I’m saddened to learn that shoe manufacturer Adidas has successfully lobbied the California State Senate to permit the importation of kangaroo skin for use in the production of soccer (football) boots. Here’s the Los Angeles Times story
After years of assertive lobbying by Adidas, the California Senate voted Tuesday to legalize the import and sale of kangaroo skins so that soccer players can buy shoes made from the marsupials’ coveted leather.
Of the 55 species of kangaroos in Australia, six are commercially harvested and exported, and would be allowed if the bill is approved by the Assembly and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. Those species include red and eastern and western gray kangaroos.
Animal activists are fighting the proposal, which they say will lead to the deaths of endangered kangaroos because hunting is done at night and the species are difficult to differentiate. They also object to the rules of kangaroo hunting, which dictate that if a mother is killed the baby must be killed as well.
PETA’s press release is here, and it notes that David Beckham chooses to wear synthetic leather rather than anything made from animals. After being contacted by animal rights organizations, Beckham (who had not realized his Adidas Predator boots were made from kangaroo hide) chose a different shoe to wear.
The Times article notes that Beckham’s new team, the Los Angeles Galaxy, joined Adidas in lobbying the state Senate for passage of the kangaroo skin bill. Given that their future star has rejected kangaroo hide, and has gone on record explicitly against other footballers wearing kangaroo kit, this seems a poor choice on the part of the Galaxy.
The bill, SB 880, now goes to the state assembly. Californians, please contact your assembly member. (Contact info, and info on how to figure out who represents you, is on the left hand side of the page.)
You bet, dude. Why can’t these people use the good old-fashioned pleather, like every other reputable sports shoe manufacturer (forgive my sarcasm)? No, honestly, if more spokesstars investigated what the brands they endorse do to manufacture their widgets, we’d have a much kinder sports industry. And cheaper sneakers.
Of course, then, the CA dudes for my district (Assembly and Senate) always vote for big industry … all hope lost there.
Thanks for the call to activism, Hugo!
Most of this is a matter of whether you agree animals are suitable for human use or not, and nobody is likely to change anybody else’s mind on the overall issue. But I will make one point: If the mother dies isn’t it better to kill the baby (Joey, I believe they’re called) with a quick, clean bullet to the head as opposed to letting it die from slow starvation?
Chief, the same could be said about any vulnerable child.
No it can’t. With a vulnerable child there are social services, public and private, that will care for the child and adopt it out if possible. Contrary to animal rights activists attempt to conflate humanity with animals, there is no such organization run by kangaroos.
If there is a private human organization that is willing to take these joeys, bottle feed them, save them and give them to zoos to live out the rest of their natural lives I’d be all for it (most zoos only have limited space for so many kangaroos or any other type of animal, but still, might save a few). But most animal rights activists are opposed to the existence of zoos too, so we’re back to square one.
Well, that presumes a need to kill the mothers. I question the entire premise of that.
Look, I don’t value the life of a joey more than its mama. Some animal rights activists argue for the “cuteness” factor. But killing a grown animal for its skin or killing a juvenile animal because it can’t survive on its own because you killed its mama for its skin — these are equally unacceptable.
I understand that nature is violent. I understand that on a few, rare occasions, humans may have to kill animals — such as to cull a herd that has massively outgrown its carrying capacity. But I support burying those creatures, not taking their hides or flesh. I am sure someone could make a nifty lampshade out of my hide when I die, but I’d rather they didn’t. And I’d rather Adidas not make soccer boots from kangaroos.
Since roo meat is eaten down under, I’d rather imagine a great deal of the hides come from slaughterhouses, I know most the leather I can buy comes from such sources (In fact, the leather I buy from the Amish guy does come from cows and pigs he has raised and slaughtered) I know the animals I raise, and those I hunt, wind up having just about everything but the innards used. I tan the skins, and have been known to use bones and teeth in primitive crafts. (I sell drinking horns I carve to re-enactors).
It’d be a horrible waste if this wasn’t the case, I have about as much use for hunters who take the meat and discard the rest as I do for trophy hunters, which is to say, none.
Oh -
I rather suspect, too, that this is a tactic to increase waste disposal costs, thus increasing price, thus hoping to inflate finished good price and decrease consumption. Be advised, then, that many ranchers are also farmers - increase the costs in the aniumal arena, and watch it get passed on in the plant foodstuffs - it’s what my cousin does.
Eating Kangaroo? I like some wild game but I think I’d have to pass on that.
It’s pretty nasty, IMO, but a lot of people like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo_(meat)
I guess they don’t farm it, but the article states the hides are indeed also sold from culling operations, so anyone trying to paint a picture of skinned carcasses littering Australia is way off base.
Wow…who would think that a shoe called “Predator” would use animal products?