Animal Activism

[Hes]

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?

[leah49]

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.

[Pox Voldius]

Originally Posted by leah49

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.

[Voldemorts8thHorcrux]

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.

[Hes]

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.

[Pox Voldius]

Originally Posted by Hes

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?

[Hes]

Originally Posted by Pox Voldius

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.

[purplehawk]

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.

[leah49]

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.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by leah49

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.

[Hysteria]

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.

[Tibbetts]

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

[Mad_Druid]

Originally Posted by purplehawk

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.

[merry18]

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).

[Alastor]

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.

[purplehawk]

Originally Posted by Mad_Druid

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.

[Tibbetts]

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


-Tibbetts

[leah49]

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.

[purplehawk]

"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.

[leah49]

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