?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Comments

( 20 comments — Leave a comment )
ex_rhovanio
Feb. 23rd, 2007 09:23 am (UTC)
I fucking hope not...!
goth_hobbit
Feb. 23rd, 2007 09:44 am (UTC)
Sad to say, I think it is.

I googled the Wikipedia article for Raccoon Dogs, and the HSUS article about the Sean-John jackets is linked at the bottom.

More and more, I wish to hell that clothing manufacturers would start taking more responsibility about the items that they put their names on.

*goes off to be very nice to the Maggie-dog*
spastik_kitty
Feb. 23rd, 2007 10:30 am (UTC)
The way I found out was a smear campaign against J-Lo when she launched her line.

Video footage I will never forget.
(Deleted comment)
spastik_kitty
Feb. 23rd, 2007 10:28 am (UTC)
Tis very true, I've been telling this to people for years, but nobody believed me.
tempestteapot
Feb. 23rd, 2007 11:19 am (UTC)
Art imitates life or is it life imitates art? I can't remember but 101 Dalmations with Cruella DeVille and her puppy skin coats has been around for years. :(
carmelonia
Feb. 23rd, 2007 12:41 pm (UTC)
I can't believe that J.C. Penny's is just blacking out the part of the label that reads 'fur' and putting these things back on the shelves. It will certainly make me more careful about buying anything with faux fur trimming. I may avoid faux fur altogether.
atalantapendrag
Feb. 23rd, 2007 12:50 pm (UTC)
Selling real fur... as fake fur?

God, the world is weird.
obvious
Feb. 23rd, 2007 01:18 pm (UTC)
The part about labeling real fur as fake is distrubing... but I always get so annoyed with people who flip out over where their fur is coming from. Dead fur is dead fur and the animal they killed didn't suffer any less if it's a raccoon rather than a raccoon dog.

/rant
lurid_dreaming
Feb. 23rd, 2007 01:46 pm (UTC)
The only part about it that makes me think twice is their method of analysis.
They say they used Mass Spec to evaluate the fur. As far as I was aware, mass spectrometry on it's *own* can*not* tell you the species of origin.

Mass spec determines chemical properities (i.e. what chemical compounds are involved) of a substance only. It can NOT, again, on it's own, determine genetics. Last I checked, chemistry alone can't tell you what species something is... hair is protein, and protein is amino acids, for dogs, wolves, coyotes, etc.

About the only thing the mass spec would be able to determine is whether the hair is fake or real, because it *could* tell you if the hair is made of nylon/acrylic vs. protein/amino acids.

Just my .02.
(Deleted comment)
lurid_dreaming
Feb. 23rd, 2007 04:03 pm (UTC)
yes, I agree and I meant to include that point actually and forgot. Thanks for reminding me.

I do tend to nitpick though when articles which may reveal something that incredible are innaccurate in their words/usage/terms/etc. Because for those who are familiar with the terms and methods, it decreases the credibility.

On the other hand, I'm more inclined to believe that it's just as you suggested, a matter of oversimplifying, then false methods, due to the nature of the group bringing the matter up (the Humane Society).

To be honest, had this come from more, hysterical type source (I.e. Peta) I'd be more critical. But the humane society isn't really known for being an inflammatory, hypercritical source. So I'm more inclined to believe it was oversimplification, although I wish that wasn't so. :(
dagger_garnet
Feb. 23rd, 2007 02:41 pm (UTC)
That is horrible. I can't believe there are people who would stoop so low to kill and torture animals for the sake of merchandise. It disgusts me!
anjibobanji
Feb. 23rd, 2007 02:50 pm (UTC)
I believe it but it is so fucked up!
the_leh
Feb. 23rd, 2007 04:14 pm (UTC)
That is HORRIFYING!

And, it doesn't make any sense. Isn't the faux stuff cheaper?
blackfelicula
Feb. 23rd, 2007 05:08 pm (UTC)
Ugh! Sounds like I'll be avoiding anything that looks like fur then, unless I get it at the fabric store and can see for myself that it's fake...
mctina
Feb. 23rd, 2007 05:29 pm (UTC)
Entirely true. They got up PuffyPDiddyPuffababyknockkocks ass on this a couple months back and Macy's flipped out. The "defense" was that it was a wild wolfy dog of some kind that is hunted for materials in some parts of Asia and that's where the labs found the doggie DNA in the fur.
natsukaze
Feb. 24th, 2007 01:00 am (UTC)
That's one reason I avoid fur of any kind, fake or not. The only fur that I wear is what my cats shed onto my clothes!
girleevviill
Feb. 24th, 2007 06:54 am (UTC)
Yup. Have you seen those 'sleeping kitten/puppy' toys that they sell at Aahs and in malls? Most of those are made from realy animal fur, too, and it makes me so angry. People are buying what they think is a cute toy for their kid, when essentially, it's an animal skin glued onto the shape of another animal. It makes me feel ill. I can't even let Grace look at those things. *shudder*
chumleytheogre
Feb. 24th, 2007 10:03 pm (UTC)
Chumley to leave miz Elizabeth a birthday greeting, but Chumley not on her f-list
lunakitten
Mar. 6th, 2007 10:22 pm (UTC)
Off topic.
Ran across you here (and LJ is where I spent entirely too much time) so I thought I'd drop you a note.

Thank you, to you and Puddin' for making my daughter feel welcome. We both really enjoyed the will-call, she's still talking about it.

After a thouroughly terrible week it was the nicest thing to be able to participate in, so I just wanted to let you know how much it was appreciated.
( 20 comments — Leave a comment )