PDA

View Full Version : Banning Kangaroo Leather Shoes! What a Disgrace!



jkmccrann
2007-Jul-24, 07:55 AM
What a load of garbage!

So California has decided to ban Adidas from selling shoes that contain kangaroo leather! What a bunch of interfering nitwits.

Kangaroos are a pest in much of this country, destroying crops and generally creating havoc - and why on Earth some do-gooder in California feels shoes with kangaroos leather should not be sold in their state is beyond me! What other types of leather are they going to ban - where does their rabid environmentalism end?

California bans Adidas 'roo shoes (http://edition.cnn.com/2007/BUSINESS/07/23/adidas.kangaroo.reut/index.html)

Disgraceful decision, surely common sense will prevail and this will be overturned on appeal.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-24, 08:12 AM
Somebody who's never seen a kangaroo outside the zoo, thinks there's some very rare wild animal, not realising they're -just like cows- kept en masse in dedicated kangaroo farms, and on top of that, not rare at all (the common varianats at least)?

(at least, I assume the leather is not from wild kangaroos but from farms). Next question then, what's a kangaroo more than a cow or pig? Maybe cows and pigs are more useful so killing one serves multiple purposes, I don't know, do you also eat kangaroo?

Ronald Brak
2007-Jul-24, 08:14 AM
The article says there is a bill that will make it legal to sell shoes made from legally culled kangaroo leather. I feel I must point out the lack of an illegally killed kangaroo leather market. Kangaroo shooting is a very low margin business and its not really possible to make money by doing it illegally.

I am quite sure that this bill is about trade protectionism rather than protecting animals, despite some well meaning people haveing been misled.

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-24, 08:20 AM
It looks like that law goes back to 1971, and this was taken to the California Supreme Court to determine if it was constitutional. The court decided it was. I doubt that will change. They might have better luck getting the law changed, but that could be an issue too. From the article:

A lawyer for the Humane Society of the United States, which filed a "friend of the court" brief on behalf of plaintiffs Viva! USA, called the court's decision "critically important" for species other than just kangaroos -- such as grizzly bears, bald eagles and wolves, which are dependent on state protection.

"When the federal government decides not to protect a species, the state can still do so," said HSUS counsel Jonathan Lovvorn, explaining the ruling. "What Adidas was saying was when the federal government decides not to protect a species, the state can't protect it either. That was squarely rejected by the court."

But a lawyer for Adidas said the company was free to sell the shoes with kangaroo skins while other issues not decided by the Supreme Court are sent back to the appeals court to be decided.

It'll be interesting to see if they can get the law changed. I just know there will be people pleading for the "cute kangaroos."

Nicolas
2007-Jul-24, 08:21 AM
It seems quite useless to go hunting kangaroos for leather indeed, with piles of them readily available (with all due respect for the animals) in kangaroo farms :).

Ronald Brak
2007-Jul-24, 08:23 AM
Kangaroos aren't kept on farms because it's very difficult to make fences tall enough. But the kangaroos that are used for leather are very common. Farming creates good conditions for grey and red kangaroos and they are certainly not endangered. Not using kangaroos for meat or leather makes as much sense as not eating fish from sustainable fish stocks. We do eat kangaroos, now and then I buy kangaroo meat at the supermarket, however a lot of the meat ends up as pet food. Using kangaroo meat and leather should be less damaging to the environment than having more cows. (Less methane emissions too. Kangaroos have a gut like sheep or cows but produce no methane. Research is under way to work out how to get other animals to do the same.)

Nicolas
2007-Jul-24, 08:48 AM
if there's more than enough of them and no other factors, I see no difference with cows, pigs, whatevers.

Damien Evans
2007-Jul-24, 09:16 AM
Somebody who's never seen a kangaroo outside the zoo, thinks there's some very rare wild animal, not realising they're -just like cows- kept en masse in dedicated kangaroo farms, and on top of that, not rare at all (the common varianats at least)?

(at least, I assume the leather is not from wild kangaroos but from farms). Next question then, what's a kangaroo more than a cow or pig? Maybe cows and pigs are more useful so killing one serves multiple purposes, I don't know, do you also eat kangaroo?

We do eat it in Australia

Damien Evans
2007-Jul-24, 09:17 AM
Kangaroos aren't kept on farms because it's very difficult to make fences tall enough. But the kangaroos that are used for leather are very common. Farming creates good conditions for grey and red kangaroos and they are certainly not endangered. Not using kangaroos for meat or leather makes as much sense as not eating fish from sustainable fish stocks. We do eat kangaroos, now and then I buy kangaroo meat at the supermarket, however a lot of the meat ends up as pet food. Using kangaroo meat and leather should be less damaging to the environment than having more cows. (Less methane emissions too. Kangaroos have a gut like sheep or cows but produce no methane. Research is under way to work out how to get other animals to do the same.)

^ What he said

Van Rijn
2007-Jul-24, 09:32 AM
if there's more than enough of them and no other factors, I see no difference with cows, pigs, whatevers.

I don't either, but I do want to emphasize that the issue at this point was about the constitutionality of a law, not about whether kangaroo leather is or isn't a reasonable choice. Now if they can get a law changed, that's another thing.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-24, 10:00 AM
OK, clear.

Just to make it clear: I asked about eating kangaroo because I didn't know, not because I have some moral judgement on it. I have actually, namely I don't see any difference with for example rabits or pigs, as long as they aren't endangered.

But we may end up indeed with kangaroo leather being not allowed in shoes in some states because they are "cuter" than cows to some people. From what I know, a cow actually is the more cute animal. Sure, I've had massive cow tail impacts (it's a whip I tell you, especially when there's some, erm, leftovers stuck on it), once was nearly ran over by one and their behind can be a bit dirty, but in general they are gentle biggies that do appreciate some friendly human contact. I've got the impression that kangaroos are less gentle.

I hope that logic prevails, and that animals or animal products are made legal/illegal depending on whether they are endangered, whether they suffer and environmental impact (and maybe other things I overlook), not because "they look cute". Everything looks cute to something else, maybe just not to us. Or to some of us.

mugaliens
2007-Jul-24, 10:47 AM
Kangaroos are a pest in much of this country, destroying crops and generally creating havoc - and why on Earth some do-gooder in California feels shoes with kangaroos leather should not be sold in their state is beyond me!

Because kangaroos are cute, even more so 'cause of 'Roo on Winnie the Poo.


What other types of leather are they going to ban - where does their rabid environmentalism end?

At the end of their emotional flights of fancy.


Disgraceful decision, surely common sense will prevail and this will be overturned on appeal.

Sadly, emotionalism rules much of the decisions made throughout modern society. We humans like to think we're making the best, most rational decisions, but if that were true, our form of government would be drastically different, far more informed, efficient, and effective.

Until then, we'll just plod along, I'm afraid.

hhEb09'1
2007-Jul-24, 10:59 AM
Because kangaroos are cute, even more so 'cause of 'Roo on Winnie the Poo.I'd just as soon not eat stuffed dolls as well :)

jkmccrann
2007-Jul-24, 05:55 PM
Glad to see that the average BAUTer once again proves they have a solid dollop of good sense when it comes to matters that can sometimes stir the emotions.

I take Van Rijn's point in hand, and for the question about eating kangaroo meat. I realise it has been answered, but I have to say from personal experience - there are a couple of Chinese restaurants around Melbourne, where kangaroo meat is quite prominent on the menu - and I have to say - it is absolutely delicious. Probably my favourite meat actually, but I tend to only eat it at these restaurants as I don't want to spoil the enjoyment.

Gillianren
2007-Jul-24, 06:16 PM
Realizing the joke I'm unleashing, I nonetheless must ask--what's it taste like?

mike alexander
2007-Jul-24, 06:28 PM
I was just wondering if the US companies were trying to keep the 'roo leather out because you could jump farther in the shoes.

cjl
2007-Jul-24, 08:31 PM
Realizing the joke I'm unleashing, I nonetheless must ask--what's it taste like?

Hard to describe - the one time I have had it, it tasted most like venison (out of everything I've eaten), but not quite the same. It is very good.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-24, 09:44 PM
sure it did not taste like chicken? After all, it's exotic meat. Oh wait, and from wild animals. Make that "it tastes like chicken with autumn herbs". ;)

cjl
2007-Jul-25, 01:31 AM
hehehe...

And no, it definitely does not taste like chicken.

Now, hare on the other hand...

tbm
2007-Jul-25, 03:35 AM
I keep on hearing that Cahleefornya is bigger economy-wise than many other actual nations. Too bad they don't become one in fact. Then we could invade it and get rid of the nut-jobs that have taken over the state government.

tbm

The Backroad Astronomer
2007-Jul-25, 04:00 AM
I don't understand why some people a hopping mad about this.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-25, 01:50 PM
They just like to jump to conclusions, but I think I'll skip that part. This kangaroo leather story gets under my skin anway, and I'm sure this story will get a tail.

Punnnnnn Punnnnn Punnnnn Punnnnnn the sound of a kangaroo skipping

Damien Evans
2007-Jul-25, 02:53 PM
Hard to describe - the one time I have had it, it tasted most like venison (out of everything I've eaten), but not quite the same. It is very good.

I don't know what it tastes like (to me it just tastes like Kangaroo), but visually a Kangaroo steak looks like a darker, more bloody and stringy beef steak

cjl
2007-Jul-25, 08:37 PM
Darker, yes, but the one I had wasn't stringy at all...

JustAFriend
2007-Jul-26, 01:34 AM
They going to ban saxophones too???

The pads on saxes these days tend to be made from kangaroo leather due to it being very supple, air sealing and water resistant.

For example:

http://www.musicmedic.com/catalog/products/pad-s40.html

Damien Evans
2007-Jul-26, 03:39 AM
Darker, yes, but the one I had wasn't stringy at all...

I'm talking how it looks before you cook it, not the actual texture when you're eating it

cjl
2007-Jul-26, 06:23 AM
Ahh - never seen it raw.

Nicolas
2007-Jul-26, 08:18 AM
I've seen it raw, but it was still furry and hopping around.