New Jersey Becomes Fifth State to Enact Fur Labeling Law

(Nov. 23, 2009) ― The Humane Society of the United States praised New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine for signing legislation into law requiring all garments made of animal fur to be labeled as such. The consumer protection measure, introduced by Sen. Jeff Van Drew, D-1, and Assemblymember Nilsa Cruz-Perez, D-5, passed both the Assembly and the Senate with large margins. With the enactment of this new law, New Jersey joins Delaware, Massachusetts, New York and Wisconsin as the fifth state with a fur labeling law on the books.

"Consumers have the right to know exactly what they are buying so they can make informed purchasing decisions," said Heather Cammisa, The HSUS' New Jersey state director. "A growing number of people have ethical objections to wearing animal fur. We applaud Governor Corzine and the New Jersey legislature for passing this important consumer protection bill."

Ongoing investigations by The Humane Society of the United States have revealed that many designers and retailers have sold unlabeled or mislabeled fur-trimmed jackets. The HSUS is pursuing a consumer protection lawsuit against several major retailers in the District of Columbia, and is also urging Congress to pass the Truth in Fur Labeling Act, S. 1076, by Sens. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., and Susan Collins, R-Maine, and H.R. 2480 by Reps. Jim Moran, D-Va., and Mary Bono Mack, R-Calif., to require accurate labeling of all animal fur-trimmed garments, regardless of dollar value.

New Jersey's new law - a simple, but important consumer protection measure - will require all garments containing animal fur sold in New Jersey to be labeled with the type of animal fur and the country of origin.

Timeline:

* February 2006 - The HSUS announces widespread industry scandal finding raccoon dog fur for sale in the United States.
* December 2006 - Tests commissioned by HSUS investigators find raccoon dog fur on jackets advertised as "faux" and labeled as other species such as raccoon or coyote.
* February 2007 - Tests commissioned by HSUS investigators find domestic dog fur on unlabeled jackets advertised as "faux" fur.
* February 2007 - U.S. Reps. Jim Moran, D-Va., and Michael Ferguson, R-N.J., introduce the Dog and Cat Fur Prohibition Enforcement Act, H.R. 891.
* March 2007 - The HSUS files petition with the Federal Trade Commission seeking to enforce the Fur Products Labeling Act.
* Aug. 15, 2007 - New York Assemblymember Linda B. Rosenthal's legislation to require fur labeling signed into law in New York.
* November 2007 - New York fur labeling law goes into effect.
* November 2008 - HSUS files suit against a number of major retailers including Macy's, Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue for engaging in false advertising and mislabeling of fur garments.



Background:

* The Federal Fur Products Labeling Act of 1951 was passed to protect consumers by requiring all garments with real fur to indicate species and country of origin on clothing labels, but a loophole allows some fur-trimmed garment to be exempt.
* Raccoon dog is the most commonly unlabeled or misrepresented type of fur sold in the United States, according to HSUS investigations.
* Raccoon dogs have been documented to be skinned alive in China for their fur.

BOYCOTT BOSLEY's PET STORES-PETITION TO SIGN!

Target:BOSLEY's PET STORES

Sponsored by: Rabbit Advocacy, Vancouver Animal Defense, Fur FreeProvince Wide Boycott of all Bosley's Stores.
Bosley's sells REAL dead rabbit, REAL cat and REAL dog fur on their toys for your pets and they refuse to stop their insane and unethical business practices. They refuse to send these products back to China.
We do not want our pets playing with dead animal parts. We do not want any products that have fur from animals on them. These dead animals have been tortured for their FUR, often skinned alive.
- WE ARE NOT PUTTING UP WITH THIS IN BC. STOP SHOPPING AT ALL BOSLEY's. Bring your business elsewhere until they remove all these

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/boycott-bosleys-pet-stores

International Anti-Fur Coalition urge Mr Ritz to ban cat and dog furtrade in Canada

Please scroll down to letter and the link to Gerry Ritz Minister of Agriculture in Canada, and please copy/paste Jane Halevy's letter to him from International Anti-Fur Coalition about failing to impose a ban on cat and dog fur from China and Asian countries where animals are routinly skinned alive for cheap fur trims and toys for PETS.
This leaves once again, Canada isolated from the U.S., Europe and Australia in this unspeakably cruel decision.
We need international attention on this issue and not to give up pressuring politicians in Canada who's mindset is still in the Fur Trade era!
Please forward it to everybody you know and post it to Facebook, Myspace, bulletins etc whatever can get publicity - I will also send to papers during the weekend like Province, Vancouver Sun, Epoch Times etc...

Thanks for your time, please help for innocent furbearer friends!!
dora

here is the Contact form to Gerry Ritz Minister, copy/paste the letter at the bottom:

http://www.agr.gc.ca/cb/min/index_e.php?s1=help-aide&s2=contact

And here are the articles about the recent decision not to ban cat and dog fur:
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/699762
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/feds-wont-bar-cat-and-dog-fur-imports-because-of-seal-ban-document/article1298601/

Court Orders Fur False Advertising Case to Proceed

Court Orders Fur False Advertising Case to Proceed Against Major
Retailers

Suit Challenging Widespread Fur Mislabeling Could Go To Trial Later This
Year

WASHINGTON (Sept. 25, 2009) - The District of Columbia Superior Court
issued a long-awaited ruling
clearing the way for a lawsuit accusing several of the
nation's largest retailers - including Lord & Taylor, Macy's, Neiman
Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue - of engaging in false advertising and
mislabeling of fur garments. The suit was filed in 2008 by The Humane
Society of the United States, arguing that these deceptive practices
mislead consumers into unknowingly purchasing animal fur products and
increase consumer confusion over the type and origin of fur used on
clothing.

"Consumers have a right to know what they're buying, but many major
retailers keep selling 'faux fur' jackets that turn out to be real
animal fur," said Jonathan R. Lovvorn, vice president and chief counsel
for animal protection litigation for The HSUS. "Macy's, Saks, Neiman
Marcus and Lord & Taylor just don't seem to care if consumers are
deceived, even though real fur is something many consumers are
determined to avoid."

Over the last three years, The HSUS has identified dozens of falsely
advertised or falsely labeled fur garments across the retail industry.
Although many of these garments were advertised or labeled as "faux
fur," they were often fur from raccoon dogs, a member of the canine
family native to parts of Asia, who have been documented to be skinned
alive in China.

The lawsuit - filed under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act -
alleges that the companies "misrepresent" the characteristics of the
fur-trimmed garments by (1) advertising and labeling products as "faux
fur," when they are, in fact, derived from real animal fur or (2)
advertising and labeling products as common raccoon, fox or rabbit fur
when they are, in fact, made from the wholly distinct species of raccoon
dog - a member of the dog family. The complaint also alleges violations
of the federal Fur Products Labeling Act and Federal Trade Commission
Act, which also prohibit the false advertising and mislabeling of any
fur product.

To view the complaint, learn about raccoon dogs and their mistreatment,
and more, visit humanesociety.org/furfree
.

Examples of Defendants' Deceptive Ads and Labels:

* In December 2008, Lord & Taylor sold jackets labeled as
"polyester" fur at its retail store in Kensington, Md. Testing found
that this purportedly faux fur garment was actually made from real
raccoon dog and rabbit.
* Macy's - through its retail division, Bloomingdale's -
advertised and sold a "faux fur" jacket on its online store in 2007 and
again in 2008. However, both of these jackets contained animal fur.
* In November 2008, Neiman Marcus sold a coat on its Web site,
that although advertised as "faux fur," was genuine rabbit fur. Neiman
Marcus also sold a jacket labeled as fake "polyester" fur at its retail
store in McLean, Va. Testing later found this jacket to be made from
real raccoon dog.
* In December 2007, Saks Fifth Avenue advertised and sold a "faux
fur" jacket through its online store that was later determined to be
genuine rabbit fur.

Fur Flies as Kneset Bill Threatens "shtreimel"supply

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1245184921523
Fur flies as Knesset bill threatens 'shtreimel' supply.
By REBECCA ANNA STOIL

Although fur hats might seem like a distant concern for most
Israelis as they settle in to a steamy summer, it was exactly
such headgear that threatened to stand in the way of an
otherwise popular bill that passed its first reading on the
Knesset floor Wednesday.
MK Ronit Tirosh's bill to ban imports of fur products from
east Asia earned the rare support of the coalition but irked
haredi MKs who worried that nothing less than a centuries-old
tradition could be at stake. Tirosh proposed the private
member's bill after watching an investigative report on
Channel 10 news in which they revealed that products
manufactured in China and labeled as containing synthetic fur
were actually made using the pelts of dogs, cats and rabbits.
Tirosh jumped to the aid of the four-footed friends and
drafted a private member's bill that would forbid importing
furs or textiles containing dog, cat or rabbit fur from east
Asia. Any offender could find themselves facing a year in
prison. In her explanation of the bill, Tirosh explained that
the animals that are raised for their pelts are kept in
horrific conditions and that sometimes the pelts are ripped
off the animals while they are still alive.
Tirosh's bill was met with enthusiastic support from all
directions, and Agriculture Minister Shalom Simchon even
suggested that it be expanded to include all fur from all
animals and to bar imports from throughout the world, and not
just the far east.
One house faction, however, was less than satisfied with the
bill. UTJ Faction Chairman MK Menahem Eliezar Moses, who
represents Agudath Israel, immediately jumped into action,
fighting to preserve the round fur hats known as "shtreimels"
worn by a number of hassidic groups as well as by members of
certain other Jerusalem haredi communities.
Shtreimel prices are already high for many wearers, and some
have already begun to turn to synthetic furs as an alternative
to the multi-thousand dollar hats that are made from rabbit,
sable, stone marten, baum marten and American gray fox.
Tirosh, in turn, presented rabbinic opinions arguing that the
conditions in which the animals were raised and slaughtered
violated Jewish principles of preventing cruelty to animals
and offered to work together with a haredi representative to
try and find a solution to the furry near-crisis.
The bill met with a second unexpected hurdle last week when it
was pulled at the last minute from Wednesday's agenda as part
of the opposition's struggle against the government - even
though the ministerial committee for legislation had already
agreed to support it.
But a week late, and with UTJ opposition quieted, Tirosh got a
first taste of victory as the bill sailed through the house by
a vote of 32-1 with one abstention. Although no UTJ members
were present during the voting, the bill did earn the support
of a number of their haredi counterparts in Shas.

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it
is
violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)

"The fate of animals is of greater importance to me
than the fear of appearing ridiculous;
it is indissolubly connected with the fate of men."

- Emile Zola (1840-1902)

NEW POLL-AMERICANS SUPPORT ANIMAL TESTING,WEARING FUR

New Poll -- Americans Support Animal Testing, Wearing Fur
By Wesley J. Smith , Senior Fellow in Bioethics -
May 21, 2009
Human exceptionalism is not only about human rights, but also human duties, including never using human beings as mere objects and the need to treat animals properly and humanely. The new Gallup Poll about what Americans consider morally acceptable behavior is interesting in both regards, and thus worth our pondering. (Part of the poll measured matters beyond our scope here at SHS, and these issues will not be addressed. The poll was also promoted by Gallup as showing Republicans growing increasingly "conservative. " We don't do partisan politics here, and moreover, what some call conservative, I think of as liberal--such as opposing assisted suicide. So, let's ignore those matters, too.)From the poll:Buying and wearing clothing made of animal fur: 61% to 35% think it is morally acceptable-- with the "acceptable" figure up from 54% last yearFur is the most publicly controversial use of animals, what with the seal clubbing and the scent of luxury it implies. I think that animal rights and welfare activists should actually be quite proud that 35% of the people believe that what was once seemed unremarkable is now considered morally unacceptable. But the increase in the "acceptable" category might reflect animal rights exhaustion, that is, people are tired of the preaching:Medical testing on animals--57% think it is right and 36%wrong. This figure is basically unchanged from last year.Medical testing is probably the use of animals that provides humans the greatest benefit. That 36% of the people think it is wrong, is an alarming indication that the research community has not done a good job of educating the public of the importance of their work and the lengths to which researchers go to treat the animals in their care humanely.I also think it is notable that the numbers who consider fur and animal research to be morally improper are nearly identical. If this is an increased sensitivity based on animal welfare thinking, I am cool with that, with the understanding that one can have great concern for animals and support research and fur. But if it reflects an acceptance of the ideology, values, and beliefs of "animal rights," it is cause for great concern:Cloning animals: Morally wrong 63%, to 34%.I have no problem with animal cloning because it doesn't impact human exceptionalism and potential great good could come from it for us. But I think the 34% figure is another example of a significant minority of the people having great concern for either the proper and humane care of animals, or animal rights. Again, if it is the former, good. If the latter, not good.Now, we turn to bioethical and biotechnological issues.Suicide: Only 15% think that suicide is morally proper, unchanged from last year.This result illustrates why assisted suicide advocates have worked so hard to engineer the language. Gooey euphemisms such as "aid in dying" are intended to mask the real subject at hand.Cloning human beings, 88% think it is improper and only 9% proper, down from 11% last year.The massive popular opposition to human cloning is also why research cloning advocates--with the willing complicity by a biased media--pretend that cloning isn't cloning and redefine and basic biological terms to give themselves political cover. While I have no doubt that if the poll had asked whether it is morally proper to create human cloned embryos for use in research, the numbers would have moved, I still believe that a majority would oppose--as they have in previous polls. This seems especially true when 64% oppose animal cloning. I think people are just very wary of science moving into areas that have such an explosive potential to dramatically alter the natural world.Medical research on stem cells taken from human embryos: 57% believe it is proper, down five points from 62% last year, with 36% believing it isimproper.While this question could technically apply to therapeutic cloning, it probably reflects the "leftover embryo" scenario that proved so politically successful in garnering public support for ESCR. The significant reduction in support--five points in one year--probably reflects the success of IPSC research as well as the growing understanding that adult stem cells are performing much better than expected when the great stem cell debate began.Abortion: Only 36% believe that abortion is morally proper, down from 40% last year, while 56% think it is morally inappropriate.This is the third major recent poll (Pew and a different Gallup) showing people moving in a generally "pro-life" direction on abortion. The reduced number of abortions each year may actually reflect the ongoing change in people's attitudes.All in all, it seems to me that people are increasingly concerned with the equality/sanctity of human life. Hopefully, someday that will be better reflected in our country's public policies. The increasing divide the poll shows between Republicans and Democrats also reflects, I think, a worrying trend in that it is hard to have a true society when its members view some of life's most important moral issues in such diametrically different ways.
http://www.opposing views.com/ articles/ news-new- poll-americans- support-animal- testing-wearing- fur-r-1242936268
__._,_.___

PUPPY UNDER PILE OF DOG SKINS SOLD BY GOOGLE ADWORDS PARTNER

May 9, 2009. A search on Google.com for “dog skin” (in Chinese) yields a sponsored AdWords text ad for “dog skin”, or “dog fur” (the two words are the same in Chinese). In the poster above, you can see the search result with the AdWords ad.
Clicking on the advertisement takes you to Alibaba.com’s “dog skin/fur” section, where one can find dozens of sellers of dog skins, each of whom can provide thousands of skins.
Among the many photos one finds on that first page (of dog skins, dogs in pens awaiting their fate, skinned torsos hanging on hooks, etc), you will see the the photo in the poster above, of a pile of dog skins.
Before publishing this post, I tried the search several times. Each time yielded the same AdWords ad for “dog skin” and the page the ad referred to continued to show the same results, including this particular seller.
I’d seen the photo several times before I started to see a telling detail.
At the bottom of the photo, you can see the head and upper torso of a puppy.
Likely buried under his or her own mother’s skin, this puppy’s corpse skin-for-sale is a SINGLE “AdWords” CLICK away from Google.com’s home page (Not Google.cn, mind you. I searched in Chinese on GOOGLE.com, which, the last time I checked, is an American company.)
Such an advertisement would be illegal in the USA. (See the statute which outlaws dog and cat fur. Also see the HSUS’s page on this issue.)
Google, we implore you stop advertising fur!!!
Related Articles:
Beijing News Report about Fur Farming in China
Flaying Sentient Beings