Animal Activism

Choices will remain anonymous.

In the Netherlands and I am sure in other countries as well, people who work for the stock exchange have been threatened. Why? Because on the stock exchange companies trade, that support or actively use animal testing for their products. Animal activists think it's acceptable to use violence to change the minds of these people who are only indirectly involved in animal testing.

Another kind of activism can be seen in whale protection. Japan is actively hunting whales for, what they say, research purposes. Whale protectors don't believe that and use sometimes dangerous methods to prevent the killing of whales.

What is acceptable when it comes to defending the rights of animals?

I have to be honest and frank. Some animal activists are crazy! I don't think any form of violence should be acceptable. It's like these activists put the rights of animals above the rights of humans. They don't mind how much they physically hurt humans as long as (for example) the whales are not harmed.

I don't know if I think liberating animals held for animal testing is right or wrong. It is true they are taking them out of being tested, but they don't own the animals, and they don't have the right to just take them. It's basically stealing. If you want to compare it to humans, it's like kidnapping.

I don't know if I think liberating animals held for animal testing is right or wrong. It is true they are taking them out of being tested, but they don't own the animals, and they don't have the right to just take them. It's basically stealing. If you want to compare it to humans, it's like kidnapping.
Not to mention that a number of those animals may have been bred in the lab & may not necessarily be very well equipped to survive in the wild.

while i definitely think animal rights are important, violence is not the answer, unless if yuo count certain wars where it's absolutely necessary. Otherwise, all that really happens is people just think animals rights activists are "crazy" or refuse to listen to them.

I've no problems with what organisations like Greenpeace do, to stop Japanese "researchers" kill a huge amount of whales. I don't believe that they only kill those whales for research purposes. The numbers are extremely high, so chasing those supposed research vessels is fine by me. Violence in the sense of actually harming people on board those ships is wrong. But otherwise... someone has to make a stand.

I don't support violence towards people who do animal testing and I realize it's necessary, as long as it's done as humanely as possible.

As for liberating animals that have been used as test material, when animals are treated badly trying to free them from a terrible place is okay. Without violence. But in cases of mink farms, those animals just don't survive in the wild. So I see little point in these actions, however wrong I think those farms.

As for liberating animals that have been used as test material, when animals are treated badly trying to free them from a terrible place is okay.
What about animals that have been bred or genetically engineered with a specific trait or defect to test the function of one or more specific genes in order to determine the cause of a genetic disorder as a step towards developing a cure or a more effective treatment for it?

Where do you draw the line between bad treatment and humane testing?

What about animals that have been bred or genetically engineered with a specific trait or defect to test the function of one or more specific genes in order to determine the cause of a genetic disorder as a step towards developing a cure or a more effective treatment for it?

Where do you draw the line between bad treatment and humane testing?

Yeah that's the big dilemma and I am actually undecided on that. I realize that we can't do without animal testing, although you could argue that there are other ways to test but I don't want to go into that too much. I don't know a lot about the ethical side of this.

I don't think there is one solution that resolves these problems.

I think Greenpeace is heroic. I've been contributing to them for years and plan to keep doing so. My latest outrage is using rifles to shoot wolves from airplanes in Alaska. I wouldn't be unhappy if some group shot the planes out of the sky. I know that's extreme, but so is the senseless killing of those wolves. People who would do that don't deserve any quarter as far as I'm concerned. They are beneath contempt.

Killing the wolves is wrong but why is it okay to harm the people in the airplanes. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

As for animal testing...I don't know what to think. There's so many useful things like vaccines that we wouldn't have without it, but I don't like putting animals through the pain and such to get the stuff.

Killing the wolves is wrong but why is it okay to harm the people in the airplanes. Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Not to me. There is nowhere for the wolves to hide in all that snow. They can't outrun airplanes and high-powered rifles. This isn't sportsmanship. And if the shooter can afford an airplane ride, he isn't losing much by way of the wolves picking off a cow or whatever they're complaining about. I'll say it again: I would shed no tears for anything bad happening to a person who would do something that despicable.

purplehawk
Not to me. There is nowhere for the wolves to hide in all that snow. They can't outrun airplanes and high-powered rifles. This isn't sportsmanship. And if the shooter can afford an airplane ride, he isn't losing much by way of the wolves picking off a cow or whatever they're complaining about. I'll say it again: I would shed no tears for anything bad happening to a person who would do something that despicable.
I agree with this. I would never encourage violence towards those shooting the wolves but I wouldn't be upset if anything should happen to them. What they're doing is totally barbaric, unreasonable and unnecessary not to mention cruel. Same with the Whale 'research'. Totally unnecessary and how they continue to get away with it is beyond me.

I agree we need animals for research purposes but not for things like testing make-up. Make-up is something the world can do fine without. With technology so advanced these days surely manufacturers can work out how to test their products without harming animals.

I think shooting from a plane is fine, testing on animals is fine, whatever. So long as it is for a purpose and not just mindless killing, I'm cool with it.

As for folks shooting down planes and killing the crew and passengers, I'd want the crew and passengers to shoot back at anyone stupid enough to do that.


-Tibbetts

I think Greenpeace is heroic. I've been contributing to them for years and plan to keep doing so. My latest outrage is using rifles to shoot wolves from airplanes in Alaska. I wouldn't be unhappy if some group shot the planes out of the sky. I know that's extreme, but so is the senseless killing of those wolves. People who would do that don't deserve any quarter as far as I'm concerned. They are beneath contempt.

Why are they shooting the wolves? Is it for 'sport' or because they think that there are too many wolves in the area?

It makes me sick either way. Imagine the terror that those animals must feel.

I'm an animal activist, and I'll be the first to admit that there are some radicals that sometimes give us a bad name. My ex boyfriend is still convinced were all the type that go around throwing red paint on people wearing fur coats.
No, I prefer doing my own part by joining peta2 and becoming a vegetarian (well still getting used to it, so more of a flexitarian currently) and getting information out there using things like pamphlets and stickers.
In regards to the shooting wolves from planes in Alaska (supported by Palin - ugh, don't get me started!), I think it's just despicable. I don't support hunting at all (other than if the hunter is hunting as a food source like the good old days before cruelty and hormones came into play), and that kind of hunting is just gross and pathetic (seriously, you gotta be a really bad hunter to need to get an aerial view like that to hunt).

In my neck of the woods hunting from moving vehicles, be it helicopters, snowmobiles, cars, ATVs or motor boats, is just not allowed. It's not possible to get a good aim if you are on the move yourself, and just wounding the animal is considered cruelty.

Unfortunately those people who break into fur animal farms to let the animals free don't give a hoot to the consequences. Here the mink is too good at surviving and reproducing, thus being a serious threat to on the ground nesting birds. One mink is enough to eat clean a several hectares big skerry. Farmed foxes, on the other hand, are too domesticated to survive on their own.

Why are they shooting the wolves? Is it for 'sport' or because they think that there are too many wolves in the area?

It makes me sick either way. Imagine the terror that those animals must feel.

The folks up there, and gun advocates there and elsewhere, refer to the practice as "pest control." I've seen video... dear God, it's just terrible.

If the wolves numbers are too large, then they are right - It is pest control, and should be persued.


-Tibbetts

That is true, Tibbetts. Hunting is a form of "pest" control. It helps to keep a good balance of animals, although things do go overboard from time to time and animals end up on the endangered list or extinct.

"Pest" as defined by a hunting advocate is quite different from "pest" as defined by the rest of us. When man encroaches on the animals' environment, one could make a pretty good argument that man is the pest. I've seen it happen, up-close and personal, in my own neighborhood, where we used to spot wildlife all over the place. It was a beautiful environment with a small number of houses set on huge multi-acre lots. Then came the housing boom which unfortunately coincided with the retirements of many of our former neighbors. Their homes were purchased by developers who razed the big house and built cul-de-sacs, and filled them with grossly overpriced smaller homes built practically on top of one another. We've watched sadly as many of the original inhabitants - the animals - have been unceremoniously bumped off by cars. We saved a few where we could: stopping kids from stoning a beautiful hawk, helping to relocate a doe and her fawns that had taken up residence in the grassy cloverleaf of a freeway ramp built to accommodate all the traffic into and out of the area, fostering orphaned babies we found in what's left of the woods and then turning them over to the wildlife folks when they were old enough.

The animals are almost never the problem. People are the problem.

So if an animal comes into my yard and attacks me, it's my fault?

I am fine with some serious debate in here, but I would rather not take any discussion to a personal level.

So if an animal comes into my yard and attacks me, it's my fault?

Well...you're right to defend yourself, but if you live in an area where there are a lot of wild animals, then you do have to acknowledge that you're sharing the territory with them. And you could turn this around pretty easily. If a dangerous animal comes into your yard, that poses a threat to you. If they attack, then you reasonably need to defend yourself. Animals experience the same thing when humans build houses in their territory and go out to hunt them.

The problem I have with humans hunting in order to keep animals in "balance" is that 1) I don't think it's our place to control nature in that way. These things fluctuate, and 2) a lot of imbalance is due to human intervention in the first place. For example, in some neighborhoods, there's a big problem with cats eating birds, but the only reason why there are so many cats is because cat owners allow their pets to roam free and mate with other cats, raising the population above what it would normally be and creating a competition that probably wouldn't happen under normal circumstances.

^ I agree about the self-defense bit (I feel like it would be taking it too far to sit and let a wild animal kill you because you feel bad about living where it used to), and I also agree with a few posts back about humans enroaching on their territory. I know it's necessary to build on more land as the population just keeps going up, so it's only natural that animals get pushed out. I don't like that fact, but it's true.
As for the pest thing, a lot of hunters refer to it as population control. My beef (no pun intended) with that argument is that the human population is growing so rapidly that 'population control' is like giving mass murderers an excuse for what they're doing (in their eyes). But, like I said before, if someone who hunts and says they want to help control the population AND they're using what they kill as a main food source, then I'm okay with that (as long is it's not 'BANG! dead animal, where's another one I can shoot? This is fun!')

So if an animal comes into my yard and attacks me, it's my fault?

If you built a house in the midst of a place teeming with wildlife, yes.

We were always respectful of the animals who populated our neighborhood twenty years ago. We were never attacked. Neither were our dogs - and we trained them to be good neighbors and NOT chase.

If we didn't hunt then certain animals would become overpopulated and there wouldn't be enough food for them to eat. We have encroached on their land, but that doesn't mean they have the right to overtake us, so it's also a means of keeping the animal population so that they don't get out of hand and have to live where we do.

I do believe in animal rights. I believe that excessive hunting is bad. If an animal is on the endangered species list then don't hunt it. If it's not a wild animal, please don't harm it. If it is a wild animal, I would rather you didn't harm it, but if it's going to harm me or another human then you have the right to protect the human. If you want to hunt please don't go and shoot a bunch of animals. Don't go and kill the population.

People are allowed to hunt and imo it should be done in moderation only, but that's beside the point. I don't think people should be harmed for hunting.

Personally, I think humans have become rather overpopulated.

Personally, I think humans have become rather overpopulated.

I agree. And they are greedy, too.

If the wolves numbers are too large, then they are right - It is pest control, and should be persued.


-Tibbetts
It is true in some cases, but a lot of the time, one animal does something like eat a favorite rosebush and it becomes a terrible threat. People tend to take pest control too far.

"Pest" as defined by a hunting advocate is quite different from "pest" as defined by the rest of us. When man encroaches on the animals' environment, one could make a pretty good argument that man is the pest. I've seen it happen, up-close and personal, in my own neighborhood, where we used to spot wildlife all over the place. It was a beautiful environment with a small number of houses set on huge multi-acre lots. Then came the housing boom which unfortunately coincided with the retirements of many of our former neighbors. Their homes were purchased by developers who razed the big house and built cul-de-sacs, and filled them with grossly overpriced smaller homes built practically on top of one another. We've watched sadly as many of the original inhabitants - the animals - have been unceremoniously bumped off by cars. We saved a few where we could: stopping kids from stoning a beautiful hawk, helping to relocate a doe and her fawns that had taken up residence in the grassy cloverleaf of a freeway ramp built to accommodate all the traffic into and out of the area, fostering orphaned babies we found in what's left of the woods and then turning them over to the wildlife folks when they were old enough.

The animals are almost never the problem. People are the problem.
that's just terrible :(. humans should be a part of nature, not getting rid of it all. People claim that humans are above animals, so with that, shouldn't we have the responsibility to help those beneath us?

So if an animal comes into my yard and attacks me, it's my fault?
You should of course, defend yourself, but partly, it is your fault for choosing that area as a home. Doesn't mean you shouldn't kill the animal if possible, it's self defense, but it doesn't mean it's the animal's fault either. This isn't always the case, but a lot of the time, humans do provoke the animal in some way.



The problem I have with humans hunting in order to keep animals in "balance" is that 1) I don't think it's our place to control nature in that way. These things fluctuate, and 2) a lot of imbalance is due to human intervention in the first place. For example, in some neighborhoods, there's a big problem with cats eating birds, but the only reason why there are so many cats is because cat owners allow their pets to roam free and mate with other cats, raising the population above what it would normally be and creating a competition that probably wouldn't happen under normal circumstances.
A lot of the time, the "pests" are only pests to humans, rather than actually doing something to the environment. Hwever, I do agree with pest control, if not done in excess. If we are responsible for that fluctuation in the environment, we should fix it.

Personally, I think humans have become rather overpopulated.
i COMPLETELY agree.

What is acceptable when it comes to defending the rights of animals?

I voted other.

Animal rights cannot be defended in full IMO. Never. How will you defend it anyway? For, I feel we justify when we kill them for food, we justify when we need them for testing for medicine and other things, we justify when we encroach on their land and build villages and kill them when they attack us and so on.

Coming from a background where eating meat was regarded as a sin and one who is a vegetarian by choice today, I could see killing of animals for food as violating animal rights. But then that will never stop. By this action animal rights are being violated in a big, big way. Lab testing and other things are a negligent portion of animal killings, compared to animals being slaughtered for food everyday all over the world.

I think it's okay to use animals for lab testing (I think it's necessary). I'm also okay for animals to be killed for food (I see that as necessary in the light of today's population) and I'm okay for those who say people should turn veg, because everytime they eat, an animal is killed for them.

If we didn't hunt then certain animals would become overpopulated and there wouldn't be enough food for them to eat. We have encroached on their land, but that doesn't mean they have the right to overtake us, so it's also a means of keeping the animal population so that they don't get out of hand and have to live where we do.

But are they overtaking us if we're in their territory to begin with? You could just as easily say that we don't have any right to overtake them.

Ultimately, each species is going to do what it needs to in order to survive, and this can include trampling on other species. But I don't think the fact that we're humans gives us special rights in that area.

Also, again, a lot of animal overpopulation is either out of our control or due to us to begin with. In the former case...that happens. It's happening with humans in some parts of the world. We wouldn't kill humans for that, even though shortage of food and water is a huge crisis in some areas. I think it's ethically iffy to step in and try to control that. For all we know, some of it is how it's meant to be.


A lot of the time, the "pests" are only pests to humans, rather than actually doing something to the environment. Hwever, I do agree with pest control, if not done in excess. If we are responsible for that fluctuation in the environment, we should fix it.


My problem is that it can be a case of fixing harm by doing more harm. For one thing, it's unfair to the animals, though I can see how it could be necessary. But it's also risky to try to control animal populations. Sometimes it's difficult to see exactly how one thing ties to another, and to make good choices. I also think it's important to do what we can to cut back on the behaviors that lead to the problem in the first place. For instance, I put more stock in educating people about not feeding bears and other wild animals (which can increase fertility), and the importance of neutering pets or keeping close control over the breeding (not doing so can lead to a population of feral dogs or cats that wouldn't normally be in that area).

What is acceptable when it comes to defending the rights of animals?

I'm a vegan and a passionate advocate of animal rights.

I would never take part in, or support, violence (or the threat of violence) against humans. I do, however, think illegal actions that do not physically harm humans (e.g. sabotage of property) etc is sometimes justified (although I haven't actually participated in it).

Releasing lab animals/animals farmed for fur etc into the wild is not usually a good idea, though, as it can put the animals at risk and/or disrupt the local ecosystem.

I can see why many animal rights activists are frustrated by using legal, democratic means to try to change the system, though, because most of the time it doesn't work. Many humans will uphold practices that are barbarically cruel to animals (in a similar way to that in which, in previous eras, humans countenanced the cruel exploitation of other human beings), because there is some minor financial benefit or convenience to them, or simply because "we've always done things that way"/"that's the way the world works", and it's incredibly demoralising trying to change that.

In the Netherlands and I am sure in other countries as well, people who work for the stock exchange have been threatened. Why? Because on the stock exchange companies trade, that support or actively use animal testing for their products. Animal activists think it's acceptable to use violence to change the minds of these people who are only indirectly involved in animal testing.

I sympathise with Dutch stock market workers. There are animal groups in the UK who attack companies who supply materials to labs that use animal testing (and some groups who attack companies who supply materials to companies who supply materials to these labs), and I think this kind of indiscriminate targetting of very tangentially involved people is pointless because, when it comes down to it, in a society which relies on animal products, we're all implicated, one way or another.

I also know people who go round pushing anglers into rivers, which I don't agree with - (a) I think there are a lot of common practices far more inhumane than angling - e.g. battery farming, cosmetic testing on animals (b) physically attacking people is most likely to wind them up and make them even less likely to support your cause.

But I don't know what methods would actually work. I don't mind people who support eating meat, hunting, animal testing etc, because they've actually thought it through and have a logical, informed position on the issue. What depresses me is the number of people who passively accept these things as OK "because everybody else does it" or "because there's no alternative" (actually, in most cases, there is). For me, the most important thing animal rights activists can do is get people to think about the issues and possible alternatives. But how do you do this?

That's the problem here. We're giving all these rights to animals and not giving them to us. Animals do what they need to survive. They kill other animals for food. They fight other animals that encroach on their home. Why is it so wrong for us to do the same?

As for animal testing--well, I don't know. Sometimes I know there is no other alternative and other times I know the animals are treated inhumanely. If I know of a company that treats the animals inhumane, then I won't purchase their products. I don't agree with the groups that go out of their way to make people feel embarrassed and actually cause harm, whether it be physical or mental. That's just as cruel as what they are protesting.

That's the problem here. We're giving all these rights to animals and not giving them to us. Animals do what they need to survive. They kill other animals for food. They fight other animals that encroach on their home. Why is it so wrong for us to do the same?

Because animals tend to live out their lives in roughly the same territory, and don't normally rip up an existing environment to build new houses, roads, schools, shopping centers and other human amenities. Animals fight for their survival with what they were born with. They are no match for bulldozers and guns.

Not to me. There is nowhere for the wolves to hide in all that snow. They can't outrun airplanes and high-powered rifles. This isn't sportsmanship. And if the shooter can afford an airplane ride, he isn't losing much by way of the wolves picking off a cow or whatever they're complaining about. I'll say it again: I would shed no tears for anything bad happening to a person who would do something that despicable.

I support hunting as a form of sportsmanship. However, this is not that. Most hunting groups agree with me too on this. It's basically taking pot shots at animals that aren't able to defend themselves. Hunt them on the ground with bows and arrows to make it more of a fair fight.

And yes, this was one of the things that made me appalled with Sarah Palin.

I voted other.

Animal rights cannot be defended in full IMO. Never. How will you defend it anyway? For, I feel we justify when we kill them for food, we justify when we need them for testing for medicine and other things, we justify when we encroach on their land and build villages and kill them when they attack us and so on.


i agree with this, but we can try right? I don't have anything against eating meat or testing itself, or even hunting. My problem is when it's done inhumanely where the animal is put through excessive suffering or it's just overdone. For example, shooting wolves from helicopters. First of all, that, IMO, borders on genocide in a way, and even worse because those they're killing are just completely helpless really. Not to mention if the animal is only wounded, it would make its life very hard. at least in hunting on the ground, the animal has some chance or if wounded, it'll be easier for the hunter to kill on the spot without the animal having to wait a few more days or weeks to die. As for killing animals for food, if the animals are being kept in good conditions where they're not being farmed like crops. My old technology teacher owns a beef ranch actually, and he has angus beef cows. I can't say i like it much, but it's necessary, and i know he lets them out to roam and they have time to live so it's not too much of a big deal.

i agree with this, but we can try right? I don't have anything against eating meat or testing itself, or even hunting. My problem is when it's done inhumanely where the animal is put through excessive suffering or it's just overdone. For example, shooting wolves from helicopters. First of all, that, IMO, borders on genocide in a way, and even worse because those they're killing are just completely helpless really. Not to mention if the animal is only wounded, it would make its life very hard. at least in hunting on the ground, the animal has some chance or if wounded, it'll be easier for the hunter to kill on the spot without the animal having to wait a few more days or weeks to die. As for killing animals for food, if the animals are being kept in good conditions where they're not being farmed like crops. My old technology teacher owns a beef ranch actually, and he has angus beef cows. I can't say i like it much, but it's necessary, and i know he lets them out to roam and they have time to live so it's not too much of a big deal.


I agrew with this. I have no problems with animals as a food source, but I have a problem with a lot of the cruelty that commonly occurs in the industry and how they're pumped full of hormones. My sister took an animal rights class a few semesters ago, and so I only eat brands of meet from those that she learned were free of all that, as well as free-range. If animals are treated humanely I'm fine, but I cannot in good conscience eat something that was once tortured.
And Hagrid 442 - I was also disgusted with Sarah Palin when I found out about her support hunting wolves from planes. I already disagreed with all her views, but I literally became just totally disgusted that she supported that.

Not to mention that a number of those animals may have been bred in the lab & may not necessarily be very well equipped to survive in the wild.
I am fine with keeping animals in shelters, the only problem I have is the way they are kept and treated. Am not talking about animal testing here, but in general. Many people keep too many animals in one place and loose control, like animal hoarders. They think they do the right thing but they harm the animals even more. People are not aware that the condition their animals live in is wrong. I am all for freeing those animals, even if it means breaking into a place.

Personally, I think humans have become rather overpopulated.
:tu:


that's just terrible :(. humans should be a part of nature, not getting rid of it all. People claim that humans are above animals, so with that, shouldn't we have the responsibility to help those beneath us?


You should of course, defend yourself, but partly, it is your fault for choosing that area as a home. Doesn't mean you shouldn't kill the animal if possible, it's self defense, but it doesn't mean it's the animal's fault either. This isn't always the case, but a lot of the time, humans do provoke the animal in some way.
Indeed are many people not able to live along with wild animals and don't know how to act when seeing one. I am living in an area with bears, wolves and cougars and some others. You can bet that there's a bear around when you see people stopping their cars and running out of it. They approach the bears and when something happens then the bear is the bad guy.




Coming from a background where eating meat was regarded as a sin and one who is a vegetarian by choice today, I could see killing of animals for food as violating animal rights. But then that will never stop. By this action animal rights are being violated in a big, big way. Lab testing and other things are a negligent portion of animal killings, compared to animals being slaughtered for food everyday all over the world.
Well no. Eating meat is certainly not wrong. Animals hunt, they eat. Humans are just another kind of animals. We would never think that a lion eating a zebra is wrong, so why is it wrong for a human to eat a cow?
The only difference is that lions don't keep their food behind fences and walls. And there's where I think the problem starts, because I see no problem with breeding animals for food purpose and killing them. It's the way they are held and killed and what is lots of times wrong, but not eating meat itself.

Ultimately, each species is going to do what it needs to in order to survive, and this can include trampling on other species. But I don't think the fact that we're humans gives us special rights in that area.
Totally agreed. Looks like everything is Ok, when it benefits humans. Some people just cannot see the other side of the coin.

That's the problem here. We're giving all these rights to animals and not giving them to us. Animals do what they need to survive. They kill other animals for food. They fight other animals that encroach on their home. Why is it so wrong for us to do the same?
Those animals don't do mindless killing or did you ever see a bear killing 100s of deers in their woods because there are too many of them? Or that wolves go into towns and kill the people because they are in their territory?
No they don't, but humans do.

Those animals don't do mindless killing or did you ever see a bear killing 100s of deers in their woods because there are too many of them? Or that wolves go into towns and kill the people because they are in their territory?
No they don't, but humans do.

Well said. :tu:

I'm still getting the feeling that some of you want to give animals more rights than humans. It's okay for an animal to hunt but when a human does it it's wrong. I don't hunt, because I don't want to kill an innocent animal (and before you say anything, when an animal hunts for food they kill innocent animals), but I don't want to stop others from hunting, either, if they aren't going about it the wrong way.

There are cases where foxes are at night roaming around neighborhoods. It's not because we're encroaching on their living space. It's because they know we have garbage. I'm not saying we need to hurt the foxes. I'm just saying that just because an animal comes into our territory it's not automatiaclly because we've taken over their territory.

We do need to learn to get along with animals and that just because an animal is there doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but we also need to know that if we give the right to the animal what is so wrong with giving that right to us humans?

I think that's where I have problems with some animal activists. They are all for saving a certain animal, but they don't mind harming humans, some who don't have anything to do with the harming of the animals.

I can certainly condone peaceful demonstrations, and at least understand trying to block illegal whaling, etc. But...I can't condone trying to set free research animals or anything more extreme. Many research animals cannot survive outside of the lab (white mice = great target for predators, nice and visible). And, some of the animals could spread harm to humans.

I'm not against tightening the ethical rules for animal testing - some testing is unnecessary - but, in the whole, it's a necessary evil. And the vast majority of those who conduct animal testing conduct it quite ethically and they care about the animals, very very much. I've been to many seminars which have animal data in them - and I've made compounds which have been put into animals - and I can say firsthand that the people who care the most, in my experience, about the animals are those taking care of them.

I'm still getting the feeling that some of you want to give animals more rights than humans. It's okay for an animal to hunt but when a human does it it's wrong.

But the difference is that animals hunt to feed themselves, and humans hunt as a sport - meaning for fun.

Also, animals do what nature dictates - they are motivated by instincts. We use reasoning and can make balanced decisions taking the its consequences into account. Therefore, our responsibility is much bigger. Our means to do harm are hugely powerful compared to animals', and their effects on both them and us, and on our world, much, much graver.

I'm still getting the feeling that some of you want to give animals more rights than humans. It's okay for an animal to hunt but when a human does it it's wrong. I don't hunt, because I don't want to kill an innocent animal (and before you say anything, when an animal hunts for food they kill innocent animals), but I don't want to stop others from hunting, either, if they aren't going about it the wrong way.
Not necessary more rights than humans, but definitelly more and better rights than they have now.

In Germany they admitted animal rights in the Basic Law. I looked it up yesterday:

"The State is also protecting in responsibility for future generation the natural resources and the animals..."



We do need to learn to get along with animals and that just because an animal is there doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but we also need to know that if we give the right to the animal what is so wrong with giving that right to us humans?

I think that's where I have problems with some animal activists. They are all for saving a certain animal, but they don't mind harming humans, some who don't have anything to do with the harming of the animals.
I am not a fan of physically violence, but sometimes you need to make those people to see sense by overtaking their boat, getting between the lines and do whatever it takes to prevent them from harming an animal. I agree though that some activists take it too far. But throwing paint at fur wearers is nothing bad and such things.

That's the problem. What you deem as bad and what the fur wearer deems as bad are two different things. For one thing, you're destroying their clothes. It might not be just the fur coat that gets the paint. It might not just be the wearer that gets the paint. Is that fair?

Time for you both to cool it down!

Regardless of what we think is right or wrong, violence and destroying clothes don't cause the receiving part to 'see sense'. What it does is to give all animal rights people a bad reputation.

And Hagrid 442 - I was also disgusted with Sarah Palin when I found out about her support hunting wolves from planes. I already disagreed with all her views, but I literally became just totally disgusted that she supported that.
One thing I don't get is that we are talking about Alaska or not. I don't know where there is a lack of space up there.

On the animal testing front, I am fully in favour of allowing it for medical purposes. I think it would take a great deal of short sightedness to think that the rights of a mouse or rat would be greater than the need to find a cure for desease. I am less favourable about when it is done for testing cosmetics although if that is the only possible way then I can understand.

On the animal testing front, I am fully in favour of allowing it for medical purposes. I think it would take a great deal of short sightedness to think that the rights of a mouse or rat would be greater than the need to find a cure for desease.

I can see what you mean, but I still think we ought to be investing more in discovering cruelty-free means of drug testing, instead of complacently assuming that using animals is (and always will be) inevitable.

Plus, some mammals have intelligence equivalent to that of children (particularly primates, but cats and dogs are also quite advanced). I don't like the thought of intelligent, sentient beings, who can to an extent understand what is happening to them, being treated in this way. (Nor, obviously, would I countenance mentally handicapped humans being used in this way, despite the fact that they may have intelligence and perception less than some lab specimen animals)

But, then again, several of my family are reliant on animal-tested drugs to stay alive, so there are no easy answers. And I think attacking labs in countries like the UK (where animal welfare standards are relatively high) is counterproductive, because it is unlikely to stop research being carried out, but may actually lead to research being outsourced to countries where specimens are treated really badly.

I am less favourable about when it is done for testing cosmetics although if that is the only possible way then I can understand.

I can't see why we need new cosmetics, given the shedloads already on the market. In fact, strictly speaking, we don't need cosmetics at all. I just can't justify allowing a rabbit to have toxic substances dripped in its eye, just so I can have a 56th shade of eye shadow.

I can't see why we need new cosmetics, given the shedloads already on the market. In fact, strictly speaking, we don't need cosmetics at all. I just can't justify allowing a rabbit to have toxic substances dripped in its eye, just so I can have a 56th shade of eye shadow.

Also, cosmetics can be tested on volunteers. I think Oriflame and Avon do that.

I'm still getting the feeling that some of you want to give animals more rights than humans. It's okay for an animal to hunt but when a human does it it's wrong. I don't hunt, because I don't want to kill an innocent animal (and before you say anything, when an animal hunts for food they kill innocent animals), but I don't want to stop others from hunting, either, if they aren't going about it the wrong way.
I personally am not saying hunting is wrong, but certain types are wrong. as Tenshi puts it:



Those animals don't do mindless killing or did you ever see a bear killing 100s of deers in their woods because there are too many of them? Or that wolves go into towns and kill the people because they are in their territory?
No they don't, but humans do.

not all hunters are like this, but a lot of them don't really respect the animals they hunt, or they don't fully use the animal's body. For example, in native american times, or tribes of africa, the tribes killl as much as they need and use all parts of the animal, the bones, the fat, the meat, the fur, etc.

There are cases where foxes are at night roaming around neighborhoods. It's not because we're encroaching on their living space. It's because they know we have garbage. I'm not saying we need to hurt the foxes. I'm just saying that just because an animal comes into our territory it's not automatiaclly because we've taken over their territory.
it's because of both. Do you see foxes in um....well, i'm not sure where foxes aren't native, but lets say if a deer is hit by a car, how many cases of deer being hit by cars in a desert do you hear of?

We do need to learn to get along with animals and that just because an animal is there doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but we also need to know that if we give the right to the animal what is so wrong with giving that right to us humans?
because humans often disregard of take advantage of laws.




that's just terrible :(. humans should be a part of nature, not getting rid of it all. People claim that humans are above animals, so with that, shouldn't we have the responsibility to help those beneath us?
exactly


Indeed are many people not able to live along with wild animals and don't know how to act when seeing one. I am living in an area with bears, wolves and cougars and some others. You can bet that there's a bear around when you see people stopping their cars and running out of it. They approach the bears and when something happens then the bear is the bad guy.
thta's just stupid...yes, bears are interesting and i would be highly tempted to try to approach it, but i would be smart enough to not give in to that temptation....




On the animal testing front, I am fully in favour of allowing it for medical purposes. I think it would take a great deal of short sightedness to think that the rights of a mouse or rat would be greater than the need to find a cure for desease. I am less favourable about when it is done for testing cosmetics although if that is the only possible way then I can understand.
I'm just curious, but what do they do to animals when it comes to testing, since i don't really know much about that area.


Plus, some mammals have intelligence equivalent to that of children (particularly primates, but cats and dogs are also quite advanced). I don't like the thought of intelligent, sentient beings, who can to an extent understand what is happening to them, being treated in this way. (Nor, obviously, would I countenance mentally handicapped humans being used in this way, despite the fact that they may have intelligence and perception less than some lab specimen animals)
I completely agree. Just because an animal is supposedly "beneath" a human doesn't mean it still can't think or understand. would anyone who doesn't care much about animal rights care if we stuck a child in the same conditions of say, a beef ranch? Just an example, babies or young children who haven't learned out to speak yet, they can partly understand things that happen and they feel happiness, sadness, anger etc. but sometimes can' texpress it. Another example. Not saying a neighborhood cat is as smart as a human but communication is the problem, for example, speaking to someone from a foreign country.


I can't see why we need new cosmetics, given the shedloads already on the market. In fact, strictly speaking, we don't need cosmetics at all. I just can't justify allowing a rabbit to have toxic substances dripped in its eye, just so I can have a 56th shade of eye shadow.
So true

I'm still getting the feeling that some of you want to give animals more rights than humans. It's okay for an animal to hunt but when a human does it it's wrong.

Animals hunt to eat. They can't exactly go into a supermarket to buy their dinner, right? People hunt because they can, at least in the United States, where any bozo can buy a firearm. Hunting as a primary source of food went by the wayside a long time ago. Today, I think it's just an excuse to keep guns.

I'm in agreement with much of what leah says in 39, and in full agreement with chparadise in post 40. And I also agree wholehearted with Alastor that dumping paint or in some case blood on people that wear furs does nothing but hurt the cause of animal rights activism. In fact, I'm fairly conservative when it comes to this issue because I have nothing against real hunting, which is why I'm against the Alaskan wolves situation passionately. Also, and this may be extreme, I believe that animal rights activists that do physical harm to others in the name of their cause could and should be tagged as terrorists.

I'm just curious, but what do they do to animals when it comes to testing, since i don't really know much about that area.
Well, in a lot of the studies I've read about lately that rely on data from animal testing, they're testing the effects of various gene alleles. For example, they might genetically engineer a mouse to have a gene (or a specific allele of a gene) that it wouldn't ordinarily have, or a specific combination of genes... or they might disable or change or amplify the function of a gene to see what happens. And this sort of thing, as far as I'm aware, does give better results using live test subjects than, say, using computer models -- because living organisms are so complex, you can input every variable you can think of into the computer & still have the results be way off from what happens in real life, because there could still be twenty variables that you either didn't think of or weren't aware of. (Even in climate prediction models in the computer, they keep finding more variables in nature that their previous computer models didn't take into account.)

For more, or better, examples of what sorts of things animal testing involves, you could browse through the biological & medical science articles at http://www.sciencedaily.com/

To add to what Pox already noted, there are companies that have animals for sale, and they keep a close eye out for mice that show interesting characteristics, and then figure out what they have and whether they can breed more from that same mouse. I worked at a company that paid $250,000 for a pair of mice with Alzheimer's.

For some other studies, they induce the desired effect in the animal in order to test the compound(s) of interest. For these studies, the company or academic lab only needs to observe before and after (and a control group who weren't treated) to find out what they need to.

Living systems are complex enough that I don't see a way for animal testing to ever go away within the drug industry. There are many examples even recently of drugs working one way in vitro, then working another way in animal (pre-clinical testing), and then a side effect never seen before kicks up once you put it into humans. Or there are compounds (heck, I've made some of these!) where the in vitro data is beautiful, then you try a very small animal trial, and the animals all die. Testing these compounds in humans first would be very dangerous, and no computer can account for the millions upon millions of variables in any given human. Large drug companies have many, many examples of compounds designed using a computer to hit a target, which end up having other problems that kill the project before it ever gets into human trials.

Cosmetics / formulations involving well-established compounds are an entirely different matter to me, and I will admit I'm much less sympathetic to animal testing for those products. However, being in both academic and industrial settings working on projects that include animal testing, I've developed a keen appreciation for the need for animal testing data. It's a necessary evil, and in silico modeling will never be able to fully supplant it, sadly.

oh ok, thanks for the explanation guys. I agree that animal testing is necessary, even if i still don't like it much. in the end, it's like breeding food animals i guess, but more cruel to me.

That's the problem. There's no right answer. It's not black and white. Any answer you come up with will have a negative side (in regards to animal testing).

I do applaud animal activists for taking up their causes and they aren't all out to do unpeaceful acts. Animals can't do it themselves so humans do have to do it. It's just a sad thing that there are some (and excuse me, I don't want to offend anyone) nutcases out there that give animal activists a bad name.

But the difference is that animals hunt to feed themselves, and humans hunt as a sport - meaning for fun.

So do humans. Hunters here in Maine hunt to supplement what food we have. It's fun as well - the thrill of the hunt - but we use what we kill for food. If we don't need it all, we give what's left to a neighbor.


-Tibbetts

however, rather than maybe throwing the leftovers (bone, fur, fat) into say, the nearest forest, the remains would be thrown into a landfill in many cases

Well no. Eating meat is certainly not wrong.

I agree.

But, for example, I don't think most people who eat meat here, one these forums would agree with people eating dog or cat meat. In China, Korea and Vietna and other places in Asia people eat dogs. In the West, there is as much of a taboo as it is for a religious Hindu to eat cow, or a Muslim to eat pork. I think people would protest and try to close restaurants which serve dog meat in the US, if they came to know about it, for dogs and cats are family in the US and UK.

Even in killing animals for meat, there are dos and don'ts, is the point I wish to make.

At which point, do we stop justifying killing animals and start defending them?

I don't think it's wrong for people to eat meat for that's their personal choice; I'm also not against animals being used for testing, especially in the field of medicine, but I just don't believe in activists who think animals hold more priority over humans. For if they do, they must first start with stopping the millions upon millions of animals killed everyday for food. And this will never happen, for we have been meat eaters from begining IMO.

It's the way they are held and killed and what is lots of times wrong, but not eating meat itself.


I agree.

i agree with this, but we can try right? I don't have anything against eating meat or testing itself, or even hunting. My problem is when it's done inhumanely where the animal is put through excessive suffering or it's just overdone. For example, shooting wolves from helicopters. First of all, that, IMO, borders on genocide in a way, and even worse because those they're killing are just completely helpless really. Not to mention if the animal is only wounded, it would make its life very hard. at least in hunting on the ground, the animal has some chance or if wounded, it'll be easier for the hunter to kill on the spot without the animal having to wait a few more days or weeks to die. As for killing animals for food, if the animals are being kept in good conditions where they're not being farmed like crops. My old technology teacher owns a beef ranch actually, and he has angus beef cows. I can't say i like it much, but it's necessary, and i know he lets them out to roam and they have time to live so it's not too much of a big deal.

I agree.