are you to deny me my food when you eat yours. Is it your absurd "Brittania rules"upbringing
denying anything which is no your cup of tea, detrimental to others. Halleluja for we know best and all others are wrong and must be forbidden. Censors don't like what J write. That's why we need a free internet
without you
!!!
It's the cruel way in which these animals that are kept and slaughtered that really sickens me. I simply couldn't consider wearing fur of any kind, never mind that of a cat or dog - to put an animal through such pain and misery for nothing more than our own vanity is completely wrong.
There's nothing wrong with eating car or dog, or wearing their fur, per se. However, the conditions in which these animals are kept, and the inhumane ways in which they are slaughtered mean that I for one would never countenance eating them or wearing their fur. The only way to stop this is to make it financially unrewarding for traders to farm them for their fur. So I'm all for the ban.
I'm annoyed I even read the above article, it's so stupid. Mark M has no understanding or care for the historic symbioses between different animal species, and humans. Presumably his 'argument' could be extended to demonstrate that his (likely) preference for a cuddly bunny-rabbit over dirty cockroaches is irrational, rather than something obvious and explicable to all reasonable human beings. In which case why should we rely on his instincts in other fields? What a moron.
I agree, it would appear there is no logic behind banning dog and cat fur but allowing other fur aside from human sentiment. Perhaps the legislation should be crafted to only require accurate labelling of the material's origin?
In someways he is correct in others no. The trade should be banned in Europe, but only because (as far as I am aware) we do not eat cats and dogs. We can use leather because we eat Beef and the leather is a by product of this, the same goes for other animals. If we started to eat our pets then we could use their fur until then its off limits. Not because I'm sqeamish, I have eated monkeys, slugs, snails, horse, hedgehogs even seagulls (not nice!) but because its a waste of flesh.
I think you'll find the correct term for someone who doesn't eat meat, but does eat fish is a pescatarian (I think that's the correct spelling), derived I think from Latin or Greek. The correct term for someone who doesn't eat meat apart from chicken is an omnivore.
I agree in part with Mark. Why shun rabbit and dog meat just because they're cute, opposed to swine for example? However, I also find it hypocritical of the laws in this country to ban fur farms, and yet allow London to become the fur pelt trading capital of the world, with fur now available on the High Street.
I would personally ban all fur. To kill an animal humanely for food is one thing. To skin it or drown it alive (as I have seen videos of Chinese fur traders doing - this prevents the pelt from being ruined) simply so some ugly, rich Europeans in warm countries can have the latest fashion accessory is completely another.
Hi Mark,
I think you should read about the horrific treatment these animals receive in China.
How can we call ourselves a nation of animals lovers when we wear them like some trophy of wealth?
Have a look at this news article on the 91热爆:
Can you condone this?
Even if they weren't so horrifically treated, it just makes no sense to use animal fur or leather in these times of advanced chemistry. The pollution generated by the leather industry and energy used is vast and making synthetic alternatives uses much less energy and pollutes less.
It could be interesting if the European Parliament would launch a comparative investigation on diversity of wildlife in China and in Europe. There was no European Parliament to save the poor bear who wondered into Bavaria some time ago. We extinct all of our animals before the European Parliament times, so now can complain about others treating them inhumanly!
In regard to George P's comment:- I would have 100 stray dogs shot in the head before a let a child die like that ...
Why is animal suffering more acceptable then humans? When humans are the ones who cause it in the first place.
A child starving does not mean that 100 dogs should pay the price for what is a man made situation.
As much as I don't agree with eating dogs & cats, its the inhumane way they are tortured and killed. No matter what animal it is, this process is not acceptable, and should be banned. It is unncessary and sick, children and animals need not be compared, there are people enough out there to support children based charities, but not many for animals, therefore I only donate to animal charities.
Its about time the countries that torture and slaughter animals in cruel and barbaric way, know that people are not just going to stand by and keep on letting them get away with it. Its time to protest and stand up for the animals who provide us with unconditional love. And if we don't who will? Just because animals can't fight back, are vulnerable, voiceless doesn not mean we who can should stay quiet.
Actually DJ an omnivore is someone who eats anything i.e both Vegetable and meat.
I think many MEPs would like to ban the trade in fur from other animals as well but you have to start somewhere: . It is pretty facetious to suggest that using the fur of cats and dogs, which are often skinned alive so that their fur can be used for human vanity, is the same as using the skin of cattle that have been bred for food and humanely slaughtered. Many countries, both within and outside the EU, have already banned this brutal trade. The EU is just belatedly following step. I
I completely appreciate your article. While, of course, I'm happy about the ban on cat/dog fur trade, I also have always been so confused by the logic behind the advocacy. I've been vegan most of my life for many reasons, but the main one being that I just don't feel that animals are ours to use, eat, experiment on, wear, etc... Especially when there are now so many alternatives. The thing that confuses me the most is people who don't eat veal but do consume dairy products. Veal calves are a direct product of the dairy industry, being taken from their mothers almost immediately so the mother can remain a captive milk machine, in a constant cycle of pregnancies to give her milk to another species while her baby is crated, anemic, and slaughtered at only a few months old having never even been outdoors. The baby has it better than his mom who will be used her entire life until she is spent, and then she will be slaughtered for meat. (Okay, rant over). Thanks for pointing out the contradictions.
Nice article Mark. You raise some interesting questions. I found most comments posted to be smart and eloquent (both for and against).
However, I find it curious that the way animals are treated in Asia elicits more responses than the possibility of another attempt at an EU constitution...
Thomas Patricio
Toronto Canada
I hate that people can discriminate between animals based on how stupid they think one is. I agree that it is wrong for people to think leather is ok but fur isn't, and I am glad that so many people recognise that people who eat any creature are not vegetarian as I meet many people who think they are.
Unfortunately where there is demand there will be supply, and even if there is no demand for fur, it could be passed off for fake, as I hear it does now. It needs to be stopped, this is suffering in one of it's worst examples.
I do think that we are hypocritical. Personally I eat Beef , Lamb etc and have eaten Horse and even monkey and see nothing wrong with that and of course we keep hearing about Ostrich / Alligator / Lama etc being the new 鈥淪uper food鈥 for meat lovers
As you stated in your article we ban tiger as they are rare but apart for that if it tastes nice then why not let people eat it.
I think the issue should be on how the animals are kept and killed. This should be done as humanly as possible and the EEC could put in regulations about that. Other than that if I want to wear Tiddles or have a Rover Rug in front of my fire once they have shuffled off this mortal coil then I should be allowed to.
Good thought provoking article,
I live in North Eastern Thailand and once a week the van comes to collect unwanted or violent dogs. These "companions" are then taken across the border to Loas and sold in the market for soup. Less humane but more practical than the Western way of putting them down.
Asians, who have apparently had longer as a civilisation to adapt than us, see all life as a food source. It is said that the only thing with four legs that the Chinese won't eat is a table.
These animals will be bred for fur or soup no matter what, it is slightly hypocritical to allow chickens (which will one day cause a pandemic) to be farmed but not other animals.
If Europe wants to pass a law it should be about the labeling so the consumer can make a choice.
I suspect that informed market forces will end the practice.
explain to me why? whenever attempts are made to stop terrible cruelty and suffering to animals people who obviously have no true feelings at all start screaming on about human cruelty. basically you either condone cruelty or you dont. if you can ignore an animals suffering caused by the so called civilised human race then you will whether you own up to it or not also have no problem with any torture. well done Mr Mardell you have made a good weeks money on undermining the work done to alleviate real suffering. look into the animals eyes as it still is blinking after it has been skinned alive. distgusted
The issue should be method of keeping and killing animals for both clothing and food.
I've been a demivegetarian for 15 years, eating fish and seafood occasionally to supplement an otherwise flesh-free diet.
I'm considering a move to organic meats in order to reduce my consumption of seafood, since fish stocks are becoming worryingly low.
This seems to me a coherent position:
Human rights (specifically to food), come first, then environmental protection comes first (since this affects all of us humans), then avoid unnecessary cruelty (by raising and killing animals humanely and reducing our consumption of them).
Horses are not significantly less intelligent or less sensitive to pain than cows. Cats are not significantly less intelligent or less sensitive to pain than mink.
Mark,
You postman must be a slacker and not deliver all your mail. The European parliament had hearing on energy on Februrary 28 and has been discussing relations with Russia today June 18. Or is it that these two subjects are not silly enough to report on ?
Mark, as an experienced journalist, you must have known only too well that this article would get a hot reaction, but are you trying to improve your response stats or making a serious political or philosophical point?
The EP has a long track record of championing measures to protect animals - we already have EU legislation controlling the rearing, transportation and slaughter of farm animals, the use of experimental animals, trapping methods for wild-caught fur animals etc. not to mention measures relating to the protection and conservation of species and habitat. These are some of the best examples of measures inspired by the electorate as opposed to the Commission or the Member States.
This measure also has interesting legal points, because it follows on from previous national laws to ban such fur imports where, despite being effectively 'warned off' at one point by the Commission, some member states implemented their laws regardless of causing a 'disruption' to the single market.
A total ban on these fur imports could in theory be challenged at the WTO and a decision in the case would most likely rest on the never tested public morality clause of the WTO agreement. As you can see, in a week where EU leaders are in their various ways trying to reform the EU to make it more relevant to the ordinary Joe or Josephine, here is an issue on which the public agree and would overwhelmingly support if asked in a referendum. All of this goes to prove that this is a far more important political and legal issue than you appear to think.
As for philosophies and hypocracies, then I'm sorry to disappoint you but this is more of a vegan issue than a vegetarian one. It is in fact consistent not to permit the use of skins of animals that culturally we find it offensive to eat, just as it is consistent for the Chinese to wear the skins of dogs and cats that they do eat. Only vegans can hold a philosophically coherant position in so far as they oppose the use of all animal products, regardless of how the animal was treated when it was alive.
It is your last sentence that bothers me, especially if you were aware of the political and legal points that I raised above. For once our lawmakers have reacted logically, rationally and on the basis of popular consent - we should all be grateful for that!
Mr Mardell makes an important point, but fails to make his position clear.
I believe he is trying to defend all animals used in the horrific fur industry, and argue for their equal right to humane treatment. Instead, his comment focuses upon the inconsistencies of human' respect for different species, which is a very valid observation.
It is as wrong to torture, poison or skin-alive a fox, as it is a dog. I am very sad that the EU didn't look to ban this fur trade from ALL animals. I agree with Mr Mardell's view that the contradiction is farcical and can only be anchored to an incoherent value of one animal over another. Frankly, the decision has the naivety of a small child, who values 'cuteness' over common-sense.
The EU MUST use the horror story brought to their attention in the form of cats and dogs, to ban ALL such fur. Or otherwise, all that will happen is that the very same fur businesses, will refill their cages with a slightly different fur and continue their horrific trade with Europe!
If the EU fails to widen the ban, trade - and therefore animal cruelty - will probably GROW, with the increased consumer confidence brought about by the ban.
So I agree with the point - I believe - Mr Mardell is trying to make; That MEPs must GROW-UP and cast off childhood sentimentality for one species, to provide protection from intense cruelty for all.
If you saw the conditions in which arctic foxes and mink are kept on European fur farms you'd be revolted. And what about the seals clubbed to death for their skins? A ban on all fur is the only answer; don't just single out cats and dogs.
I do not object to people farming animals or plants provided most of the animal or plant be used for food. I am not happy with Rhinos being hunted for their tusks. I am fairly sure the Chinese eat the meat from the dogs and cats they slaughter. I know I would if it was offerred at a good price. I have a fish aquarium. I buy farmed fish. An eggplant is pretty with all it's fruit bearing. I pick the fruit and eat it because it is good tasting and it nourishes me. Gloves keep my fingers warm - I do not want to spend $30 on gloves which I will probaly lose in a short period of time.
The fur trade is cruel and selfish all just to try to earn blood money, for the many cats and dogs who's lives are to be made into human so called 'fashion' it must be a living nightmare.
Animals should have rights as we are all living things and have feelings too! Would you like to be made into a fashion item? if not then why would any of the poor innocent animals want to?
Dear Mark,
You've certainly stirred up a storm.... I bet you wish you had kept to EU politics and qualified majority voting ;-)
With much sympathy, Max.
Hi Mark,
As cruel as beef and dairy farming are, it so happens that fur farming is far, far crueller. Rather like battery farming of hens (which the EU is also moving against) the animals are kept in small cages in which they can barely move around.
And although the government claim not to be able to ban fur imports, they have banned fur farming in the UK.
So although I disagree with people who eat beef but refuse fur (because I don't agree with eating beef) please do recognise they're being ethically coherent.
If you want to pick on someone for hypocrisy, I'd suggest Lucy, for eating dead animals and convincing herself she's a vegetarian :).
Cheers,
Ian
Any suggestion of imposing unnecessary and extreme suffering on either human or animal in the name of commerce and profit should stick in the throat. That this story was on the same news programme this evening as an article on mentally ill children being kept in similar conditions, as the caretaker profited by selling their food and clothes makes the point well. It is often in the pursuit of self-interest and greed that such actions are taken which is surely the sickener. How do people sink so low? It's not poverty but something dark and we cannot close our eyes to it when we have the option of doing something. Policymakers are often not trusted to act other than in self-interest. With China now a World-Leader in so many things will this make it easier or more difficult to come to agreement on such issues that divide cultures. Neither story will help me sleep tonight.
To save space, I won't copy-paste whole comments, but comments such as number 11 annoy me immensely. The reason horse-theft was punished so severely was because horses were so useful. And to number 7 "By your logic, what's to stop us from robing ourselves with human skin?", the reason that we have laws against such things are due to the social contract, first espoused by Locke. Essentially, humankind as a whole originally had all their "positive" rights (the right to kill, the right to steal, etc.) until people formed a government, where they gave up these positive rights to gain negative ones (the "right" to not be killed, to not be stolen from, etc.). The reason humans have laws and rights is because they were the only ones able to organize themselves to such a degree, and that is why cruelty against fellow humans is not tolerated. There was never a "symbiosis" between humans and animals - the reason certain species don't live in the wild anymore is because we killed or tamed them all. Our relationship with cows, for example, is hardly "symbiotic" - we keep them stuck in one place for their whole lives, so they grow fatter, and then kill them. Hardly "symbiotic."
Whether or not car and dog fur should be banned is a matter on which different people will have different opinions. I respect their opinions.
What IS illogical is that the decision should be made by a clique of self-serving professional politicians without any assurance that it reflects the wishes of the people. In a real democracy - Switzerland - any such decision would be subject to a veto of the people, or conversely could be initiated by the people.
This may seem a little out of place being a ways down from the comment that spured this one, but here goes.
To Jeff Lewis (comment 5), Mark is correct to say that pets and beasts of burden are a form a slavery. Just because a practice is ancient doesn't mean it isn't slavery. Human slavery is at least as old as civilization yet no one calls it anything other than pure slavery. As to your argument about cats, dogs, horses, and cattle not being able to survive in the wild, it is a rather specious one. In almost every major city in Europe and North America (and elsewhere I'm sure) feral cat colonies can be found. These are the same species as domestic cats, only they live without human intervention. An island off the coast of Virginia called Chickatee, has had wild horses surviving on it for several hundred years. In the Americas, the old way of raising cattle was to let the cows roam free and survive on their own in the wild until it was time for slaughtering them. The only animal you mentioned which to my knowledge has not proven its viability in the wild is dogs. And even for them, the reason they can't survive in the wild is because humans bred them so that they can't. So make no mistake, there is a good argument that work animals are slaves. They are well treated (mostly) and better off than in the wild (mostly), but a slave in a gilded cage is still a slave. Finally, Mark's view of coherrence in a person's belief is simply that the logical conclusion to make if using the fur or leather of one kind of aniaml which is not rare is wrong, then using the fur or leather of all animals is wrong. The same with partial vegetarian vs. full vegetarians. By coherrence, Mark means being consistent in your personal beliefs.
To suggest that the adverse reaction to dog and cat fur is based on sentiment is to trivialise the entire issue and those that work to stamp out this outrageously cruel practice. Dogs and cats in China are raised in appalling conditions, confined to cramped disgusting quarters, caged with numerous others and thrown around like cargo - to mention but a few of the issues involved here. They are then slaughtered most horribly, slashed, hanged, bludgeoned and often skinned alive. To use the issue as a subject of humour and to raise such an irrelevant argument is a disservice to those who work to raise awareness of the reality of the situation and only delays rational discussion.
It really puzzles me when people assume that just because you care about animals, you couldn't care less about humans.
These are the people who I am positive do NOTHING to help either humans or animals. If you are a caring person, how do you draw the line between caring about humans and ignoring animal suffering? Why are they mutually exclusive?
If someone cries over starving children, do they laugh at the thought of dogs being skinned alive? I am not saying human and animal life are one and the same, but cruelty is cruelty and we should fight it in all forms.
All animals exploited for meat, labour, fur, leather, etc. suffer terribly and many, many changes are needed. But we should celebrate one victory at a time. Hopefully the EU's ban of cat and dog fur will be a stepping stone to other bans based on animal welfare, namely "seal fur" ( I'm a Canadian). That is why Canada refuses to ban cat a dog fur, being the big fur producers that we are. I hope this is the beginning of the end for the fur industry.
If China wants to trade with the rest of the civilized world, they will have to live up to some basic standards of animal welfare. That's a reality. They can't have their cake and eat it too.
And for the life of me, I still do not understand why we do business with China or why people travel there, knowing of their record on human rights and non-existent animal welfare regulations.
By the way, not all leather is a by-product of the meat industry (not that I agree with killing animals for meat). In India, for example, cows are abused and killed in the most horrific conditions, only for leather since there is no market for the meat.
Hello
The EU is correct to ban this import trade, since it affects some people鈥檚 sensibilities.
There is already precedence for action on these grounds.
The EU bans the import of some foods from outside the EU because we do not want to upset the sensibilities of the EU farmers.
The EU ignores the conditions which farmers live in, outside the EU, just because the EU will not trade with them.
But, I suppose the EU have to continue regulating, it is what they do.
Two words - cultural limits.
Our culture is as a valid as any other, and relies on us being confident enough to practice its norms.
Enough navel gazing - dogs and cats are off the menu.
Andi: It's an interesting point about what a blog should be doing. I don't think its my place as a 91热爆 reporter to offer pure opinion, and certainly not argue for a position, but I can ask provocative questions. One of the MEPs behind this ban does obliquely answer my question, "What is the logic?" by suggesting, as others do, that a ban is needed to stop the cruelty of a trade on another continent, where EU standards on animal treatment obviously don't apply. But would, or does, this hold for pigs or chickens that might find their way into the EU food chain?
Several of you deride my claim to be asking a 'logical' question. But I think Dasaef and Karen O'Toole make my point for me. They make it pretty clear that they think eating beef should be illegal. I have no quarrel with the logic of that position. But I don't think you will find many MEPs signing up to that idea.
Jim Kale asks why not human skin? Well, that involves killing a human being. My point is that it is legal to kill some animals for clothing or food: on what basis do we make the decision which ones get protected? Jeff Lewis makes a strong case why cats and dogs are different. My children have made many arguments why we should get a dog, so I will protect them from your powerful argument that it would be good for my soul. If not sole, living in Belgium.
David Hughes: I thought we didn't use the word "moron" these days. That aside, yes of course I like bunnies better than cockroaches. But do you think restaurant kitchens should be closed if cockroaches were found but not if hordes of bunnies, paws dirty from cowpats, were running all over stainless steel surfaces, because there is some natural bond with the fluffy mammals? That's what I mean about the difference between law and sentiment.
I also note few bother to answer the "It may be revolting but should it be illegal?" question. I really think there is a growing tendency to jump from "I don't like it," not to "... and I will persuade you it's wrong," but to "... so let's put you in prison or fine you if you do it". Which may be good. Or not. Sorry Andi.
You're right, many people have a 'confused' view of which animals should be protected & which should be given little consideration.
This doesn't however mean it's wrong to ban Cat & dog fur, but just means that peoples ignorance of the suffering their everyday choices (albeit indirectly)cause should be addressed.
Wherever inherent cruelty is involved in the production of an unnecessary product (such as fur, meat, cosmetics etc) there is no doubt this product should be outlawed.
Millions of people can live perfectly happy, healthy lives, which have minimum impact on the environment, without the need for animals products whatsoever - a vegan lifestyle!
I find your comments on the cat and dog fur trade disturbing. Sheep, cows and horses etc have always been bred as work animals or for food. Breeding very intelligent, and most probably sentient, animals like cats and dogs is abhorrent and not just because we view them as pets. Did you know the cats brain is just as sophisticated as ours? Why do you think they experiment so much with them in vivisection labs? Plus these animals aren't 'farmed' as in sheep or cows in a field then humanely slaughtered they are kept in vile conditions and killed in horrendous ways. In china they throw cats ALIVE into pots of boiling water because it makes the skin and fur slide off easily. You still still think they should be farmed? Views like yours are why these things happen in the first place. Keep them to yourself please.
Hello
We are all Lords of our own opinions.
I was once preached to that I should repent as 'the meek shall inherit the earth'.
Of course, the 'meek' that the preacher intended to inherit the earth were the human variety.
My response to this is that yes, the meek shall inherit the earth, but it will be the insignificant little cockroach (or similar), that is beavering away, unnoticed, beneath our feet. Not us or the other animals we class as the chosen ones.
By the way, I do like animals, but would only have them living in my house by my rules and would support any efforts outside my house to preserve ALL animals鈥 environments.
Phew, got that off my chest.
fact:- cruelty is cruelty, in any shape or form, human or non-human.
child cruelty, neglect, starvation is wrong, but it does not mean animals can be and this should be allowed.
barbaric slaugtering of poor defenceless animals is a absolute NO NO!
why should the slaughter of cats & dogs be any different to any other animals that are killed for fur or meat, it isn't, but if we don't start somewhere then how will it ever stop.
Every person has something close to their heart, be it children or animals, thats why we are all different to support what we feel is important, so that we can make a difference and help channel our support for different areas, therefore my area is animals and I look forward to when this barbaric cruelty inflicted on these defenceless animals is stopped. they need us to help them out, otherwise the cruelty will continue, as countries where this is carried out, will think they have been abandoned to their miserable fate...and by protesting we can let countries like China know, that these animals have people who care about what happens to them.
As for Mark Madell obviously this man has no heart, or ever been a pet lover, to even ask whats wrong with eating tiddles or rover. Yes eat tiddles or rover, but why kill/torture them in a barbaric manner...
Some have argued that the questions are disturbing. Whilst I don't like to see people being disturbed, I think that as a society, we have become too complacent on the issues and need to be disturbed.
I'll start with the "should it be illegal" question, as Mark has noted he has been given few answers to that. In my opinion, yes it should. The cruelty has been covered by others, and to me that is a major factor. But are there others?
I think so. Synthetic fur has existed for decades - what do we need the "real" thing for? Material science is at the point where any practical difference is a product of inept manufacturers, not technology. Doesn't that apply to all fur, though, not just that from cats and dogs? Well, yes. So this would justify a ban on all "natural" furs, which I would certainly have no objection to.
There will, of course, be those who demand the "real thing". Laboratories are quite capable of growing skin cells. It's a major source of adult stem cell lines. We don't have the technology for manufactured "real" fur yet, but if the demand is truly as big as all that, someone will do it. A bunch of cultured cells needs less food and less space, so must eventually become a cheaper solution. If people don't want to invest in solutions, that should not be my problem.
The special relationship between cats/dogs and humans has been covered in some depth elsewhere on this blog.
Intelligence - another point mentioned - is a difficult one to measure, as we don't have a working definition of what intelligence is. That's why AI researchers rely on Alan Turing's vague ideas on the subject. However, few can seriously question that dogs and cats are a lot smarter than sheep.
However, if we look at intelligence, we run into a problem. Pigs are regarded as one of the most intelligent of all domesticated animals. If we ban on grounds of intelligence, pork would have to be included. As much as I'd personally dislike this idea, I'd be willing to sacrifice bacon on those grounds.
(There are other intelligent animals, but we don't use them for food or clothing. Crows are the only non-primate to manufacture tools, the African Grey parrot can actually comprehend - not just repeat - grammatical constructs, and the claims made for bottlenose dolphins really have filled entire books.)
Next issue. Should lawmakers restrict our choices based on illogical sentiment? I would argue that the question is rendered largely moot by the fact that I have noted two alternatives. The choices are not restricted if all choices still technically exist. If we choose to ignore our choices, that is something we have done freely to ourselves, it is not something imposed upon us, even if our self-imposed restrictions are in response to a law. If people wish to cut off their own noses, that is their right. What they have no business doing is blaming others for having done so. You have free will.
Last issue: Is my position self-consistent? That's arguable, but I will claim that it's reasoned and that openness and flexibility are superior to dogmatism even when that dogmatism is initially the more self-consistent. (I'm a debating society's nightmare - far too willing to be persuaded.)
The issue is not complicated. To inflict needless suffering on sensitive creatures is a hideous act. The greater the suffering, and the more needless it is, the more hideous the act.
Let's stop lying: when we buy animal products produced in factory-like conditions we're condoning some kind of barbarity--from gross psychological anguish to outright torture. We're buying in. Period.
Is there a refutation in the house?
Mark Mardell asks the logical question, 'if leather is okay, then what's wrong with fur?'
Well, I would say that the more cruelty that is involved in a given activity, the more abhorent it is. If leather comes from a cow which spent a large proportion of its life able to walk outside, eating grass, enjoying feeling the sun on its back, then there is far less cruelty involved than obtaining fur from an animal that led its entire miserable life imprisoned in a cramped cage not much bigger than itself.
So under these circumstances, is fur worse than leather? Yes.
Roger
Regarding the terrible truth about the slaughter of cats and dogs in China.
It is no excuse for a " human being" to act in such a cruel way. Animals are the best friends we can get.
Always there for you, always happy when you are happy, sad when you are sad, always willing to keep you company.
I feel deeply sad and upset, and it gives me night mares to think about all these lovely cats and dogs....All of them forced to witness the cruelty before they die in the most terrible way.
I am sure their feelings are the same as ours, the only difference is that their suffer and fear are silent...
Are we "human" because we can talk? ????....the cats and dogs understand us perfectly and have their own language....so ....humans might be less developed not understanding their langugage, their loving personality or their feelings.
STOP the slaughter in China and import of furs to Europe or anywhere else.
Think about what happen to these animals before you buy some fancy clothes or when you look into the eyes of your own cat or dog... or eat meat.
I hope the worlds attention to this matter will put an end to this act of terror against animals,
They are there for you...Are you there for them?
Regarding the terrible truth about the slaughter of cats and dogs in China.
It is no excuse for a " human being" to act in such a cruel way. Animals are the best friends we can get.
Always there for you, always happy when you are happy, sad when you are sad, always willing to keep you company.
I feel deeply sad and upset, and it gives me night mares to think about all these lovely cats and dogs....All of them forced to witness the cruelty before they die in the most terrible way.
I am sure their feelings are the same as ours, the only difference is that their suffer and fear are silent...
Are we "human" because we can talk? ????....the cats and dogs understand us perfectly and have their own language....so ....humans might be less developed not understanding their langugage, their loving personality or their feelings.
STOP the slaughter in China and import of furs to Europe or anywhere else.
Think about what happen to these animals before you buy some fancy clothes or when you look into the eyes of your own cat or dog... or eat meat.
I hope the worlds attention to this matter will put an end to this act of terror against animals,
They are there for you...Are you there for them?
The issue is cruelty.We exploit animals in millions of different ways but most of them can be implemented humanely. humans kill other humans in increasingly horrible ways,so apparently those people who do, or agree with,that kind of thing, are oblivious to suffering anyway.I agree with Robert Reddick, if we want to call ourselves civilised how can we condone cruelty and barbarity in any form? Think and investigate,before buying.Do as you would be done by.
My objection to the cat and dog fur trade is not so much to do with the use of what we consider 'pets' but the manner in which the animals are farmed, transported and dispatched.
There is no need for mindless cruelty to these animals just as there is no need to be cruel to any animal that is farmed for its meat and fur.
It is quite obvious that animals have emotions of fear, you only have to hear them wimper and see their eyes role to be aware of that.
Some short statements and ideas related to and spawned from this article:
Furry animals are cute by definition. It's the fur that does that.
On Wikipedia an overview page exists about the cultural and culinary differences related to "horse meat".
Animal cruelty was the main issue for the EP. This is also the issue with many other types of fur and meat.
For some reason EU is not willing to require European production standards to imported products.
I enjoyed the article and the questions you ask your readers.
Vegetarians can eat fish. Vegans don't eat any animal products at all. demi-vegetarian is not a term. Please use dictionaries people!
..............
Its no the farming of the cats and dogs that is a problem, its the way that they are farmed. Hanging and bleeding them to death is not exactly humane. If they were killed quickly, kept in good conditions (free range, organic etc) it wouldn't be so bad, and the choice to eat, or wear animal products from cats and dogs would be a personnel one. this applies to all animals as well. I would not eat dogs or cats at all personally, but some people don't eat chickens even if they are free range....
81 Vegetarians cannot eat fish! But they can eat animal products such as Milk and butter.
Mark, you are touching a very raw nerve, the one which figures with the Latin name 鈥渉ypocrisis politica et publica鈥, which I think happens to be a very good thing.
However I would go a bit further: if the conscience of politicians and of people in general is to be awakened to their hypocrisy, then why not go the full hog?
We hear a lot about cruelty to animals and that these should treated humanely and that is fine. (By the way as a thought, does a cat feel the need to treat a bird or a mouse humanely when it catches, plays and claws it about before it devours it alive? And before anyone thinks otherwise, I am not advocating that we humans should treat cats, in this case, the way they treat other animals 鈥 I happen to be a cat lover and I do indeed own a cat鈥)
The point is that it is all very well and good to protect animals, however before we address cruelty to animals should we not deal with the issue of cruelty and inhumanity to other human beings? E.g. abortion? Should we not awaken our conscience to the fact that animals, both alive and yet to be borne (e.g. eagle or turtle eggs) are protected by law and thus have greater rights than the unborn child?
Isn鈥檛 this rather hypocritical? Shouldn鈥檛 politicians and society alike reflect upon the fact that their stance on these issues is rather absurd, strange, bizarre, inconsistent, incongruous, and just plain cruel and inhumane?
How can ANYONE call themselves truly humane if they exploit animals? The only truly logical position is that of veganism. Strict vegans do not use animals in any way at all. What gives us the right to declare, with typical human arrogance, that we are more important than any other species?
The most disturbing thing of all is to see grown men taunting puppies as they cry in fear or to see the smile on their faces as they inflict such pain and suffering on another living creature, not making the smallest effort to end their misery.
There is no other word to describe this but pure EVIL.
Regarding number 83, made by Michorla... comparing abortion to animal cruelty! the two cannot be compared, they are both important issues, dpending on what is more important to the individual.
Incase you forgot, we are discussing animal cruely, so lets stay with the subject, rather than make out something else should be our focus of attention, believe it or not, some people can multi-task, ie.. support other causes, and not channel all their support in one area! Some people can support human and animal issues, it does not mean you have to choose only one... you should try it..
to you the right of the unborn child is a issue, to me it is not! to some people children starving, is a issue, yes for me it is too, but so is the animal that is hungry..
the discussion here it the cruelty inflicted on cats and dogs before they are barbarically killed, to you that may be ok, to me it is not.
as for a cat playing with a mouse/bird, then devouring it alive, thats what one would call nature.... lions kill zebras, its the natural world, what is not natural is the boiling alive of cats, skinning of dogs alive... that is not natural, it is extremely barbaric, cruel and senseless! I don't eat lobsters/crabs, as I find the method they are killed too gruesome.
I have 3 cats and 2 dogs, and I can't understand how countries like China can treat and kill these animals in the most horrific and cruel way, they have no heart!
Unfortunetely we can't stop the world eating animals, but we can stop the inhumane way they are killed.
Funny, I always thought that the basis of democracy was the opinions of the majority taking precedence. We have had far too much of vocal minorities setting the agenda from their narrow-minded viewpoint.
Some people need to get out more often.
In response to post 86, there are various issues here to address:
First of all, the issue regarding cruelty:
The point Mark Mardell is making, regards 鈥渃ruelty鈥 to animals in general through their sacrifice for human consumption, (be it for meat, clothes or any other type of product), and the incoherence for treating some animals one way and others in an other.
Secondly, the comparison with abortion:
It is understandable that some people might argue that the issue of abortion and that of cruelty to animals can鈥檛 be compared. This is probably due to many if not most people ignoring the suffering that the child happens to endure inside the womb during the practice of abortion. It just so happens that the details are so gory that a judge prevented the Pro-life party in Britain from broadcasting a clip of an abortion, thus preventing the ordinary people from understanding what an awfully cruel practice this is (as well as stifling democracy in the process). Thus, if abortion is a cruel practice, why in heaven鈥檚 name can it not be compared to animal cruelty?
Thirdly, hypocrisy:
The article was questioning the 鈥減rotection鈥 of cats and dogs through legislation, and highlighting the disparity between the treatment of different animals. This disparity and incoherence, as far as I am concerned, reflect the hypocrisy of society and politicians alike because animals are better protected by law than the unborn child. One cannot be cruel to an animal born or unborn because it is against the law. But one can be cruel to other human beings - what is more the most defenceless since they do not have a voice - a cruelty that happens to be specifically approved and upheld by law. If this isn鈥檛 plain hypocrisy, then what is?
Fourthly, single vs. multi cause support:
There is no issue here of supporting various causes: I happen to be against cruelty to animals, i.e. inflicting unnecessary pain, abuse etc. I also happen to be against cruelty to human beings, e.g. abortion. I also happen to support other causes, and do not channel every effort behind just one. What I am against however is the hypocrisy demonstrated once again whereby animals are better protected by the law than human beings. If human beings establish the law, and in the process assert the fact that we are of 鈥渉igher rank鈥 and 鈥渕asters鈥 of what happens to the world and therefore to other animals, why do we use our 鈥渉igher rank鈥 to the detriment of certain beings of our own species? The answer most probably lies with selfishness. How can one justify being selfish and inhumane towards our own, and 鈥渉umane鈥 and good towards others species? It is really beyond belief. If one is to be magnanimous towards other species, with which I whole heartedly agree, then one ought to be 鈥渉umane鈥 towards our fellow humans first. If not this state of affairs has only one description: hypocrisy.
This is a discussion about cat and dog fur from China.
The hypocrisy excuse is old, really.
I believe that compassion makes no distinction between species. If you are compassionate towards people, you will not stop there and be an animal abuser!
Usually whoever abuses animals, ends up abusing people. I have a hard time believing that the people capable of skinning dogs alive, go home to be caring husbands and fathers.
I do believe we should extend compassion to ALL animals, but it will take time to achieve equality. There are too many invested interests involved in the exploitation of animals. However, we should celebrate small victories like the EU's ban of cat and dog fur instead of trying to rip it apart.
It is in humanity's best interest to be kind to animals. It can only help the soul.
I do understand the point of view of the author. I even thought of that argument, and for having lived in China for very long I do know for a fact that cat and dog are part of the menu...as many other mammals.
However, what is very wrong is the way those animals are slaughtered. I do like China a lot but there are things I will never accept and one is the sheer lack of respect for life under all its forms and the "fun" those who killed seem to take in unecessary suffering. That include cats, dogs and slugs. For this I support the legislation.
By the way, I am veggie and as such do not eat ANY meat.Fish or mammal or insect(lived in China eh).
I am also a buddhist which means that life under all its forms is sacred. And yes I know a veg is alive too....;-)
Cats and dogs are no less animals than cows and minks. The only really sound criterion for deciding which animals to use for our needs and which ones to leave alone is how rare (or endangered) they are.
And about life in all its forms being sacred... plants are alive too, and so are the bacteria that we massacre daily with domestos and antibiotics. And how about some athlete's foot?
It should be pointed out that it's not just cats and dogs that campaigners are working to protect from the fur trade. A number of countries in Europe have banned mink, fox and chinchilla farming as well, due to campaigns by animal protection groups. And close to 90 nations have banned catching animals for their pelts with the cruel steel jaw leghold trap. That said, I do understand where the EU is coming from with singling out and banning dog and cat fur. Most of it is mis-labelled, so there is the element of consumer fraud. And most of it is coming from China where there are no humane regulations. Another point is that the investigations found that some of these cats and dog killed for the fur trade are stolen family pets. Lastly, the breeds of dogs being killed for their fur are not the same breeds the Chinese prefer for meat, thus these animals are raised just for their fur. Therefore, I think the cat and dog fur issue has conditions that make it distinct from other fur/leather issues and I thank the EU, Australia, and America for banning the import and sale of dog and cat fur products. Hopefully, there will be more bans on fur farming and trapping wild animals for the fur trade in the future. I'd also like to see the EU ban the importation of seal fur, since the harp and hooded seal populations are suffering from the effects of climate change and don't need the huge commercial slaughter that happens in Canada each spring on top of that.
The thing that upsets me MOST is HOW the animals are skinned. Have you seen the videos or photos?
Just so some correct research into this and then form your opinion. You are obviously writing as the misinformed.
These animals are TORTURED AND THEN SKINNED ALIVE.
Fiona
Mr Mardell. Very importantly, several posts above mention that a ban on not just cat and dog fur, but ALL fur, is necessary in the EU. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of post No.54 are particularly important. I hope you will take this message forward as you have clearly voiced an interest on the topic! There simply is no point banning just cat and dog fur when other animals such as arctic foxes and racoons will fill the demand gap. I find it particularly worrying that the UK represents a major slice of the fur trade demand, with a major percentage of fur exports coming through the UK. I am sick of the ignorance of organisations such as the British Fur Trade Association (BFTA) and International Fur Trade Federation (IFTF) who claim to "promote" adherance to animal welfare codes of practice! We have seen the evidence that no such welfare exists. How can these organistaions live in the knowledge these atrocities are present and widespread!!! The sheer scale of this problem is horrifying. Millions of animals are kept in cages so small they often drive themselves to self mutilation, before being skinned for there pelts. They are not killed humanely, often being held by their legs and beaten on the ground, or strangled, clubbed, stamped on, or drowned. Extensive video footage shows that most animals are still alive or conscious when skinned, with reports showing some animals staying alive for up to 10 minutes after skinning. This is surely one of mankinds worst atrocities, and all in the name of fashion and unnecessary clothing garments which could be produced by other means. An EU ban on ALL fur is a good start but surely a worldwide ban on fur must be enforced if the full problem is to be resolved.
I find it equally disgusting that the fashion industry is trying to make fur "cool" again, despite past efforts to make wearing fur socially unacceptable. Increasingly we are seeing fake fur garments, which I am sure is helping to make real fur garments desirable once again. I'm sure if everyone had seen the reality of the fur trade, even fake fur would be a thing of the past.
Please respond... I would partcularly like to hear your opinion on my first comment. I dearly hope the new EU ban is worded to ban ALL fur.
***
SPEAK UP AND BAN FUR**
***
ITS CRUL HORRIFIC DESTROYING AND DEVERSTATING.
THESE POOOOR ANIMALS NEED SUPPORT LOVE AND KINDNESS
WHY SHOULD THERES MURDERS DECIDE THERE FAIT AND WHY SHOULD WE LET THEM.
JUST LOOK IN TO THE ANIMALS EYES AND YOU WILL SEE THE PAIN AND TERROR THEY ARE FEELING.
PLEASE HAVE A HEART...
SPEAK UP AND BAN FUR
I am certainly not going to try to be rational about this, is anybody? Except for strict vegetarians, that is. I happily eat meat and fish, have tasted monkey, snake and iguana and even eaten a frog - not just the legs. I haven't eaten dog, it is, anyway, very expensive. Where I live bunnies (and snails) are considered a delicacy, but I don't see them on many British or American menus. Horse meat - they're usually colts by the way - is fairly easily available. However, as a cat owner, I sympathize with the attempt to ban trade in their fur.
The fear in any intensively farmed animal (not just Tiddles and Rover) on its way to the slaughter house is frightful, but I can't bring myself to give up or condemn the consumption and use of "normal" animals. My definition of normal? Gut feeling.
How irrational can you get?
Mark Mardell's comments were ridiculous and unthoughtout. He made no mention of how these poor animals are kept or how they are killed, both in which any human being including the ones performing these acts should find sickening. If our livestock were kept and slaughtered in such a way, there would be an outcry. There should be not just be a ban on importing these furs but we should as a country be actively stopping other country's from allowing it to happen.
I am also fed up with reading that they are voting to ban these things but never finding out the outcome. It would be nice of the news to report the odd happy outcome.
Mark Mardell should be concerned with the way in which these animals are kept. I don't believe in eating or using animal products.BUT.........
People don't need to wear fur these days as there are plenty of materials which keep you warm and look good too.
Surely, even people who do wear fur or leather or eat animals should have some consideration about the conditions these animals are kept in. Animals destined for slaughter should not be kept in horrific conditions [like many are - even on dear old British farms !]
We should judge civilisation by the way we treat other people and our fellow creatures . Otherwise we simply become no better than barbarians and I like to think that humankind has moved on.
Maybe you were just intending to stir up a hornets' nest, Mark ?