Real Fur Cheaper Than Fake Fur Resulting in Fresh Fraudulent Activity

In a perverse reversal of roles retailers and manufacturers are misrepresenting, sometimes fraudulently, the sort of fur that is on the products that they sell. What I'm saying is that the price of real fur from animals usually bred or stolen in China and brutally slaughtered for their fur has fallen to such a level that is now it appears to be cheaper than fake fur.

As a result, manufacturers use real fur rather than fake fur. As a further result, in order to prevent animal lovers from knowing about this, they represent real fur as fake fur. This is an extraordinary development and a worrying one because it indicates that there is an oversupply of real fur which further indicates that the production the real fur is increasing while demand is saying static or reducing.

I fear that production is increasing which means that there's a lot more animal cruelty of the most horrendous kind taking place in places like China where for example the raccoon dog is farmed for its fur and domestic and stray cats and dogs are rounded up from the streets and stripped of their skins.

Apparently the price of a 70 cm strip of real fur is about one dollar, which is quite extraordinary and shows the pitifully low value of the lives of the animals which have been forced to give up their skin to satisfy consumer demand.

One disastrous aspect of this development is that animal lovers who purposefully purchase items trimmed with fake fur are now being conned into wearing clothes which contains real fur. If they knew about that they would be shocked. It is very difficult for a consumer to tell the difference between fake and real fur.

However, if the consumer looks at the tip of the fur it goes to a point when it is real. Fake fur does not have that same feathering towards a tip. In addition, if the fur is parted and the base of the fur is observed you will see that it is affixed to the skin of the animal. You don't get that with fake fur. Purchases of items which contain fur should check these points before buying it because, as mentioned, there is a considerable amount of fraudulent misrepresentation of products in shops in the UK and almost certainly anywhere in the world.

This develop most concerns me because I know, as many other cat lovers know, that cats are brutally killed in places like China and Vietnam for their fur and sometimes eaten for medicinal reasons. It's all quite bizarre to me. It is quite harrowing and utterly immoral.

Trading standards officers in the UK have been fooled because they were unaware of this fraudulent practice. There is a lax attitude as far as I'm concerned with fur trimmings on items and there's lots of items such as gloves and jacket hoods which contain fur. Purchasers should be aware.

This problem is also big in America. There are insufficient controls. It is time that the trading standards authorities became tougher on Chinese importers.

"Pompous Albert" Is a Purebred Haughty Version of Grumpy Cat

I think that Pompous Albert is the first purebred celebrity cat as far as I'm aware. Not only that, he is quite a rare purebred cat because he is a Selkirk Rex. Not many people look after a Selkirk Rex. They look a bit like sheep! They have this thick wavy coat and their appearance underneath the coat is somewhat like a British or American shorthair.



Talking about appearance, Pompous Albert, certainly has his own distinctive look which as his name indicates is pompous with a certain amount of grumpiness combined with a haughtiness resulting in a unique un-catlike appearance.

When some visitors see him they ask whether he is actually a domestic cat such is his arresting appearance. He lives with Susan and Michael Singleton of Salt Lake City. He is seven years old. His appearance has remained unchanged since the day he was born.

He spends his days in the offices of the Singletons' fine art publishing business with two cat companions. Cats are great in the workplace. He is named after Albert Einstein apparently so we will have to assume that Albert Einstein was quite pompous.

He has the grumpy cat glare, while the haughtiness comes from the upward turning eyes, I would say. The Is
eyes are marked out very nicely with heavy black eyeliner. It's more a glare actually, a glare which says he does not suffer fools gladly.

He is a typical cat with one or two small exceptions. For example he likes to be vacuumed! Most cats run away from vacuum cleaners but apparently he likes to be vacuum cleaned. Rarely cats like this because it feels good but normally the noise terrifies cats. He attacks paper shredders and photocopiers and printers. He likes kids (that's an excellent quality).

He has 30,000 followers on Instagram which is fantastic but it's a long way short of the fame of the all conquering Grumpy Cat. Grumpy Cat has earned an estimated hundred million dollars for her owner, Tabatha. We don't know the exact amount but that's a guesstimate. No cat is going to beat that ever.

Is Scaring Cats with Cucumbers the Funniest Thing You'll See?

On one website it says that scaring cats with cucumbers is the funniest thing you'll see today. I don't think it's particularly funny. Why should it be funny to scare a cat? It might look amusing to a person but it is still scaring an animal and, personally, I do not see any pleasure in doing that and I certainly don't see it being funny.



It seems to me that people find the reactions of cats to certain stimuli as funny when the reaction is extreme and strange. But this is natural behaviour for a cat. If the cat is frightened of a cucumber which is placed behind him then there's a good reason for his reaction. Perhaps the cat believes that the object might be a predator of some sort or a danger to him. Cats are not familiar with the appearance of a cucumber. Why should they be? If the cat is uncertain about what the object is then he initially will be anxious and in some cases scared. However, not all cats react in this way. It is about individual cat behavior. We should not imply that all cats are scared of the same things.

I'm just making a point in this short note. Lets be more sensible and stop thinking that it is funny to scare a cat even if the cat's behaviour might look amusing to a human. If a human thinks it is funny to scare a cat then the human has a problem in my opinion. Unfortunately, many humans have this sort of problem. It is human behavior born out of a sense of superiority over animals. Humans are not superior to animals.

Kristen Lindsey won’t face criminal charges! | PoC

Kristen Lindsey won’t face criminal charges! | PoC

This is a simple cross-post to spread the word. Please click on the above link to read about this unhappy development from the perspective of cat and animal lovers. I am sure this outcome will have surprised many but many people will also be unsurprised as there appears to be a lack of will to process prosecutions against animal cruelty. The news is disappointing by somewhat predictable.

For those who have not heared of the notorious veterinarian Kristen Lindsey please read these articles. She likes to kill animals. She made that known to us all on Facebook in her own words. Not ideal for a vet, don't you think?

Dogs Allowed in Outdoor Dining Areas in New York but Not Cats

I suppose it goes without saying that when a new law is being debated in the New York Senate concerning whether they should allow dogs to accompany their masters into outdoor areas in restaurants in the state of New York, cats are bound to be omitted from the discussion because cats don't do well on leashes, do they?  Well, a lot of cats do just fine on a leash although it does take longer to train them.  It's a great shame that cats are difficult to train to accept a leash and also that they are essentially solitary creatures and not pack animals because it makes them unsuited to accompany their owner to a restaurant or so the legislators believe.

In May 14, 2015 it was reported that the legislature of New York state were debating the right of dog owners to take their dogs to outside areas of restaurants.  The impression was that the bill would be passed.  Provided the dog is accompanied by the diner they will be allowed into outdoor eating areas.

Under the new law (not yet enacted) dogs will have to be kept on leashes.  Dogs cannot set foot inside the restaurant and they will enter through an alternative entrance.  Dogs will not be allowed into any outdoor areas where food is prepared.

It does seem very natural to allow a dog to eat with his owner because I'm sure that this happens a lot at home.  As mentioned, the bill makes no mention of cats being allowed in outdoor areas of restaurants.  Is the bill discriminating against cat owners? I wonder why they couldn't include cats into the legislation because there are cats around, as mentioned, who act rather like dogs and who are comfortable on a lead.  Provided they complied with all the rules are set out under the new legislation, I cannot see any reason why they should not be allowed to do what dogs can do.

Ah, I have just thought of a reason: the dogs will chase the cats! Therefore this is discrimination. Another form of discrimination is that cats are taken to the vet less than dogs.

The bill and the discussion indicates that people think that companion animals are inherently a health hazard to people otherwise the legislators would have allowed cats and dogs to company people to restaurants in the past.

As an aside, I consistently read that people who look after companion animals are some of the most prolific lobbyists of legislators in the USA.  They write the most e-mails and make more calls to politicians than other people.  This indicates a passion which we know that cat and dog owners have.

At the moment, as far as I know, California is the only state allowing dogs in outside areas of restaurants.