Coat of dalmatian puppies? - YouLookFab Forum

Category

Off Topic

Welcome! Read about what to wear and how to wear it on the YLF Blog. Join the YLF Forum to ask specific questions or just chat about fashion and personal style. Or check out the curated list of things we love in YLF Finds.

Outfits Ensembles Trends Advice

Coat of dalmatian puppies?

Aziraphale

Veteran

In the interests of helping LisaP keep her vegan-leather thread http://youlookfab.com/welookfa.....-and-shoes on track, I'm posting again over here -- because I can never resist a good discussion and this is an *ahem* meaty topic!

Whenever the issue of the ethics of leather comes up, I immediately think of Cruella de Vil and her plan to make a coat out of puppies. (I can't believe that plot line was for a children's movie!). But it anchors one end of the spectrum of what people feel is OK vs. what they don't. I think we all agree that the idea of making a coat out of puppies is horrifying (never mind the fact that they can talk, and thus are basically people). Whenever I want to see someone else's point of view on the consumption of animals, I try to remember that. I think it's all about how much we think about animals as personalities. For vegans, the idea of consuming any creature with a face is as repugnant as the wearing of dalmatian puppies. For some, the line is drawn at mammals; somehow chickens, with their mad little chicken eyes, seem less like people than cows or pigs do. Still others are OK with fish but not birds. And so on. The point is, nobody is wrong, because there is no definitive way of assessing which animals count as people and which don't.

The ethical and humane treatment of animals while they are alive, however, DOES have a right and wrong answer.

Has anyone read The Amazing Maurice and his Educated Rodents? I'm reading it to my son at the moment, and it touches on this very issue. Maurice is a talking cat, and there are talking rats, too, who became talking rats because they ate magically-radioactive waste from the University's garbage dump. Not all rats talk, though -- some are just "normal" rats. Because cats eat rodents, Maurice has the ethical dilemma of what to eat. He deals with this by pinning down all rats and mice and asking them to speak up, and if they can he doesn't eat them. He also makes sure to kill them quickly, rather than playing with them, as cats like to do. This all works very well -- except for the time he caught a rat with a speech impediment, and it couldn't answer in time. The point is, I think, that there is no perfect answer to the question of what is acceptable in terms of animal consumption and what is not.

Off Topic

27 replies

Latest reply was from catgirl

Anonymous

I agree 100 % We all have to do what is right for us . That's an interesting sounding book too - especially for a kids' story.

elpgal

Veteran

I want to read that book!

Angie

(website)

Fashion Stylist

As always, E, you make a lot of sense. You have a good head on your shoulders.

elpgal

Veteran

I have always wondered when the humane treatment of animals became such a hot issue. Was this always the case or is this a newer phenomenon?

Aziraphale

Veteran

elpgal, based on a quick Google search, it looks like the interest began in the late 1800s, in North America at least (several SPCA organizations popped up around then). I think animal rights movements gain and lose momentum depending on other current issues. Right now it doesn't feel like animal rights issues are a huge public focus, probably because of the faltering economy and the growing concern about the environment. I think animal rights got a lot of public attention in the 60s through the 80s, though. (My personal awareness of this issue stretches back to my teens, because the bus stop I waited at every day after school was right in front of a PETA office).

elpgal

Veteran

That's interesting. Was humanely raised meat available back then? I started seeing it in markets only in the last 10-15 years and this is only after organic markets became mainstream. I used to be a meat-eater when I was in India but then moved to a small town in the mid-west where the options were limited and meat never tasted the same. In my current east-coast large city, I have a lot of options including CSAs and 'split a cow' meat-shares but don't have the appetite for it anymore. When I first came across friends who ate dog-meat, it was a big shock!

Aziraphale

Veteran

I think 10-15 years ago marks the place where animal rights intersects with the environmental movement and a growing concern about healthy, pesticide-free/antibiotic-free food. So maybe that's what you're thinking about if you feel like it's a recent trend. I agree. But animal rights issues in general have been a "thing" for decades.

catgirl

Veteran

Yes - it's not a simple debate. A friend went through a series of ethical choices on what she would eat, like did it have a brain? Was it sentient? I think in the end she decided she wouldn't eat anything that had eyes.

I just read an New Yorker article about the rise of children's services which began in Victorian times when do-gooders with enough money to care for their own children were able to afford interest in the welfare of "poor" less fortunate children, usually with all the accompanying value judgments. Animal rescue societies came about at the same time. For many humans, the expansion of the circle of care is a luxury - if you can't feed your kids, you're probably not worrying about other people, let alone stray dogs and cats.

Carnivore, omnivore, vegan, vegetarian - it's all food for thought.

Aziraphale

Veteran

Carnivore, omnivore, vegan, vegetarian - it's all food for thought.

No pun intended? Lol

annagybe

(website)

Veteran

Honestly I wonder how much of it is, to use an ecological based term "charismatic megafauna"

I'm remembering a story I think by Anthony Bourdain. Woody harrelson was in either Thailand or Vietnam. He was so committed to his diet that he only ate green papaya salad the entire time, presumably without the fish sauce. Anthony thought it was rude to refuse any of the local food.

Here's an interesting interview
http://www.bookslut.com/featur.....009085.php

Aziraphale

Veteran

Anna, it's true that people are a lot more sympathetic to animals that are (a) intelligent (like pigs), or (b) cute (like cows, deer, rabbits).

I've noticed that we don't generally eat other carnivores. I wonder if this is related to the fact that carnivores are typically harder to catch, and of course hard to herd. They are also typically more attractive, and more intelligent, than herbivores.

catgirl

Veteran

Pun absolutely and always intended!

People here hunt and eat black bear, mostly as sausage. It's gamey and not all that tasty to me. As said above, it's always struck me as odd to eat an apex predator. We generally don't eat things that would eat us.

Laura (rhubarbgirl)

(website)

Veteran

I do think a lot of it is about charismatic megafauna - there was a book a few years ago with a title something like "why do we eat cows and keep dogs as pets". It's all culturally relative and somewhat arbitrary, our attitudes toward animals.

I think it's great that people are thinking more about where their food comes from, but everyone likes to ignore the scalability issues. The 'green revolution' of modern farming technology, fertilizers, and antibiotics, etc., helped support the population boom of the 20c and made food cheaper than it's been basically since humans have existed. It's easy to say now that we overstepped, or did harm to the environment long-term, but if all the 'factory farms' had to switch to organic locavore-ism sans chemicals tomorrow, literally millions of people would starve to death. Obviously a more slow transition to sustainable methods is hoped for, but as long as there is money to be made and poor people who need food, there are going to be competing interests at work.

rabbit

Veteran

Lisa's thread sent me down a rabbit hole of reading a bit more about where leather used in clothing comes from last night. I was wondering about the sustainability angle and the humane treatment angle mostly, rather than the 'should we use animal products at all' larger question.

Living where I do there are options for buying locally farmed organic milk and meat and eggs from backyard chickens. But leather used in US clothing/shoes seems to mostly come from India and China where there aren't animal protections banning cruel practices and few protections for people who work in or around highly polluting tanneries. (In China some of the 'leather' entering the supply chain used for small items like gloves does appear to come from dogs -- so maybe Cruella isn't that far-fetched). As to the argument that leather is a by-product of the meat and dairy industry, that seems a bit murkier, as I read that leather can have a higher and more consistent value that beef, so it can 'subsidize' a fluctuating beef market -- they basically are co-products which support the industry in most places.

Several mainstream shoe companies (Timberland, Clarks, Nike, Adidas) have responded to the Greenpeace pressure and won't source leather from Brazil anymore because of Amazon deforestation. Other companies (Earthies, Think! etc.) use vegetable dyed leather so help avoid the poisonous tannery issues, and also provide shoes that people who have a chrome allergy could wear.

Then there is the issue of overall resource use in manufacturing PU/growing grain and tanning where it's really hard to tell how to balance the scales. Also the question of decomposition (tanned leather can last much longer than I'd expected sometimes) -- In good news some companies like Timberland and Patagonia have closed loop systems in place where they will take back worn out clothing and shoes for recycling.

Most of the articles I read said that buying less and using it for longer makes far more of an environmental impact than whether you buy leather or PU. So items that are higher quality and last longer before being replaced or are purchased second hand (this is kind of a get out of jail free card, support locally owned businesses and charities, get new to you clothes with no additional manufacturing ) might win the environmental scorecard:

Pete Lankford, design director for Earthkeepers and Timberland Boot company, notes that while there are plenty of things to be concerned about in the leather-making process, from the resources that go into raising the cows to the industrial processes at tanneries, the products stand the test of time. "Leather wins hands down over anything you can think of," says Lankford. If you can buy a pair of boots that last twice as long as a synthetic alternative, you'll end up with half the environmental impact in the long run, he notes. Timberland and other major retailers, meanwhile, have partnered to form the Leather Working Group to craft a rating system for tanneries based on their efforts to reduce their environmental impact. http://www.motherjones.com/blu.....endly-real

Also a good read: http://www.slate.com/articles/.....ther_be_pl...

The leather working group of companies working to reduce the environmental impact of tanning: http://www.leatherworkinggroup.com/

Aziraphale

Veteran

Laura, it's true that what we eat seems rather arbitrary. And it was my understanding that in certain cultures, dog meat was (or possibly still is) acceptable. I think, in the history of humankind, we've always just eaten what we can get. We probably ended up farming cows and sheep because these animals were, from the get-go, easiest to herd and breed. But in parts of Africa during extreme food shortages, people still eat "bushmeat" (mostly monkey, I think) because when you're really hungry, you'll eat whatever you can find or catch. I guess only the (relatively) rich have the luxury of choice when it comes to food consumption.

Rabbit, thank you for your in-depth post -- I found it really interesting, especially the bit about how the leather industry may in fact support the beef industry due to fluctuating beef prices. I did not know that. What I did know about, though -- and I'm glad you mentioned it -- are the problems associated with tanning processes (i.e. toxic by-products). I did buy a pair of veggie-tanned leather sandals last year, and the leather is exquisite. The downside? They were very expensive. Apparently the veggie-tanning process takes far longer, and that drives up the price. Most of the world cannot afford the up-front cost of environmentally-friendly products. Heck, I can only afford them because I'm sparing with my sandal purchases, and will wear them for the next ten years, and I won't be buying five more pairs of cheap sandals in that time. But at least I can afford the up-front cost. Many can't.

I'm reminded of this quote from the late great Terry Pratchett: “The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.
Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.
But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet. [my emphasis]
This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

And besides the socioeconomic unfairness, there's also the issue you brought up: you'll have half the environmental impact if you buy fewer, but better, products. And leather wins when it comes to longevity.

elpgal

Veteran

My dog eating friends hail from the Eastern states of India.

Search for 'Nagaland' and dog-eating if you are so inclined.

Helen11

Veteran

of course there is a quote from Terry Pratchett to explain.
Thanks!

Aziraphale

Veteran

elpgal -- er, thanks...I think!

Helen -- yes, all my quotes seem to come from him these days, don't they? I'm in the process of reading Maurice to my son, and the Sam Vimes series to my daughter, so I'm often reminded of the wise stuff Pratchett wrote while managing to be funny at the same time.

rachylou

Veteran

Soo... I think I believe in boycotts against things like cutting beaks off of chickens. In some ways I feel humans are clearly omnivores and it's unethical and self hating to deny this. This is Nature. It's a cold reality. Do y'all remember the vegans that almost killed their baby feeding him a vegan diet? (When I say self hating, I don't mean this couple hated their baby, but they had a difficult time accepting the reality of the human physiology.)

But a clean quick kill is always the rule it seems to me. A messy kill, you stand a good chance of poisoning your food there. Maiming seems in this category to me, plain stupid and also distorted.

There is this guy, I won't name names, who tries to organize Asians politically. And he takes on 'Asian' issues - like the banning of shark finning. He calls that racist and I call it stupid - finning that is. I just can't get behind him, carnivorous as I am and even if the AsianAm community needs to mature politically.

Aziraphale

Veteran

Rachy -- "But a clean quick kill is always the rule it seems to me" -- yep. (Like when the cat Maurice develops a conscience -- he becomes a person -- and stops playing with rodents before he eats them. He's still got to eat rodents, but because he's a person, he's ethical about it).

Tina

Veteran

My understanding is that we only eat the meat of animals raised on grains. We raised several pigs this past summer, our friends boarded them on their little farm. I wanted to bring them any leftovers, vegetable peels and such. My friend stressed to me that I should not bring them any meat of any sort. Apparently pigs will eat pretty much anything but this experience taught me that it is common practice not to feed domestic animals, being raised for meat, any meat.
I have never heard of dogs being a source of meat. Starving people doing what they need to survive, that is a whole different matter.
I was raised, and still live, in a farming community. It is very common for people here to raise cows, pigs and chickens for butchering. It has never seemed inhumane to me. Simply a way of life. i think what is being discussed as inhumane treatment of animals is on a very different plane. Likely not the scene of cattle grazing in the field having all the time and space in the world, or so it seems:-)

annagybe

(website)

Veteran

The Polynesian had a dog breed call the Kuri that they used to eat called the Kuri. It's now extinct.
Koreans & Chinese eat dogs. But I remember reading a LiveJournal way back when of a woman. She was in Korea & decided to search out a restaurant that serves dog. Turned out it was very hard to find, not well marked in some side street. She had a lot of trouble ordering, they seemed suspicious of her as a white woman. Eventually she got some soup or stew based dish. She said it tasted like a dog, basically not very pleasant. Supposedly the practice of eating dog has declined because of western shaming. Which bugs me some. Who says our ethics are better. Dogs don't exactly take up a lot of space or resources like cattle ranches.
Just recently here in the northwest, some animal rights group raised a ton of money to rescue a bunch of dogs from a meat factory in China. It was all over the local news here. Admittedly judging by the pictures the conditions looked deplorable. They had all the dogs shipped here.
Also look a few years ago at the meatball scandal in the UK, some had horse meat. Horse meat used to be somewhat common in France. I remember seeing horse burgers in French Polynesia in the early eighties. But because of outside disapproval it has declined.
I'm not trying to be totally ethically ambiguous. But sometimes you need to realize your way is not the high way

elpgal

Veteran

The folk who ate dog treated it as a special delicacy; they didn't eat it because they were starving.

Perhaps others who are familiar with animal husbandry can comment but I thought CAFO raised animals were fed a diet that was partly animal remanents.

Eta: http://m.seattlepi.com/local/a.....135589.php

rachylou

Veteran

There have been changes since mad cow, but there was a practice of feeding cow to cows.

ETA: for some reason I've always thought that we don't eat other predators because they taste bad...

Tina

Veteran

My above comment was referencing my personal experience. I was not even thinking of other cultures and how things are done differently.
In reference to a question above about how we decide what animals to eat and which ones not to eat, I understand it has to do with their diet. This is likely tied to the whole meat safety aspect. I am in Canada and am not familiar with all the legislation involved in raising animals, a lot of our meat is sourced locally.

Aziraphale

Veteran

To Anna's point: it's all a bit arbitrary. The thought of eating dog squicks me out, but that's because I've kept dogs as pets. I'm sure I'd have trouble with the idea of eating any animal I'd kept as a pet.

However, there is another problem with dog: they're carnivores. We generally don't eat other carnivores (not mammalian ones, anyway). I wonder if this is part of the reason that many cultures won't eat pork. Pigs aren't exactly herbivores, are they? (Plus, and I don't know if this is true or not, they can scream like humans).

Rachy: it may well be that carnivores taste bad (Una said upthread that black bear isn't very good), but the bigger issue, I think, is that they're not really farmable, so we haven't got used to raising them as livestock, and they are harder to get when you're hunting, too -- partly because they're smarter, and partly just a numbers thing. There have got to be more deer, for example, by an order of ten compared to things like cougars and wolves.

catgirl

Veteran

That is why killing predators screws up the balance so much. The lynx and rabbit populations here wax and wane regularly - as the rabbits are abundant the lynx are too, and then when the rabbits are hunted to scarcity the lynx population goes back down. But throw in humans hunting the lynx and it all gets out of whack. Also hunters killing females and babies (bear, moose, anything) is forbidden , although in the wild those are often the weakest and easiest prey.