Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CorrectTreatment 2003] RE: Peta Hellard Letter by Another Southern California Activist

Expand Messages
  • debbie
    Great reply but I did some research on this loophole in the federal law its even worse than we think it is. The $150 rule applies to the fur itself meaning if
    Message 1 of 3 , Dec 3, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      Great reply but I did some research on this loophole in the federal law its even worse than we think it is.  The $150 rule applies to the fur itself meaning if the fur itself costs less than $150 the garment does not have to be labeled..the coat can cost more but as long as the fur trim costs less than 150 they dont have to label it.. UGGHHH  Here is the actual law I copied and paste the Exempt from label part. nPlease pass this on thanks for everyone sending this fur hag emails...lets keep annoying her
      debbie form CAAF 
       
      Exemption
      If the cost to a manufacturer of fur trim used on a garment (not including the cost of adding the trim to the product) or a manufacturer’s selling price of a fur product is $150 or less, the product is exempt from the statute and rules.
      The exemption does not apply if:
      • the product contains dog or cat fur;
      • the product contains used fur;
      • the product is the whole skin of an animal, with head, ears, paws, and tail;
      • any false, deceptive, or misleading statements are made about the fur.
      In addition, if any representations about the fur are made in labeling, invoicing, or advertising, you must disclose the name of the animal, whether the fur is artificially colored and whether the fur is composed of pieces.
      Therefore, a product that meets the $150 exemption criteria cannot be called fur, animal fur or genuine fur without disclosures about the animal name, any artificial coloring process, and the use of fur pieces or waste. The exemption still would apply to the other Fur Rule requirements, such as the label size, and the disclosure of fur origin. Compliance with the Textile or Wool Rules labeling requirements would be necessary for other parts of the garment.
      The manufacturer of an exempt fur product must keep records showing the cost of the fur. If the manufacturer’s selling price of the product is more than $150, and the exemption applies because the original cost of the fur to the manufacturer was $150 or less, the invoice must state that the fur is exempt from the Fur Act and Rules (for example, "FPL EXEMPT").   Id like to see them keep records such bullshit!!!!
       

      Lindy Greene <lindygreene@...> wrote:
      Letter to Peta Hellard, fur apologist, by another Southern California activist: 
       
      Dear Ms. Hellard:
       
      There is nothing remotely glamorous about wearing the pelt of an an imal that has been an ally electrocuted, tortured an d shocked before it is skinned an d its remaining org an s an d bones left in pools of blood. That's not eleg an ce -- it's ignor an ce an d cruelty..

      If you would so kindly take the time to review the documentaries on the PETA website, you would learn that m an y of the skins sewn into garments sold in the U.S. that are declared to be "rabbit" are not. They are actually dog an d cat fur procured from China an d Korea . M an y of these an imals have been skinned alive, an d there is documentary footage to prove it. Any garment priced under $150 does not have to be declared as to what type of an imal was skinned, according to current US customs laws. Thus m an y fur items sold as trim on sweaters, gloves an d as coats are from dogs an d cats, which has been verified by r an dom DNA tests. You, in your delusion of "glamour", may well be wearing dyed dog fur. Tres chic.

      I dare you to watch the videos of living chinchillas having their necks snapped by bare-h an ded workers at fur farms, an d still maintain wearing chinchilla is "glamorous".
       
      I dare you to tell me you feel glamorous in your fur accessories after watching footage of dogs an d cats dying in agony accidentally caught in fox traps.  Watch the footage of foxes chewing their own legs off to free themselves from those traps set out in the wild.

      I dare you to watch the videos of Chinese workers skinning living, breathing dogs alive  an d leaving them skinless to die slow, excruciating deaths in piles of corpses an d blood. I dare you to watch those Chinese workers laughing, smoking cigarettes, putting cats in bags an d beating them to death on the side of a wall while the cats scream in agony. That's the source of your "glamorous" fur jackets, Ms. Hellard.

      I dare you to watch videos of C an adi an sailors brutally bashing the skulls of thous an ds of baby seals leaving acres of corpses an d blood-soaked ice, an d maintain your st an ce that wearing fur is "eleg an t".

      There are thous an ds of f an tastic looking fake fur products that look fine if you need to wear something fuzzy to feel you are somehow connected to these celebrities you worship. Come on, Ms. Hellard, certainly you know that these names you are dropping are being paid millions of dollars to hawk products for big corporations? They would wear garbage bags on their heads if their Neim an Marcus contracts dem an ded it. Don't you realize that every person you mentioned in your letter has a clothing line an d wear these products because they are SELLING THEM, an d w an t the peons out there to feel if they, too, wear one of their garments they c an delude themselves into thinking they are part of the elite? Haha! You are being suckered by
      advertising, which is exactly what they w an t. However, brutally killing millions of small an imals an d h an ging them off one's head an d torso c an not enh an ce an y evolved person's public image. In fact, it only advertises how truly foolish an d uneducated you really are.
       
      It's really sad that insecure women like yourself delude themselves into thinking it's somehow "eleg an t" traipsing around in old used dead an imal jackets. Call it "vintage," adore the memory of your beloved gr an dmother, but that rabbit jacket you are wearing is still made from old dead an imals. You truly need to take a reality check. Your celebrities may be laughing all the way to the b an k, but I assure you there are polls that prove that most people view women parading around in old fur coats as pathetically silly.

      By the way, scientists who travel to Antarctica where it's REALLY cold don't wear fur. They wear synthetic fabrics that are far warmer, cheaper, lighter to pack, easier to travel with an d much more intelligent th an  carrying around the heavy, filthy, dead an imal pelts.
       
      I am personally offended that you think that an imal rights activists are all milit an t crazies. Sure, there have been paint-throwing an d rowdy demonstrations that grabbed headlines, but this is far less offensive th an wearing 80 or so brutally murdered mammals around one's neck to feign a sense of superiority to the rest of the hum an race.
       
      Most of the activists I know work quietly behind the scenes trying to educate people so they c an make choices based on reality, not by being by being the gullible prey of highly paid professional m an ipulators called "advertisers". 
       
      M an y of those supporting ethical treatment of an imals include highly respected elected government officials from as disparate political points of view as Di an ne Feinstein {D) an d Trent Lott {R) who both recently signed the Ensign-Byrd amendment making it illegal to kill thoroughbred racehorses for the dinner tables of these amoral rich people you seem to hold in such esteem. Even Senators who disagree about just about every other political issue c an agree on one thing: cruelty to an imals is an abomination.

      Get educated, Ms. Hellard.  There is no reason to kill an imals for fur garments an ymore. It's not only cruel, it's just plain stupid. People who think fur is "eleg an t"" are brainwashed. You don't need it to stay warm, an d you don't need it to look good.
       
      By the way, the fact that you once f an tasized about being a veterinari an is one of the most bizarre aspects of your letter. And the irony of your name being Peta? I think Hellard is much more apt. Look at those videos I mentioned if you w an t to get a real glimpse of "hell", Ms. Hellard.
       
      Peace,
       
      Judith Bell
      Los Angeles, California
       


      Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less

    • Lindy Greene
      THANK YOU!!! May I cross-post this into? ... From: debbie To: CorrectTreatment@yahoogroups.com Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 10:03 AM Subject: Re:
      Message 2 of 3 , Dec 3, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        THANK YOU!!! May I cross-post this into?
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: debbie
        Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 10:03 AM
        Subject: Re: [CorrectTreatment 2003] RE: Peta Hellard Letter by Another Southern California Activist

        Great reply but I did some research on this loophole in the federal law its even worse than we think it is.  The $150 rule applies to the fur itself meaning if the fur itself costs less than $150 the garment does not have to be labeled..the coat can cost more but as long as the fur trim costs less than 150 they dont have to label it.. UGGHHH  Here is the actual law I copied and paste the Exempt from label part. nPlease pass this on thanks for everyone sending this fur hag emails...lets keep annoying her
        debbie form CAAF 
         
        Exemption
        If the cost to a manufacturer of fur trim used on a garment (not including the cost of adding the trim to the product) or a manufacturer’s selling price of a fur product is $150 or less, the product is exempt from the statute and rules.
        The exemption does not apply if:
        • the product contains dog or cat fur;
        • the product contains used fur;
        • the product is the whole skin of an animal, with head, ears, paws, and tail;
        • any false, deceptive, or misleading statements are made about the fur.
        In addition, if any representations about the fur are made in labeling, invoicing, or advertising, you must disclose the name of the animal, whether the fur is artificially colored and whether the fur is composed of pieces.
        Therefore, a product that meets the $150 exemption criteria cannot be called fur, animal fur or genuine fur without disclosures about the animal name, any artificial coloring process, and the use of fur pieces or waste. The exemption still would apply to the other Fur Rule requirements, such as the label size, and the disclosure of fur origin. Compliance with the Textile or Wool Rules labeling requirements would be necessary for other parts of the garment.
        The manufacturer of an exempt fur product must keep records showing the cost of the fur. If the manufacturer’s selling price of the product is more than $150, and the exemption applies because the original cost of the fur to the manufacturer was $150 or less, the invoice must state that the fur is exempt from the Fur Act and Rules (for example, "FPL EXEMPT").   Id like to see them keep records such bullshit!!!!


        Lindy Greene <lindygreene@...> wrote:
        Letter to Peta Hellard, fur apologist, by another Southern California activist: 
         
        Dear Ms. Hellard:
         
        There is nothing remotely glamorous about wearing the pelt of an an imal that has been an ally electrocuted, tortured an d shocked before it is skinned an d its remaining org an s an d bones left in pools of blood. That's not eleg an ce -- it's ignor an ce an d cruelty..

        If you would so kindly take the time to review the documentaries on the PETA website, you would learn that m an y of the skins sewn into garments sold in theU.S. that are declared to be "rabbit" are not. They are actually dog an d cat fur procured from China an d Korea . M an y of these an imals have been skinned alive, an d there is documentary footage to prove it. Any garment priced under $150 does not have to be declared as to what type of an imal was skinned, according to current US customs laws. Thus m an y fur items sold as trim on sweaters, gloves an d as coats are from dogs an d cats, which has been verified by r an dom DNA tests. You, in your delusion of "glamour", may well be wearing dyed dog fur. Tres chic.

        I dare you to watch the videos of living chinchillas having their necks snapped by bare-h an ded workers at fur farms, an d still maintain wearing chinchilla is "glamorous".
         
        I dare you to tell me you feel glamorous in your fur accessories after watching footage of dogs an d cats dying in agony accidentally caught in fox traps.  Watch the footage of foxes chewing their own legs off to free themselves from those traps set out in the wild.

        I dare you to watch the videos of Chinese workers skinning living, breathing dogs alive  an d leaving them skinless to die slow, excruciating deaths in piles of corpses an d blood. I dare you to watch those Chinese workers laughing, smoking cigarettes, putting cats in bags an d beating them to death on the side of a wall while the cats scream in agony. That's the source of your "glamorous" fur jackets, Ms. Hellard.

        I dare you to watch videos of C an adi an sailors brutally bashing the skulls of thous an ds of baby seals leaving acres of corpses an d blood-soaked ice, an d maintain your st an ce that wearing fur is "eleg an t".

        There are thous an ds of f an tastic looking fake fur products that look fine if you need to wear something fuzzy to feel you are somehow connected to these celebrities you worship. Come on, Ms. Hellard, certainly you know that these names you are dropping are being paid millions of dollars to hawk products for big corporations? They would wear garbage bags on their heads if their Neim an Marcus contracts dem an ded it. Don't you realize that every person you mentioned in your letter has a clothing line an d wear these products because they are SELLING THEM, an d w an t the peons out there to feel if they, too, wear one of their garments they c an delude themselves into thinking they are part of the elite? Haha! You are being suckered by
        advertising, which is exactly what they w an t. However, brutally killing millions of small an imals an d h an ging them off one's head an d torso c an not enh an ce an y evolved person's public image. In fact, it only advertises how truly foolish an d uneducated you really are.
         
        It's really sad that insecure women like yourself delude themselves into thinking it's somehow "eleg an t" traipsing around in old used dead an imal jackets. Call it "vintage," adore the memory of your beloved gr an dmother, but that rabbit jacket you are wearing is still made from old dead an imals. You truly need to take a reality check. Your celebrities may be laughing all the way to the b an k, but I assure you there are polls that prove that most people view women parading around in old fur coats as pathetically silly.

        By the way, scientists who travel to Antarctica where it's REALLY cold don't wear fur. They wear synthetic fabrics that are far warmer, cheaper, lighter to pack, easier to travel with an d much more intelligent th an  carrying around the heavy, filthy, dead an imal pelts.
         
        I am personally offended that you think that an imal rights activists are all milit an t crazies. Sure, there have been paint-throwing an d rowdy demonstrations that grabbed headlines, but this is far less offensive th an wearing 80 or so brutally murdered mammals around one's neck to feign a sense of superiority to the rest of the hum an race.
         
        Most of the activists I know work quietly behind the scenes trying to educate people so they c an make choices based on reality, not by being by being the gullible prey of highly paid professional m an ipulators called "advertisers". 
         
        M an y of those supporting ethical treatment of an imals include highly respected elected government officials from as disparate political points of view as Di an ne Feinstein {D) an d Trent Lott {R) who both recently signed the Ensign-Byrd amendment making it illegal to kill thoroughbred racehorses for the dinner tables of these amoral rich people you seem to hold in such esteem. Even Senators who disagree about just about every other political issue c an agree on one thing: cruelty to an imals is an abomination.

        Get educated, Ms. Hellard.  There is no reason to kill an imals for fur garments an ymore. It's not only cruel, it's just plain stupid. People who think fur is "eleg an t"" are brainwashed. You don't need it to stay warm, an d you don't need it to look good.
         
        By the way, the fact that you once f an tasized about being a veterinari an is one of the most bizarre aspects of your letter. And the irony of your name being Peta? I think Hellard is much more apt. Look at those videos I mentioned if you w an t to get a real glimpse of "hell", Ms. Hellard.
         
        Peace,
         
        Judith Bell
        Los Angeles, California
         


        Yahoo! DSL Something to write home about. Just $16.99/mo. or less
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.