- cross-posted to:
- andfinally
- cross-posted to:
- andfinally
cross-posted from: https://feddit.uk/post/11618175
Zoo defends ‘panda’ exhibit after criticism for using dogs dyed black and white
On May 1, the zoo drew large crowds of excited animal lovers as it prepared to unveil a new attraction.
When the zoo revealed the animals, visitors were met with the sight of little four-legged creatures, with white faces and black spots around their eyes and ears - not unlike the colorings of a panda.
The only thing is, these creatures weren’t pandas. In fact, they were Chow Chows - a dog you might recognize from real life or social media, since they’re very much the opposite of a wild animal.
The spitz-type dogs originally come from northern China, and were presented at the zoo because the owners said they didn’t have any actual pandas to show visitors.
The owners were accused of trimming and dying the dogs to look like pandas, causing some backlash as locals accused the zoo of animal cruelty.
However, a spokesperson for the zoo hit back at the criticism as they pointed out that ‘people also dye their hair’.
You must log in or register to comment.
What if they just had an entire zoo where every animal was just a dog with dyed fur
I went to such a zoo recently. The only animal they had was a dog. It was a Shih Tzu.
Fuck off, that’s great
… angry upvote moment! Made me chuckle.
Honestly, I’d be down for that. I love dogs
Animals cannot consent to hair-dying, and it can be an irritating/painful process for some humans, so that likely extends to animals as well. A person cannot knowingly, in good conscience, condone it.
Edit: I see we’ve got some of the anti-consent crowd in here.
In our society, when a person or thing cannot consent, another person or a thing can be assigned to consent on their behalf. This is how children get vaccines. This is how some people with mental illnesses have their finances managed. This is how Grandma gets looked after in the nursing home.
If you are okay with all of the above, then your problem is not with our model of delegated consent. Your problem is with the actions the delegate is choosing to take.
Now, if you would make it illegal for a delegate to consent to hair dying, then for consistency you would also need to be okay with parents not dying the hair of their children. Children cannot consent. Is that a statement you’re willing to make?
Hair-dyeing is an aesthetic choice for entertainment. Children can consent to dyeing their hair because they can understand and accept the skin irritation. When we say children cannot consent, we are talking about activities with consequences they cannot grasp.
If you are equating dyeing the hair of animals with giving children vaccines necessary for their health, you’re a laughably obtuse self-centered buffoon, at best.
I just reread your post and realized you insulted me.
It boggles my mind that people who would be absolutely polite in regular society go on the internet and assume that, just because they can’t see someone’s face, there aren’t real people on the other end of the conversation. I’m a real person. What you said was needlessly mean.
You are advocating for the violation of helpless animals, so the insult was appropriate. Are you unable to understand that hurting animals is bad?
And insulting someone because you jump to conclusions about their point without understanding it is not actually appropriate. Is that another consistency problem you have? Do you think it’s ok to insult people online but not in person? Would you not ask for clarification in real life, and just come out and insult people? That seems like a pretty intense way to live life.
I was actually advocating for consistency of thought. Either we need to stop violating children. Or maybe it’s not a violation. It’s one of those.
I personally have no skin in the game. I don’t do anything to my kids that I wouldn’t do to an animal, and vice versa. So I’m consistent.
Children can’t consent. They can have opinions. They can’t consent. They don’t have the cognitive capacity to properly weigh options nor the context.
Depends on the dye, depends on the process
There are a heck of a lot of places that only use dyes that are non-toxic in case they lick themselves
But let’s be real here, the zoo in china trying to pass off some chows as pandas probably aren’t bothered enough to use the non irritating dyes.
They can’t consent to being in a zoo either, but I bet you still go.
I have been invited to them before, and since decided I don’t like them. Good enough for you?
When I was a kid there was a family with 2 standard poodles, WHITE standard poodles. They dyed one blue and one pink. The dogs looked so miserable after they were dyed it was sad.
Honestly probably less cruel than keeping pandas in a cage. Dogs are domesticated and kinda used to having their freedom of movement restricted.
And honestly they’re fucking adorable like that.
Yea, dishonest sure, but animal cruelty is a bit of a stretch. Especially if they used appropriate animal dye and didn’t just grab a couple cans of spray paint from Lowe’s or something
It’s a shady zoo in China… I’m pretty confident they didn’t use animal-approved hair dye hahaha
Dogs can be caged because we enslaved their ancestors and restricted their reproductive choices for milennia? If we bred cows that wanted to be eaten, would that make their meat ethical? If you believe that, I’ve got a restaurant at the end of the universe to sell you.
I didnt say it that its not cruel to cage dogs. I said its less cruel than caging a panda because they are more used to it.
I dont know if its fair to call it that, but dogs are probably still pretty “sad” about sitting inside doing nothing all day, especially when they are alone. If you have ever lived with a farm dog that was free to go out and wherever it wants 24/7 by itself, then indoor “incarcerated” dogs will seem like an empty shell to you.
Upvote for the hitchhikers guide reference!!!
I don’t know how accurate enslaving wolves is, though. It very well could have been a mutually beneficial relationship at the beginning.
deleted by creator
It’s a mutually beneficial relationship now, assuming responsible ownership. And excluding brachycephalic breeds, other predictable and preventable genetic illnesses or predispositions to injury, and other stuff that could reasonably be lumped into “responsible ownership” but deserve special recognition.
But yeah, dogs are happy as shit when they get to do the thing’s we’ve bred them to do.
“We have 🐼 at home”
The irony of this being in China…
I went to the zoo but it sucked, they had only one exhibit and it was of a dog.
It was a shitzu.
Lucky! I went and all they had was a piece of shitzhu
I haven’t even read the article but I’m pretty sure it’s in China.
Not even the 1-sentence summary that said its in China?
Which 1 sentence summary? Am I blind?
Are you viewing on the Lemmy website directly or an app?
On the website and most apps, it’s the short section just under the post title.
I’m using Sync for Lemmy. I’m guessing it’s a different summary than the multi sentence summary I can see under the title post. That one doesn’t specify this happens in China.
Which is a special kind of ironic since China withdrew all their pandas from American zoos due to trade ‘wars’ (i.e. Tariffs in some goods) including the fantastic program at the San Diego zoo.
If they did this on April 1st t would be a hilarious prank.
Look when a Chinese zoo actually has the animals there and not just dyed dogs, then that will be news worthy, like at least twice a year a Chinese zoo gets called out for using dogs instead of the proper animals.
