Woof woof! What are you wearing? Really?

[movinon]

Not sure why this is dated November since it was just a feature story on the news this a.m., but how creepy...
http://cbs2.com/goldstein/Fake.Fur.Dog.2.1287638.html

I guess fur labelling laws allow furs with value under a certain $ amount to be excluded from label laws.... so in fact your faux fur trimmed cozy garments may actually be.... not so faux.  I'm thinking of a couple of my favorite jackets/vests and feeling kind of creepy....
I guess anytime there is a law/regulation/directive about how something is to be labeled/categorized there is some loophole or "out" somewhere.  But usually you worry about something faux being labelled real to mislead...

[sewsanna]

I have never heard of raccoon dogs. Here is the Wikipedia link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raccoon_Dog

A little searching and you can see pics of the animals being bludgeoned to death. The Wiki article states that they are typically skinned alive! for their fur. It does sound as if retailers and manufacturers have pulled products when they have found that their faux fur is really raccoon dog fur. But thanks Movinon for the heads up.

The raccoon dog is not a canis lupis, but another canid distantly related to a dog.

This kind of fur harvesting is so wrong in so many ways!

[vtmartha]

I thought I remembered discussing raccoon dogs on SG some time ago, but a search brought up nothing.  Hmmm?  Should I be questioning all my other recollections? 

[Doris W. in TN]

I guess one could snip a few hairs from a discreet location, burn them, and note whether it melts or turns to ash.   That would be the only way that I know to determine if it's really faux.

[stashpanache]

Oh dear.  I made the mistake of Googling to find a photo of one.  They look like little foxes with raccoon eyes.

I went to a mink ranch when I was a little girl.  My Dad and his partner were thinking of adding it to their businesses.   Thank heavens they decided not to.  I still remember those adorable little minks in cages.  For an animal lover like me, it was hard.  I feel very guilty sometimes for wearing leather shoes.  I do eat a steak now and again or chicken or fish and go to McDonald's drive through on occasion too.  But mostly, I don't eat meat.  This entire issue is very problematic, isn't it?

[Claudine]

Part of the problem is that pretty much everything we consume is produced halfway around the world in China.  No one has a clear idea about the supply chain, and people don't really want to know.

At least when we buy yardage, it's easy to see that it's fake if there is no skin.

[sewsanna]

Yeah, we should be able to tell faux from fox. Or from raccoon dog. The faux will have a cloth "skin" and the real will have a leather skin. I've looked at a faux collar I used to have with a coat, and it did take some examining, but I figured out it was faux. You'd think you could trust the label, though.

The importer or manufacturer should be shut out from doing business with a country that has laws about truthfully declaring the makeup of a product.

[movinon]

Yeah, we should be able to tell faux from fox. Or from raccoon dog. The faux will have a cloth "skin" and the real will have a leather skin. I've looked at a faux collar I used to have with a coat, and it did take some examining, but I figured out it was faux. You'd think you could trust the label, though.

The importer or manufacturer should be shut out from doing business with a country that has laws about truthfully declaring the makeup of a product.

On garments shown they were mostly fur trims on hoods, some collars that were real, very hard to get to the cloth vs. leather "skin" in that setting.
But, while yes they did not truthfully declare the makeup (and after all, common sense prevailing one would presume that if a fur item were labelled in a way intended to mislead it would mean calling a faux piece real, not vice versa), or in some cases there was no fiber/makeup disclosed on a garment, the issue was not one of non-compliance - the whole point was that there was no law with which to comply since the "loophole" in the labelling laws regarding fur are only applicable to fur items deemed to be worth $150 or more - hence these items fell outside the range of regulated products.

[DebbieY]

Where I live there is very Little need for fur, real or otherwise, so thankfully I don't have any items of clothing that could fall into the realm of dubious origins. I also made the mistake of googling to see what these critters were and came across some very disturbing images. Surely there has to be something done to 1. stop this practice and 2. make it known to the public when these animals are being used in garment construction. That loophole that allows this to happen surely needs to be closed!

[dscheidt]

On garments shown they were mostly fur trims on hoods, some collars that were real, very hard to get to the cloth vs. leather "skin" in that setting.
But, while yes they did not truthfully declare the makeup (and after all, common sense prevailing one would presume that if a fur item were labelled in a way intended to mislead it would mean calling a faux piece real, not vice versa), or in some cases there was no fiber/makeup disclosed on a garment, the issue was not one of non-compliance - the whole point was that there was no law with which to comply since the "loophole" in the labelling laws regarding fur are only applicable to fur items deemed to be worth $150 or more - hence these items fell outside the range of regulated products.

The value exemption has exemptions...

if the label makes any claim about the fur, it's no longer exempt.  (Though the full rules still don't apply, so they don't have to state the country of origin of the fur, as well as other things.)  But if it's simply there, with no mention of it, then, yes, it doesn't need to be labeled.  the manufacturer has to keep records to document that the product is exempt (and the manufacturer is almost certainly a US entity, and not the Chinese factory).  There are some other exceptions to the exemption: doesn't apply to dog or cat (domestic dog and cat; not wolf, coyote or wild cats), nor to animals the fur of which is forbidden to be imported, nor does permit intentional deception.  (which is why claiming real fur is fake isn't permitted.)  

[karent]

I thought I remembered discussing raccoon dogs on SG some time ago, but a search brought up nothing.  Hmmm?  Should I be questioning all my other recollections? 

No, Martha, you are correct.  I recall as well, might have been on a PR thread?  I recall because it was in regard to some press about Michael Kors.  His company was cited by somebody-or-other for utilizing raccoon dog fur from China in their clothing.  I don't recall the details.  I do remember being pretty disgusted by comments I read (not here, but in some press reports) of people who were repulsed by having dog fur in their clothing but quite willing to wear rabbit.  Now I, when a grad student and very stupid and naive, worked in an animal lab making vaccine from rabbit serum.  I had a run in with a particularly nasty rabbit we called "Fang", and I have never been a rabbit fan since.  Still, don't want to wear one, and thus it sticks in my mind.  The raccoon dog stories were rather gruesome, sad to hear it still happens but not surprising.  K