Dog Fur Coats Sold By Dillards, Caché, ELUXURY, And DrJays

The Humane Society has just released the results from another round of tests on fur-trimmed products from national U.S. retailers, and in four cases they found that the advertised “raccoon” fur was actually “raccoon dog,” a canine indigenous to Asia. This is one case where the FTC is squarely to blame for creating the problem in the first place, because in 1951 they decided that trade trumps scientific classification and declared “that this animal should be referred to as ‘Asiatic raccoon’ in advertising and labeling.”

If you are one of the many Americans who are opposed to real fur, the problem is obvious: you bought “faux fur” and received real. Or–if you are ok with some types of fur–you thought you were purchasing one species but instead took home a garment trimmed with fur from a species of dog.

But even if retailers and designers were to stop falsely advertising and labeling raccoon dog fur today, consumers would still be left with less than ideal information about what is really on the jacket they’re purchasing.

That’s because, despite “raccoon dog” being this animal’s common name (that is, the non-Latin name which is generally used), the Federal Trade Commission inexplicably decided in 1951 that this animal should be referred to as “Asiatic raccoon” in advertising and labeling under the Fur Products Labeling Act.

So how do you keep from buying a dog fur coat? Well, here’s the Humane Society’s list of companies that have claimed they do not sell real fur products.

“Investigation Results Find Raccoon Dog Most Misrepresented Fur Sold in America” [Humane Society] (Thanks to Pierre!)
(Photo: hokkey)

Comments

Edit Your Comment

  1. So if the raccoon dog was rumaging through your trash, and spreading rabies, it’s OK, cuz it’s cute and is a social animal? Hate to say it, but raccoon are social too. They even wash their hands.

  2. rmz says:

    “Or–if you are ok with some types of fur–you thought you were purchasing one species but instead took home a garment trimmed with fur from a species of dog.”

    I don’t get this. Why would you be okay with the skinning of one type of animal, but not another? We only want to save the cute ones?

  3. smitty1123 says:

    I can has Tanuki suit?

  4. sirwired says:

    Why would it make any difference, animal-rights-wise, to trim a coat with a raccoon vs. a dog? I imagine either animal would not be too happy with the end result.

    SirWired

  5. Javert says:

    I love when self-serving organizations such as PETA or the Humane Society come out with some crap. I have a question, why does the Humane Soceity not switch from a political money making organization and use some of the $100+ million in assets and actually help animals in shelters. I guess it is more profitable to issue press releases than to actually do anything useful.

  6. Michael Belisle says:

    Wikipedia makes this sound like the equivalent of buying a dingo-fur coat. And the dingo, as we all know, will eat your baby.

  7. mthrndr says:

    I am neither for nor against fur (other than the fact that I think it’s generally an ugly fashion statement). But anyone with a conscience should be appalled at what these people do. At least humanely terminate the animal before skinning it. View at your own risk.

  8. mthrndr says:

    sorry, here’s the link.


    + Watch video

  9. PierreGrzybowski says:

    Regarding this statement in our webstory:

    “Or–if you are ok with some types of fur–you thought you were purchasing one species but instead took home a garment trimmed with fur from a species of dog.”

    For whatever reason, there are a lot of consumers out there who do think it’s okay to mistreat or kill one type of animal but not another. There are also people with allergies to specific species who might seek to avoid all fur of that type–rabbit, for example.

    So, this is really just pointing out additional ways all these labeling problems affect consumers, and not just consumers against fur.

    -Pierre
    http://www.humanesociety.org/furfree

  10. ClayS says:

    @mthrndr:
    I’m not against fur, but I couldn’t watch that video past about 30 seconds. That’s completely unnecessary cruelty. There is no reason that animal couldn’t be killed before skinning him.

  11. MYarms says:

    Ewww who would want to buy a raccoon fur coat anyway?

  12. BugMeNot2 says:

    Wait. So if I wear one of these coats, can I fly and gain an extra hit point against Goombahs? If so, King Koopah better watch out.

  13. katylostherart says:

    humane treatment of your food and clothes before they become food and clothes is really just the decent thing to do. if i was going to be food and leather i’d want to have a nice life before death. species classification shouldn’t matter all that much unless it’s endangered. it’s still killing an animal.

  14. RandoX says:

    Looks like a fox-raccoon hybrid to me.

    It’s coming right for us!!!

  15. Narockstar says:

    @mthrndr: I’m not a generally squeamish person, but that is going to give me nightmares. Why do they skin them alive?

  16. satoru says:

    I think the real problem is the fact that the American public is so far removed from where their products come from. Their meat comes boneless wrapped in neat plastic. There really isn’t the extreme level of anthromorphizing that exists here anywhere else in the world. Heck my Chinese friend’s grandmother kills live chickens in her kitchen. No one thinks its ‘weird’ or ‘cruel’ except these PETA morons. It’s just an animal, and it’s food. The only reason you want to kill it fast is because (true story) it’s annoying when a chicken with a slit throat runs around the kitchen.

    Their argument is fallacious anyways. They’re unstated premise is that they’re against any type of fur. They’re just picking this because its a ‘dog raccoon’ which gets on people’s never because its a dog. I mean a wolf is an undomesticated dog, but it doesn’t invoke the kind of response as a dog, where you somehow imagine them killing Lassie.

  17. I realize the fur trade isn’t going anywhere, but the humane killing of animals for their resources is paramount in my book. Ending their life with the minimal pain/suffering is always what should be done and China (much worse) and the US have issues with properly downing animals at times. I will note that these animals are rarely someone’s pets and just like the ones that are eaten in some countries, Snookums isn’t being kidnapped and BBQ’d or turned into a coat.

  18. amoeba says:

    This is so sad, I am shocked that Dillard’s is actually selling these kind of coats. I hate fur and anithing coming from animals. So, I am glad to be a PETA MORON and a Humane Society contributor idiot.

  19. katylostherart says:

    @satoru: killing your food quickly is a practice everywhere. peta doesn’t argue against the killing of chickens by quickly chopping off their heads. they generally argue against the keeping them in cages so small their limbs stick out and they cover themselves in shit before being turned into chicken nuggets. anthropomorphising your dinner is probably a bad idea but that doesn’t mean you need to beat it up before you brain it.

    this is a matter of false advertising. they advertised raccoon and instead you’re getting another species. although if you’re buying fur i can’t see why you care too much where it’s from because in all likelihood, it was farmed and treated much the same way as any other farmed animal.

    ps – she shouldn’t kill chickens in the kitchen they’ll shit everywhere.

  20. mthrndr says:

    @Narockstar: If I remember correctly, it’s to avoid damaging the fur or some such nonsense. I guess a medicinally induced death is not cost effective. So they just skin them alive and leave them in a heap. The video I posted isn’t even the worst of them. If you care, you can find others on youtube-all ‘raccoon dogs’ in china. Given their human rights abuses, why would they treat animals any better?

  21. mthrndr says:

    @satoru: There’s a difference between killing a chicken or other animal for food, either by head chopping or brain prod (cattle), and slowly skinning an animal alive and then just leaving it there to die of exposure and trauma. That’s what this particular industry does differently than almost any other animal product industry (save maybe the foie gras industry where they force feed ducks all day). see the video above.

  22. TechnoDestructo says:

    They ARE NOT dogs. They are primitive canids. They look similar to raccoons (but they’re bigger and MUCH faster), and they behave similarly to raccoons (except they tend to stay on the ground, and they’re a little more timid, though). But they are more closely related to dogs.

    Raccoon dogs:dogs::lemurs:monkeys

    Anyhow, it isn’t dog fur. These are not dogs…like not even some other species of dog, let alone domestic dogs. And there isn’t even a conservation issue…there are endangered local populations, but as a species, they’re doing fine.

  23. in2insight says:

    For those who say that “well, they are just food” :
    You are just food too! (To some living thing bigger and faster than you)
    Keep that in mind, eh?

    And yes, I fall into the camp that says that all fur is murder.

  24. in2insight says:

    Any fur taken is by murder. Plain and simple.

    for food, sure, but humanly.
    for fur? plain stupid. But hey, look how we treat each other. why would we treat animals with any more compassion and care?

  25. rmz says:

    @amoeba: “I am glad to be a PETA MORON and a Humane Society contributor idiot.”

    There have been many instances in which PETA has picketed the humane society and personally harrassed (and solicited harrassment towards) Humane Society administrators.

  26. ChuckECheese says:

    This was supposedly taken care of last season. Then JCPenney and Macy’s and Dillard’s snuck the furry bark-as and sc-arf!s back onto the shelves when nobody was looking. And this year they’re still buying them. It’s like the war on drugs, except you’ll get skinned alive instead of gangland executed if you mess with the wrong people.

  27. TechnoDestructo says:

    Raccoon dogs don’t say “arf.”

    @in2insight:

    Hardly any humans are ever food for bigger, faster animals.

    They’re food for smaller, slower animals. Much smaller, much slower.

  28. TechnoDestructo says:

    @in2insight:
    I’d be surprised if those raccoon dogs aren’t being eaten.

  29. amoeba says:

    @rmz: I am not a HARD CORE PETA activist (nor I am an activist), and I agree with you that they go beyond sometimes their ethics. I’m just making fun of satoru.

  30. 22rifle says:

    @in2insight:

    All fur is murder?

    So the fur on my pet dog is murder?

    The fur on the coon I saw a couple days ago is murder?

    The fur on any given “beaver” is murder?

    What an idiotic statement you made.

  31. 22rifle says:

    @mthrndr:

    What kind of canine is that?

    What is it’s fur used for?

    Where was this video taken?

    Who took the video?

    What was the animal actually used for?

    Who was the person doing the skinning?

    Horrible treatment for sure, but I don’t know if there is a connection to the fur trade or not without the answers to those questions.

  32. 22rifle says:

    @in2insight:

    It is only plain and simple to the plain and simple.

  33. 22rifle says:

    @katylostherart: Thank you for a sane comment in this sea of emotions based on hype and lies.

  34. smitty1123 says:

    @22rifle: You are not supposed to ask questions. Asking questions is the first step towards forming your own opinion. Just be outraged.

  35. 22rifle says:

    @amoeba: I would not brag about being associated with groups that lie and kill animals to fleece the sheeple out of their money.

  36. 22rifle says:

    @mthrndr: If in fact, animals are skinned alive to provide fur for the fur trade, it is only a tiny segment of the fur trade that does this and your attempts to smear the entire fur trade with this brush is false.

  37. 22rifle says:

    @katylostherart: you said:

    “peta doesn’t argue against the killing of chickens by quickly chopping off their heads”

    That is incorrect. PETA is opposed to any killing of any animal no matter the cause. If it came down to a choice between you or a fox dying they would prefer you to be the one that died. Literally. PETA is evil incarnate.

  38. amoeba says:

    @22rifle: I contribute to Humane Society. So, I wasn’t saying anything dishonest. Although the “moron” and “idiot” is making fun to the fellow commenter.

  39. FromThisSoil says:

    I generally don’t like fur clothing because the rest of the animal goes to waste.

    I have heard before that these animals are skinned alive and I find that repugnant. Seeing the video above disgusted me. I can’t believe you would skin something alive like that. The prolonged, unnecessary pain that poor creature had to go through to be trim on some kids hooded jacket…unbelievable!

    The food chain is a fact of life, I’m fine with that. I’m not down with wasting the carcass of an animal to get its fur and skinning it alive.

    If I had to go, I’d want it to be quick.

  40. ChuckECheese says:

    @TechnoDestructo: I think you’re right, and one of the stories I read last year about this (this story is a couple years old now) said that the animals were being raised for food and the fur was a byproduct. It wouldn’t seem to make economic sense to raise dogs for fur trim on jackets, unless more of the dog is used than the fur. Dog penis and testicle are used in Traditional Chinese Medicine, so I think we got that part covered too.

  41. opsomath says:

    I have no problem with fur. But if I saw someone skinning a dog alive, I’d take their knife away and shove it up their ass. My God, what is wrong with someone who could do that.

  42. nardo218 says:

    @MYarms: Mr Burns? To wear to the Army vs Navy game.

    I so don’t get fur. It’s a fucking corpse, people, WTF is wrong with you. YOU’RE WEARING ROAD KILL.

  43. Wonderwall says:

    If there’s an animal rights activist who buys fur trimmed coats, I would love to see him/her buy this coat, thinking its “faux fur”, and unwittingly purchase “raccoon dog”. But I doubt there is… i can dream though…

  44. Wonderwall says:

    I guess because it’s a “dog” people are making a big shit about it. But I don’t see too many people, if any at all, complaining about the inhumane slaughter of red meat, pork, or poultry. And pigs are known to be very emotional animals. So if its cute, fluffy or somewhat domestic, people love to have a shit fest about it. I just hope your wise enough to duck when shit hit’s the fan.

  45. luz says:

    I’m kind of sad that I’m apparently the only person who thinks about Assassin’s Creed (and nothing else) on reading this.

  46. Gooz2 says:

    OMG…I really wish I hadn’t watched that…those poor creatures. I mean, I’m not all pro PETA or anything but holy crap!! HOW and more importantly WHY would anyone do that? I don’t care if it’s a dog, racoon, or a freakin GOLDFISH! You just don’t treat any living creature like that…freakin heathens…at least kill them humanely before you throw them against the ground, bash their heads in, or skin them alive!!! I’m so incredibly pissed right now…

  47. bluewyvern says:

    Ugh. On the one hand, raccoon dog != raccoon, so it’s false advertising if what you think you’re getting is raccoon fur. On the other hand, raccoon dog != OMG puppy dawg! It’s a canid, like a fox (considered, by those who condone fur, a perfectly great fur animal that doesn’t raise any puppy-loving red flags — and really, raccoon dog fur looks like it might be nicer than raccoon fur. It sounds like being advertised beaver and getting stoat or something). Generally (although apparently there is some dispute among taxonomists) foxes and raccoon dogs, though both belonging to the canidae family, are not considered “true dogs” like wolves or coyotes, for example.

    Some elucidation from Wikipedia:
    Raccoon dog – [en.wikipedia.org]
    Canidae – [en.wikipedia.org]

    Really, it’s just annoying that it has to be named after two creatures that it’s not — we should just call them tanuki and be done with it.

    So, consumerist readers, how do you feel about the prospect of tanuki fur bring advertised as raccoon fur? Does that change the issue some?

  48. alexiso says:

    Even if it says “Faux Fur” I don’t buy it because I don’t know the “faux” is. It baffles me to think that skinning a “racoon dog” and calling it Faux Fur isn’t the same as skinning a chinchilla or fox and calling it real.

    It’s. all. real. fur.

  49. 22rifle says:

    @nardo218: Can you please turn up the emotion based hype volume a bit please?

    Fur is not a corpse. And it is not road kill.

    Animals were given for our use.

    Grow up and quit basing your life on emotions fed by people with a bad agenda.

  50. 22rifle says:

    @Gooz2: The problem lies squarely with a barbaric culture, not with the fur trade.

    This video makes me mad. But I heard the other day of people who will use tools to reach up inside a pregnant female to cut the baby animal up in pieces and yank it out. That is barbaric too.

  51. animeredith says:

    @22rifle:

    Sure, they were originally very useful for clothing and fur, back when our ancestors had no other option. Nowadays we have so many alternatives to fur/leather that it is a luxury item. We don’t NEED that mink coat or leather bag. We don’t NEED a fur stole to keep us alive through a harsh winter.

    In the modern world wearing fur is the equivalent of a big,fat middle finger to all other lifeforms that share our planet with us. I rank it up there with driving around in gas-guzzlers like the Hummer and not giving two shits about your carbon footprint.

  52. 22rifle says:

    @animeredith:

    So may I assume you restrict all your material possessions to items you have a strict need for?

    Why does your carbon footprint matter to begin with?

    I don’t understand the correlation between wearing fur and other life forms. Can you explain that for me?

  53. mthrndr says:

    @22rifle:
    This practice is well documented all over the internet. take five minutes and look it up. it’s called google. And you obviously misread my comment. I have no problem with the fur industry that practices humane standards. I have a SERIOUS problem with these fucking people. If I saw someone skinning animals alive like that, I’d have very little problem putting a bullet in their brain.

  54. Gooz2 says:

    @22rifle:
    I hear what you’re saying, but I really don’t agree with skinning animals just for the sake of fashion. So for me I’m mainly upset at the barbarianism (if that’s even a word lol!) BUT I don’t necessarily like the fur trade either. Unless of course someone HAS to kill for clothing.

  55. LUV2CattleCall says:

    To everyone saying that all species of animal are the same: If you are promised beaver and get fish….you would probably rescind your comments!

    @satoru:

    Or…you kill an animal quickly because you’re not a sadistic fuckoff….

    @TechnoDestructo:

    Tell that to Steve Irwin!