"Torsten Brinch" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 May 2003 12:31:01 GMT, "Michelle Fulton"
wrote:

Campaigners accuses the European Commission of lacking the
political will to address the issue, arguing that the trade
is not only morally repugnant, but also a case of consumer fraud.

Why would it be worse to kill a cat or dog for their fur, than to kill a
beaver, fox, rabbit or mink?

Well, it does not come out very clearly from the quote you make above,
although the text does indicate the direction of stated concerns.

'morally repugnant' points to cat and dog skins frequently originating
from animals kept, treated and slaugtered in ways that are in
disaccord with our standards of animal welfare, and 'consumer fraud'
points to the likelihood that the skins are brought to market and sold
to consumers as being from something else than cats and dogs.

For completion, and behind this, cats and dogs are by a combination of
nature and tradition 'companion animals' -- a cat or a dog partake
in many people's lives as a companion or friend, naturally leading to
a higher than normal interspecies empathy.

The status of dogs and cats depends on the culture. I have a friend that
taught on an Indian reservation in the southwest US. He was very careful not
to tell his wife what some of the meals were for a while. Dogs are a food
animal to some Indian cultures and 40 years ago some of the reservation were
not much changed from the way they had lived before Americans came. Part of
them still stay separate from the rest of the culture in spite of all the
scholarships and opportunities available to them. The ones that do choose to
take our way do for the most part do very well.

It is a really big deal in California that horses are slaughtered and sent
to France.

People should be more tolerant of others culture.

Gordon