Based upon many suggestions, I have opened this topic to discuss all issues regarding animals. What are their proper roles in society? What are mankind’s rights and responsibilities towards animals? Are zoos and circuses the evil entities that animal rights groups make them out to be? Which animal rights groups (SPCA, PETA, Humane Society, etc.) are helping their cause and which one’s are hurting their cause?

All issues with animals are open for debate here. Please remember that all site rules are in effect as well as the stricter rules of the Great Hall. Be polite and respectful towards your fellow members when posting. So whether you are a member of Pamela Anderson’s P.E.T.A. or the common man’s P.E.T.A., let’s hear your thoughts.

hmm...zoos are not exactly good because an animal may want to go back to wildlife and Animals have to have freedom..they should be able ot do whatever they wish and not be imprisoned in cages for people to stare at them all day...imagine being stared at all day long...im sure it will be annoying!!
Also, i think they should stop hunting down animals as many are getting endangered and can be extint...many animals are running out because of Hunters hunting them down...

This zoo question reminds me of my ex-biology teacher, who was sticking to his opinion that zoos, if well-equiped and with a qualified staff, are extremely good for animals. He always said that he did not understand people who are against zoos, since animals in zoos live up to 40% longer than normally, because they get the appropriate quality and quantity of food, the staff takes care of them, a doctor examines them every time it is necessary, they have a safe place to live, and do not have to protect themselves against external factors such as other animals or people hunting them down. Even though I'm mostly against artifical things, I had to admit that he was right at some points.

However, I still think that if not necessary, animals should not be dragged into zoos. There is an emphasis on necessary, because it is of course a completely different case if the particular animal is nearing extinction. In such cases interfering is extremely important. Just think of Gerald Durell, who collected hundreds of animals from different endangered species. He really has done a great job.

I feel very simular to Snowdrop. If the animals are well kept and given plenty of room to stretch their legs I don't really see a big problem with them being in zoos. Many of the animals really bond with the staff and almost have a friend-like relationship. And seem, for the most part, happy.

What I have a problem with is the animals who are kept in the small glass rooms or cases in the zoos. You can tell just by looking at them that they obviously don't want to be there and who wants to see an animal that just sits in a case in one spot all day and is miserable? Not me. I remember, the last time I was at the zoo, looking at the apes and they all looked so positively miserable. It's easier to recreate the habitat of some animals than it is for other, and they were obviously doing a less than acceptable job for this apes. I think every animal should be given so many meter of space to itself based on size, age, natural habitat, etc.

As for PETA. I think they definitely hurt more than they help their cause. No one likes having paint thrown on them, no one likes being told they are a monster for eating meat, and no one likes eggs and pies pelted at them. People for the ethical treatment of animals...how about they learn to treat people ethically first.

I would like to offer some defense of zoos. I am not sure how the rest of the world operates but in the US, the zoos that I am aware of are mostly a rescue facility. The local zoo in my area does great work rescuing and rehabilitating Manatees which are threatened. The only manatees on display are those that were too injured to be released or for what ever reason are no longer able to support themselves in the wild. Most are nursed back to health and released into a safe area.

The zoo has the same program with bald eagles. The three or four that are on display were injured so bad they will never fly again. So whats better, euthenizing them or giving them a safe confortable enviroment to live out the rest of their life. Additionally by having the zoo, they are able to raise money to help other animals. Every animal caretaker I have spoken to there has a deep love of the animals they are caring for.

I agree with you Nimbus about PETA. They get alot of attention but it hurts the cause. Why publish a comic book for little kids that calls the kid's fathers murders for fishing? All that does is alienate the parents who have far more control over the kids beliefs than PETA does.

I also have a big problem with the local SPCA that I use to support. The last time I visited the shelter to adopt a dog, I saw them rejecting people because the people wanted the dog to stay outside and the SPCA was insisting on inside living arrangements. I am not talking small dogs but large German Shepards. What got me was that the shelter has a kill rate of about 70-80%. Why be picky about a dog living outside when you are euthenizing 75% of the animals. I am sure those dogs would gladly live outside rather than die. Where have dogs lived for the past 2-4000 years. Air conditioned homes did not come around until about 60 years ago.

I too agree with Snowdrop. Zoo's aren't ment to hurt the animals in any way. I am not an animal activist but from what I seen, a zoo is like a 5 star hotel for them. They get fed enough food when they need it, they get the proper medical care for injuries, the keepers take care of the newborns when they are born.

Now if I remember correctly, last year there were like 4 successful panada cubs born. I know that doesn't sound like a lot but it was a huge step for them I guess.

I remember watching some show on the Discovery Channel last summer where this guy bought like 1000 acres of land and bought tons of different animals for this Tiger reserve. The 2 tigers were born in captivity and then they were taught how to hunt and survive on their own. I think thats good enough reason to say that zoo's do the job that they entend to on saving animals.

First, I agree with Nimbus 100% in regards to PETA. PETA goes about their animal rights campaigns in a very zealous, over the top fashion, that some instances can actually be defined as assault. As far as the ASPCA, they pretty much vary depending on your state and local legislations regarding animal protection. I think New York has a pretty tough stance on animal rights and will actively persue a person for legal responsibility for an abused/neglected animal. Greg, that's unbelivable! I can understand stressing the importance of letting the dog inside during bad weather or extreme heat/cold, but to keep a large breed of dog indoors... interesting. Here an animal can live outdoors as long as it has food, water and some form of shelter.

As far as zoos are concerned, many of them have evolved into some kind of wildlife refuge. Many also have educational programs that teach our kids of all ages about various species of animals.

I think what bothers me the most is to see the way some people can abuse and neglect their pets. There was actually a person in my town that was charged with animal cruelty about a month ago because his dog was severly emaciated. Your pet is a part of your family and not your assets/property.

I think we should keep in mind, as was pointed out already, that zoos vary from one area to another. Most of the big ones, like San Diego, Toronto, etc... Are run very well and are actually very good at taking care of their animals. Most of them are run more to take care of animals that have been in captivity for a long time, or were rescued from some other "zoos" or from circuses and such. Keep in mind that in many cases the animals you see in zoos have never been in the wild, having been bred in captivity.

Circuses and other entertainment setups are another story. Lots of room for abuse there, and the living arrangements aren't always optimal.

PETA, like most radical factions, take things to extremes to make a point. However, I'll have to agree that they do push things too far and in many cases just wind up doing more harm than good. My wife was actually doused in pig's blood because she was wearing what looked like a fur coat. It wasn't: it was synthetic (we were students at the time and could barely afford rent, never mind a fur coat!!) Needless to say, PETA made a lousy impression on us both...

Anyone care to take a stab at the question of famring animals for meat?

I watched a video in environmental science one time in which it showed all these chickens packed together in these crates on this farm. There must have thousands of them. They can't move or anything. Is this how every chicken lives...and dies...in the corporate world (I say corporate because it was for Kentucky Fried Chicken, so maybe other fast food places do that too). They also cut the tips of their beaks when they're born. Cows are different. Some are left to graze, and others are left to stand in one position for their short lives. Why? With barely any muscle tissue, they make veal (contrary to popular belief, the meat is light because its fatty). Not all farm animals live this way, I'm just showing a few examples.

Is it justified, however, to raise animals for the purpose of feeding a population?

Mmm...I guess like a lot of people here, I don't really have a problem with zoos in general, though there are some, particularly in Europe, that most people would be horrified at if they could see the conditions some of the animals are kept in. Sometimes, as gaburdette said, they're the only places to protect some species if their natural habitats are being destroyed or if they're sick and as long as they're being cared for properly, though not ideal, it's better than them becoming extinct or dying in pain. If there's a possibiliity that they can return to the wild eventually, then that's even better. They're more for preservation in Britain too, I think, than simply for us humans to gawp at during holidays, so yeah, I don't have major problems with them.

With regards to farming, yes, some animals are kept in horrendous conditions which is why I only buy meat and dairy products if they say they're from free range farms, organic farms and so on...it's got to say that the animals are allowed to roam around freely and so on otherwise I won't buy them. It's expensive, but I really don't like the thought of eating animals at the best of times and if I thought the animals had been kept in the types of conditions you guys have talked about before ending up on my plate, I don't think I'd be able to eat meat ever again. I think that's probably the best you can do - just don't buy cheap rubbish and the Value stuff because you can be guaranteed that to keep prices down, the animals have been kept in bad conditions. I think that if we have to farm, then it should be done humanely. Causing animals pain or distress simply to feed an overgrowing population is never justified. If the planet can't support its population without resorting to such things, then it's time to consider reducing the population through better sex education, financial incentives to keep families small, things like that. Personally, I think nature is kind of enforcing it's own population control right now in a number of different ways, but that's for another discussion.

I also agree with everyone here who says that PETA does go over the top. They're not serving their cause by being extreme - all they do is lose sympathy for what is otherwise an excellent cause.

I don't support animals being used for research at all, but I do understand that in some cases it's necessary and I know that many other scientists feel the same way and a lot of research is going on to reduce the amount of animals that are used in this way. Aside from the moral implications which unfortunately don't cut through to the Powers That Be, it's very expensive to use animals and if you can't get them to listen with their hearts, they'll certainly listen to alternatives when you start hitting them in the pocket

Cosmetic testing on animals is absolutely and unequivocally horrendous, and I really think that there's no need for that at all. We know what's safe and what isn't - the supermarket shelves are full of approved products. If people want to look pretty, then volunteer for the tests - don't have some poor rabbit sprayed in the eye with perfume to see if they have a reaction just so you can smell nice. If there's anything that should be outlawed, that should. I'd rather go without make-up or hair serum for the rest of my life than buy something that's been tested, in whole or in part, on animals. I think that's a different issue to medical testing though where, if it's the choice between a mouse and potentially coming up with a treatment for Parkinson's disease or AIDS or cancer or a genetic disease - something that could potentially save lives, then I guess... Obviously, I would much rather progress be made without sacrificing animals like this, but until another method can be found, I don't see how developments can be made. I'm certainly an advocate of encouraging people to volunteer for trials though - I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to take part in research and obviously that's a much better choice than having to use animals.

Hey, my 1st post in the Great Hall!

I thought it was interesting that this topic started with a discussion of zoos. One thing I read was that happiness for an animal in the zoo can often depend on which animal it is.

Strangely enough, while lions are quite content in the zoo, relaxed and mellow, tigers tend to show stress behaviors such as pacing. Other animals that seem to have a tough time of it are apes, monkeys, and elephants. A lot of factors come into play, such as intelligence level and natural habitat size. Elephants and primates are often not accorded the space they need. They have no mental challenges, and become bored and discontent.

As for farmed animals, I'm torn. Some animals were domesticated species 10,000 years ago. They are accustomed to living near and being taken care of by humans, and would have a tough time adjusting to life without us. Cows and other large animals are often not even able to give birth without human assistance. But I don't approve of large-scale animal farming. There are too many animals that never even see the light of day--the pig-barn scene in the movie Babe was not an exaggeration. And chickens are treated even worse.

About chickens--in America, they are not, by law, considered to be 'livestock,' and since they are not, they are not accorded the same humane kill methods, or humane housing. That's just plain wrong. I've kept chickens, and they are capable of being tamed, enjoying petting, eating from one's hand, and knowing one person from another. They don't deserve the lives most of them have.

And for us humans, the treatment we've given animals is coming back to haunt us. Chicken eggs have colorless yolks and lack nutrients and flavor. Mad cow disease happened because we supplemented a cow's natural diet of grasses with ground-up powder consisting of sick animals that had been killed. We're doing the same thing with chickens and farmed fish, and some fish are getting to be extremely mercury-tainted from that.

I wish we could go back to the old methods of food. It was better for the animals, and better for us.

I had to chuckle about the chickens (not because I don't care about them) because my mom raises chickens. She mostly sells the eggs, but ocassionally we enjoy a chicken feast. Hers are free-range chickens, which basically means that they can see the light of day and run outside in the, well dust as they've eaten up all the vegetation.

Do you think that mistreatment of animals is more prevelent in people who have control issues? They feel that they must dominate something, and here is this thing that can't, realistically, fight back?

I don't have a problem with eating meat, as far as that goes, but I do have a problem with the places which don't treat their animals, even the ones that will be eaten, humanely. I have a problem with veal for this reason . . .that though brings tears to my eyes.

I've always had a very soft spot for animals. I was hoping to become a vet, when I was little, but found that I couldn't even give a dog a shot for diabetes one day. (My family owned a boarding kennel). So, I decided that being a vet wasn't for me. At any rate, I do get upset when I watch something akin to "Animal Cops," because I just can't see how people can be that heartless, and then not realize that they're not right.

Yeah, Janet, I know what you mean. You have to wonder why some of these losers get animals as pets at all! I've seen that show, and it's scary.

I think that animal farmers lose their humanity about the animals they raise. I think that happens because they can't afford to get attached to the critters, then have to kill them. I remember that PBS show, about the people who went to Montana to pretend to be 19th-century pioneers? It about killed them to have to kill their little pig and eat her. They'd never had to face the procedure because they just bought their meat at the store. That was hard to watch, especially for the little boy.

As a Buddhist, I've been urged to give up meat, and I have tried numerous times, but it's hard to give it up when you've eaten it all your life! So I'm with Louise--I try to not eat it too often, and when I do, to buy free-range, grass-fed, organic meats. And they're horrifically expensive--over twice the cost of regular meats. To me, it's important that an animal had some quality of life before it was made into food.

And yeah, chickens are so fun to raise! I only had a really little flock, 12 hens. I raised them in my pantry, in cat carriers, till their feathers got thick enough to help them withstand the weather. lol That's why they were so tame. And aren't the eggs better with free-range! But they do love to scratch the heck out the grass. I was a total wuss about my chickens, I couldn't kill them either.

Why am I still up? I should go to bed!

I have yet to poke my head in the Great Hall for any debate, but I will end my silence now.

Animals are something very near and dear to me. First off, I would like to address the Zoo topic. I have been to different zoos in my life. World class zoos and pokey one horse town zoos. None of them made me happy. None of them showed the animals in their 'actual' habitat. But it is human nature to catch, cage and watch. Some zoos offer more to the animals, others do not. What can you do about that? well, visit the zoos that offer more and don't visit the ones that don't. Power of capitalism I guess. For reference, I believe we as a human race feel a bit odd for doing it sometimes. Why do you think we worry about being lab rats for aliens?? (that was a joke)

Secondly, the animals for food business. Griwing up, sometimes we wouldn't eat if we didn't have animals around to eat. We grew up in the backwoods of Texas and had to eat animals that sometimes we considered pets. My father explained it best to me as I cried over a chicken/deer/duck whatever it was at the time..."They are good creatures. They lived and gave yoou joy, now they knew you needed to grow up strong so they died to help you do that. We should be thankful we had them and that they gave everyhting t you." After that, I realised we all have a purpose. It may be small, but even animals have a purpose for being alive. Now, don't get mem wrong, I do not think cramming them in crates, fattening them up and then slautering them is a great way to go about it. No way. But we are animals ourselves in this world and we happen to have the uper hand...at the moment. Until that changes, nothing will.

As far as people who do what's called "animal hording", let me just say I have a lot to say on that. I am the 'mother' of six wonderful animals. four cats and two dogs. We have had up to ten animals at once. I work very closely with a number of local animal rescue groups that are no-kill shelters. Which means, they rescue animals in distress and eep them until they are adopted. How do they do that without killing them? They recreuit people like myself to foster the animals. I have had so many fosters I can not count them all. I even fostered a 13 yr old black lab, named rightfully, Old Bob. Oh he was a sweet thing. I only had him for a little while before he passed away, but he was a gem. My husband rescued a mother cat with five kittens one day after work. Actually, she had her kittens in his truck. We grouped together with a feline no-kill shelter and we got all six of them spayed/neutered. Then adopted out three out of the six. We kept mommy because she is a little wild and very afraid of people. She is my kitty now, her name is Brady. (After Tom Brady of the NE Patriots) Others have been neglected and abused etc. All of my animals have had a hard life. But we give them a home, food and lots of love. I have had to turn down some fosters before. Too much heartache in them. The kitten who had the ciggerete out in his eyes, the dog ho was used as a puppy mill for years and bred with her own pupies to make more pupies. It is a viscious cycle.

But what to do with all that information? Well, I am an advocate for no-kill shelters. I think the American County Animal shelters that kill the animals are horrible. Worse than horrible I think the are heartless. On that, I know from personal experince that many of then are heartless. I have gone to the shelters to pickup an animal for whatever rescue I am working with at the moment and they do not want to release the animals to us. Once, we had a pupy on hold for us. Myself and another member came in, filled out the paperwork and they were crating the pup fr us to go. Then, they realised who we were. They refused to adopt to us because we were not keeping the animal ourselves. They took the puppy and killed her before we left the facility. ON principal, there is a micro war going on between kill shelters and no-kill shelters. The animals are caught in the middle. So now, we ghost in there and never speak of other groups. I can only speak of locally in my area, but I know if you check your local county animal control dept, they, by law, have to disclose the ratio of intake of animals to adoptions to animals they killed. (This includes animals that died of diseases/injuries) The numbers in my area are appauling. Poeple should support the local no-kill shelters, even if it requires a little more money for the adoption. Why? They are healthier, proven in my area. The shelters are breeding grounds for every disease known to animals. The animals are most of the time, fostered in a family enviornment, so they will easily adapt to your family with education and guidelines for children. They will be spay/neutered. and up to date with all shots. (This is the case with county shelters as well. It is a law)

For anyone who will ever say that the way they kill the animals is humane, think agian. Have you ever witnessed it? I have. Many of us did it to really see what we were fighting agianst. We had to know. Did they slip off quietly into a sleep? Did they scream and suffer in agony? well, I will not recount that day here, all I can say is that they do not slip off into a quiet sleep like they do in the Vet's office when your animal is ill. I had to make the hard decision for Old Bob. He was going out the door and in a lot of pain. A lot of pain. His pain meds no longer worked for him. I sat with him until the end and held him. He looked at me and I saw him relax, almost into a sleep. God I miss him. That was a much different experence to the one with the dogs in the county shelter. Suffice it to say, they suffered.

Obviously, I stand behind no-kill shelters. Firmly I stand, agianst Kill shelters.

*whew* Long one eh?

I'm not sure how much of a debate we are going to get about the treatment of animals. It sounds like everyone, rightfully so, is against the cruel treatment of animals whether it be zoolife of livestock. However, my sister is writting a paper on whether or not it should be ok to eat animals that we, in the western world, would consider domestic, and never dream of eating such as cats and dogs. In many countries it is perfectly ok to eat them. What does everyone think of that? Is it ok or not? Why or why not?

As for my opinion on livestock; I don't believe raising animals to be eaten is wrong (it's been done since the dawn of agriculture) but it has always sort of been assumed that the animals should be treated with respect. I don't think it is ok to treat an animal like it is nothing more than future food. When I think of methods like flaw gra (sp?) and other forms of force feeding and border line tourture of animals it makes me very upset.

The eating of livestock for me is a tricky issue. Before i had really gottn in deapth with it i didnt care what happended to the animals but sometimes its crazy how they do treat them. In the instance of veal the animals are kept in tiny cages to keep the meat tender. I dont agree with that as it actually very cruel. Also after looking at the difference between regular meat and organic meat i only now eat organic. Statistically organically raised animals are only fed grain and have no growth inhibiting steroids injected into their bodies. For example certain breeds of chickens are raised genetically to produce more usuable meat than other chickens. This makes the breast portion grow and often makes the task of just walking difficult for the birds. I dont beleive that that is right...

As for zoos... im not against the captivity of animals. My problem is when some institutes and private holders completely disreguard the animals welfare when there is money involved. Most zoos are kept in pristine shape and the animals are treated very well, often better than they are in the wild. The problem is when yo ugets places that dont qualify as zoos but still hold show animals. These places sometimes do no thave the proper equipment or personel to care for these animals... thats when its a sad story...

MAE

Animal rights... that's a tricky one for me... Even though i think that animals should be treated humanly etc, i do think that Human rights is something that's more important, and we should concentrate more on as a nation. But i don't agree with animal cruelty whatsoever.

First i'd like to say, that i agree with Zoo's, the big ones at least. I know there are still some that keep animals in horrid conditions. The mains Zoo's are breeding programes now. Secret, 4 panda cubs? Wow! That brilliant news! Pands's are rarely in heat and the breeding of them in very rare, so 4 is an amazing number

Even though i do see your concerns with Zoos Dementor, however, sometimes it's not possible for an animal to live in the willd. Some are injured or the risk of predetors (man mainly) is too great. Unfortuantly lots of animals natural habitat is detroyed However, boycotting Zoos is not the answer. People should support their zoo. If everyone boycotted zoos they would have to close, and all their hard work will be wasted. The animals won't be allowed back into the wild, they won't be able to feed themselves, they would be put down

As for eating animals? I used to be really fussy about what meat i ate. I wouldn't eat Venison (deer) Duck, phesant, pigeon etc. But then over night i just changed my mind, and thought what the point was. Actually i've had pigeon, it's not very nice I do do my upmost to buy organic meat, and free range eggs etc... but the cost, i just can't really afford it these days (need a jobe really rather badly) so i just get what's ever on offer. I do do my best to buy organic, though. I saw Dispatched once about ther cruelty that they keep animals in and it sickened me to the core.

I don't know much about PETA, just what i've heard on here, but throwing paint and insulting people does seem very extreme!! I'm not for that at all, like someone said (sorry can't remember) it makes there message void.

And animal testing for cosmentic services? No, i would quite happily go without makeup etc (i wear it so rarely any way) if it were tested on animals, theres no need! But like Louise said, for medical purposes? Yes. However, the experiment must be done properly. There are a lot of experiments that don't do any thing in the long run. No knowledge is gained from it, it just puts the animal in pain.

Oh, Nimbus? I think the reason why we in th west don't eat cats and dogs is because we see them as our pets, and we can't think to eat our pets. And Fish, even though people keep fish, we don't eat gold fish tropical fish etc that people keep. and we don't put salmon in tanks and watch them swim around. In India (correct me if i'm wrong) they don't eat Cows? I know they're sacred, i'm not too sure if they eat them or not there though. please tell me?

Well, that's my 5 cents

Well I thought I would revive this topic. It has been quiet for a while now.

I would like to discuss the issue that Snapelover brought up, Animal Rescue Shelters. It is clear that it is a subject very dear to her as it is to me. We just have have slightly different opinions of them. In my area I would support the local animal control agency before I would the local SPCA. Neither is a no-kill facility but I believe the goverment agency is doing more for the animals than the SPCA.

I use to support the SPCA and thought the same as Snapelover that the local goverment was horrible. During the adoptions of the last two dogs I got from the the SPCA I was just horrified what they were doing. Whoever was running the place at the time had crafted such a narrow definition of what an acceptable pet owner was, they were rejecting more people than they were approving. That was from what I observed during both of my last two adoptions. The SPCA has a very high kill rate. You can see here in their latest newsletter on page 8. During the last three months, their adoption rates were between 31-50%. More than half the animals were euthenized each month. Why have such stringent adoption guidelines when you are killing so many animals. It became a major problem in my county since the local goverment gives them a big grant each year. There were so many people complaining, I think they were forced to relax the guidelines or lose the county money. I was so upset with them I want nothing more to do with the agency.

Now the local animal control does as much if not more to get their animals adopted. Yes they still have a very high kill rate but they get so many animals in they have no choice. They do make the effort to take animals aside that are adoptable and keep them on site even if they have long passed their window. They have adoption vans that take these animals out each weekend trying to find them homes. I think they truely do what they can to get these animals homes with what little funding they have.

I think that eating animals is okay, as long as the animal gets a half decent life. They are going to die anyways. We usually buy free range meat and stuff, but sometimes it is just to expensive.

In my town, the shelter is run by the city, and I've never seen them not let a pet be adopted. Before you can take the animal home they get it fixed, since having animals not spayed or nuetered (sp?) is one of the reasons there are so many strays. When you adopt an animal, you have to fill out a paper, listing how you plan to provide for the animal.I mean, the people there want to get as many animals adopted as possible, but if the person is just going to let cat run away as soon as they adopt it, it just adds to the animal shelters problem of being over crowded.

When we adopted our cat, the lady behind the desk said they had almost 150 animals there, most of them not fit for adoption yet. I think it's sad that the shelters have to kill some animals, but the reason they kill them is to make room for new dogs and cats. The "no kill" shelters probbaly, in the big picture, do not adopt as many animals, seeing as they have to reject some animals, because they are theres no space left at the shelter,

Now, on to PETA. I agree with most people that PETA over does it. They recently launched a campagain, "March of Crimes"which protests against "The March of Dimes" because they are testing on animals. I think that testing on animals is horrible, but if it can save a person, it's okay. In my opinion, peoples are more important than animals.

I saw this article pop accross my screen today and found it mildly interesting, and as it pertains to animal rights, I thought I'd post it here for you all to read if you'd like.

Bear Wrestling

It just kind of made me think of that trainer who trained bears for hollywood movies. . .I don't know. I guess my whole question would be: What is the animals quality of life?

I confess to have had my picture taken with tigers at some state-fair petting zoo things. The animals all seemed to be healthy and happy, but you have to wonder sometimes, don't you.

I.S. Note

This topic has not had much attention lately so I thought I would throw out this item to be discussed. Located here is an article about an animal rights group that harrassed a farm raising guinea pigs for medical research.

I do not agree with their position because I would much rather have new drugs tested on rodents than people first. But that is beside the issue. This group seems to have gone over board in their harrassment of the farm. Their method of protest just seems to me to be way out of bounds. They even dug up the body of the farmer's mother-in-law and stole it just to cause problems.

What are your thoughts on this? What is appropriate for a cause you believe in?

Awful, just awful. These people have no rights whatsoever to resort to threats of violence and advocating the type of hate-campaigns that they do. It does horrendous damage to the many other groups out there who campaign peacefully. It makes me so darn angry...

How much protesting would these idiots do if their mother, or father, or sister, or son, or daughter was dying from cancer, was doomed to die of Parkinson's disease or who has to be taken to a hospital regularly for the rest of their lives for therapy because they have cystic fibrosis? If tests on animals could provide a cure for these conditions, would they think it worthwhile then? Do their relatives lives matter less than a guinea pigs?

Obviously, as an animal lover myself, I would much rather an alternative be found. If it's a more expensive alternative, then so be it - life is precious and it must be preserved. However, if it comes down to the choice between watching my child die of leukemia or a rat, then I'm afraid the choice would be clear.

It's not an ideal choice, but then it's not an ideal world.

I get really mad when I see things like that. The school I went to for my Undergrad work was full of PETA supporters. They drove me nuts! I recall engaging in a debate with one of them in a Socio-politics of Science class over whether animal experimentation for medical research was acceptable. All I kept hearing back from them was that it was wrong to use animals as test subjects. They even suggested that human experimentation would be better because humans can decide for themselves... Never mind that money might make people do some things that they probably should not...

Lab animals serve a purpose in medical and scientific research. I would agree that they shouldn't be used to test cosmetics and such, but for medical treatments, new drugs and such? Of course!

In an effort to [once again] revive this lonely thread, I have gone out and found THIS article from the Humane Society's website.

The article is full of statisticsfocusing on the Humane Society's concerns about the exotic animal trade going on in the United States. It notes that people across the country can purchase exotic tiger cubs for merely $900 to $7,000 ... for pets! Many other mammals, reptiles, birds, and primates are also being sold on this "black market." Experts estimate that the exotic animal trade market is worth around 15 billion dollars per year, making it the number two moneymaker on the black market, right behind the sale of drugs and weapons!

Come on guys, I know you have some great opinions on animal rights! Is it right that people can own such animals as tigers and apes, normally associated with the wild, as domesticated pets? Should the government take action and stop this from going on?

Discuss, discuss! And you do not have to live in the United States to talk about this...I am sure the exotic animal trade exists in many other countries!




_daviD

I have read the article but is it okay if I discuss it further down my post please. Sorry but I do do feel strongly about animal rights and one question in particular has plagued me for some time (and with me doing Neuroscience research you'll never guess which one it is) - the position of non-human animals in medical testing

I am actually very relieved and greateful that everyone accepts that it is different from other forms of cruelty (i.e. Bear-dancing, cosmetic testing and so on) and it is wonderful that such a mature-intellectal debate has arisen, rather than just "research-bashing" under a blanket term.

However, even though I have spent many years striving toward becomming a neurology researcher, I am still in two minds - (just to confuse the situation further, I am a Pagan,)

My (somewhat confused) opinions about animal testing for medical purposes

On the one hand I have defiantly defended medical testing (mostly to people who generally shout and rant and don't want to hear what I am saying (you know the sort),
- the predominant point being that a majority of those individuals who attack what i do are either over 50 or have living parents that are over that age - this would not have occured withiout such research (and it also winds me up that many of them harrass me whilst wearing leather jackets or shoes ) I would find it very very difficult myself to watch my mother succumb to a any disease (and accordingly I could not, even in my most anti-testing moments, refuse her treatment on the grounds that it had been previously tested on animals) - although I must admire individals who are willing to stand by their beliefs in such a way, i.e. by refusing the treatment themselves - I am not that strong or actually that sure of what my beliefs are)

with others (people that are willing to engage in a discussion rather than an attack) I give the confused answer I am about to make you all suffer

I stand by ethical-research, prior to undertaking any experiment there are many, many ethical conditions that must be met. Indeed, I had significant difficulties attaining ethical permission for one particular lab as it was concerned with the effects of stress on the heart, and I found it rather problematic to find an ethical way in which to bring about stress (even coffee and other stimulants are highly frowned upon), they must be handled correctly and at-all costs any distress must be avoided (so you see my problem), (even when not considering animal-righst) since even minor (uncontrolled) stress would be considered a variable in itself and hence have subsequent effects upon the results. There are very very strict measures to minimise any distress for the animals themselves and fo the aquisition of valid results (both go hand in hand)

However, that such measures must be considered in the first place in somewhat unethical - why should animals suffer for humans? Why do we feel, as humans, that it is our rights to kills other animals for our own (possible, since they are experiments and may not be successful) survival.
Conversely, when asked if there was an alternative (my lab supervisor is sly ) and I suggested using individuals with the disease in question (as compared to controls), or perhaps try it on rapists/murderers (ok I was being a little sadistic - and the matter pertaining to criminal-rights is an entirely different topic and I was half-joking) - but was beaten down by him saying that such individuals will have altered brains/neurons/transmitter systems etc which would make valid testing almost impossible - as one small problem may give rise to or indeed have risen from numerous others that attempt to compensate for any deficit

I love animals, and such love has been tearing at my heart-strings for years, it seems wrong that a life (or many) must be sacrificed in the hope of finding a new cure/more knowledge/beter way of coping. I understand that animals themselves kills each other for their own survival (for food, for shelter etc) but we seem to have gotten it all out of proportion.

Indeed, I may further complicate things (although I won't elaborate as it goes a little off-topic) by saying that such research and treatments and cures themselves may prove to be our downfall or harm animals indirectly, i.e. that

1)finding cures for everything many lead to vast over population (which in turn will lead to indirect animal cruelty as we take away their habitats, food sources etc)
2) and our immune systems will be adversely affected so that eventually something will come along (such as AIDS or even the 'common' cold) that we will not be able to defend ourselves against, our present life-style is not suited to our biological make-up (as can shown by icreased risk of heart attacks, diabetes, Alzheimers disease etc)
- thus such testing may save lives in the short term but may eventually cost a proportionate amount (sorry if that sounds a little too wierd),

Yes, medical testing is 'better' than cosmetic testing or other forms of cruelty (which I detest) but I would still prefer to find another way (however, as yet there doesn't appear to be another way )

Especially considering that (with regards to neurology at least, because thats all I really know about) animals are substantially different to humans. Even the basics, I remember my first dissection and I was confused because the small little brain plopped in front of me looked almost-unrecognisable, simply because after seeing diagram after diagram of the human brain (and I will sound silly for this) the brain in front of me went accross, rather than having a brainstem that went down a little (this is because out spine goes vertically whilst an animals goes horizontally), there are numerous differences and this has consequentially affected the ability to apply the results attained from animals to humans (for example, there had been experiments into weight-loss which were successful in rats, however when applied to humans it had the opposite effect).

But again, I have to contradict myself - given that such research has helped provide more information about diseases - and that such information has allowed for preventative measures, treatments and cures.

But with such advances in brain (functional and structural) imaging techniquesas such as fMRI etc, is it always necessary for the first line of attack to be the dissection of an animal brain? (or body, but this is from my own experience)

see what I mean about confusing myself about this topic , I don't think that I'll ever be able to resolve the battle going on in my own head

sorry if it was boring
_________________

My humble opinion about the article - I find it disgraceful that individuals are prfiting by trading in animal lives (how is this seen as any different from the market for babies), it is awful that a predominance such wondefrul animals that are traded are kept in small backyards, circuses etc and in foul conditions - however the article did raise an important point:



and I suppose that many of the traders will validate their operation by stating such things as 'we are saving them', yes this is the case with many (although not all) fine zoos and conservation programs etc (which I applaud),

but to undertake such measures (selling them as pets, to circuses, and disreputable zoos) on such grounds is proposterous and an excuse

I would suggest than any individual who gives such an excuse be placed on a programme (rather than slapped into straight jail) to conserve such animals by increasing public knowledge about how our behaviour effects such beautiful creatures (all animals are included not just the mighty tiger etc ) , to help preserve their habitat and so on, i.e. that their community service should aid those animals that they harmed



I find that abhorrent and gastly, I think that not only the traders but the individuals who purchase such animas should be arrested, confined, have their rights to own/sell animals taken away from them completely (not just restricted) and they should also take part in a course/programme as aforementioned

It is a down right betrayal of nature, it seems that such humans consider themselves as 'higher' than animals, which is not the case, they are more advanced than us in numerous different ways (speed, strength etc) and we should consider ourselves lucky that we have the opportunity to share Earth with them (however, 'sharing' may not be the right word as humans seem to be 'taking over')

sorry if the latter half of the post seems a little hot-headed, it is just that such cruelty is so futile and horrific (whilst many of the pet owner think they are doing them some good, they aren't in my humble opinion)
_______________
which brings me back to my original set of (confused) opinions, although the research is typically not futile, can be completely differentiate between keeping rats in a cage in a lab and rats/tigers ec in a cage at home? (although, I do love what I do - such thoughts are never far from my mind)

sorry this was so long
but thankyou for taking the time to read it

EDIT:

Sorry I jjust remembered...

did anyone ever see that programme that included the bit about "Meet your Meat", whereby you choose the cow in the field and follow its erm..'journey' to the plate, the presenter couldn't do eat t in the end, but he concluded by saying that he was going to eat it later as it would be disrespectful to just throw it in the bin - it was fascinating, although I am pretty sure that I would be unable to eat it too

*huh* I don't think animals should be used for medical testing. I mean, I understand that we need to know if the medications are going to work or not, but why use guinea pigs as - well - guinea pigs, when it's only going to bring up more questions? The animals we use for testing - other than monkeys - don't really have a whole lot of the same properties as us, if you will. So it doesn't make sense to me when a so-called doctor says, "Since it worked on fifteen lab mice, it's okay to use on people." NO. It just doesn't work, and it's cruel to the animals.

Even though I am against cruelty to animals, I do think animal testing should be used to a certain extent, because otherwise, how are we going to know the prouduct works? But what I'm saying is, it has to be tested in reasonable ways. Am I sounding at all hypocritical? Sounds like it to me. I don't know.

But I do agree with Velvet as far as ethical-testing is concerned. Did my post contribute at all? ... ... ... Yeah. Thanks.

My first post in the Great Hall!

Reviving an old thred here but anyways...

I think that the sale of exotic animals as pets is not right. These animals belong in the wild and to keep them as pets is cruel. There are so many dogs and cats in shelters that are awaiting adoption, you could have one of them as a pet. Why must you take an animal from its natural habitat and imprison it? I went into a pet shop once and I saw a number of exotic birds like parrots for sale. They had their wings clipped so all they could do was sit on a perch all day. One was half bald from plucking out its feathers - a sign of boredom in birds. I don't think that is fair - they would be a lot happier in the rainforest where they belong.

I personally abhor the testing of animals for cosmetic purposes. Our lives do not depend on make up - face it, although it makes us all look better we can live without it. Quite easily. It is pointless cruelty and should be stopped in my opinion. However, when saving lives is involved, like with medical research, then it is a different story. I think it is acceptable only in life saving situations. Like for a cure for cancer or something like that. But if it's just for headache medicine or cough syrup then I don't think it is acceptable. and I do think that the animals should be kept in reasonable conditions and when possible (I know it is usually a cost issue but anyways..) anaethatised. (sp?) Plus many animals have different reactions to humans anyway, as HaRRYPoTTeR FReaK said. So I guess I agree with ethical testing, as Velvet was saying.

I also think the Fur Trade is completely cruel and unnecessary. Many of the animals are kept in awful conditions and treat and killed horrifically. And all for fashion. It is disgusting. There are perfectly good synthetic alternatives.

I have been a vegetarian twice and given up both times so I am currently a meat eater. I think it is okay to eat meat. Our bodies need the iron and protein and animals eat other animals, so why shouldn't we eat animals? It is part of the 'circle of life' so to say. But I think the animals should always be free range and treated with respect. They should be killed in a human way and kept in good conditions. Battery farming is unnecessary, unacceptable and downright cruel.

As regards to "Meet Your Meat" as Velvet mentioned, no I didn't see that but I read an article about this place in France I think it was and you chose your horse and could watch it be slaughtered if you really wanted to and then eat it. Disgusting if you ask me.

I think that Zoos are okay as long as the animals have big enclosures with plenty of space and clean conditions. There is a large Zoo near me called Howletts and they put the animals first, so if the animal is sick they will close the exhibit. The enclosures are really good and the animals are treat well - how Zoos should be. Larger Zoos are okay, its the smaller ones you need to watch out for. I also refuse to go to circuses - more often then not the animals are treat horribly.

Wow a long post! Well that's my say.

I am a major animal lover, and all for animal rights.

I agree that testing on animals, while potentially cruel, is necessary to test new medicines. However, a large-scale test is awful (for example: "14 out of 15 lab rats showed no negative side effects."). I mean, 15 lab rats!? No, too much. Five to six at the most, I believe.
As for exotic pets, no way. After all, the term "exotic" should infer that they need to be left in the wild. Most exotic pets are dangerous to own as it is, therefore ownership of one should be strongly discouraged. The only exotic ownership of animals should be zoos and breeding facilities, which promote to save exotic and endangered species.

This is a very touching topic to me indeed. I am an avid animal lover, I have two cats and a dog that I love dearly and it breaks my heart to hear about any cruelty done to animals at all.

Here's a quick story I'll share with you guys real quick. About a month and a half ago, while I was at work I noticed this poor pitiful looking dog hanging out where I was working. She looked starved to death and thirsty. Me and the guy I was working with took her water and attempted to give her some food as well. Whenever she would get up to walk she looked as if her hip or her back was broken. Well we sat there for about an hour or so watching this poor animal that was obviously in a great deal of pain. Her ribs were showing through her skin, she was miserable. So I called the local Animal Control Shelter and begged them to come and get this animal it was breaking my heart to see her hurting. Well about an hour and a half later the Animal Control Officer showed up, we explained to him thge situation and he picked the dog up and placed her in his truck and informed us because of the pitiful shape she was in that she would probaly be euthanized, I said it was for the best, I did not want her to suffer. It was very saddening. But it made me so angry to think that this dog at one time belonged to someone and she was left to her own devices, its sickening!

As far as animal testing goes I feel that it is wrong I don't care what kind of animal it is, its wrong. These so c alled products are for humans so test the products on them. I don't think its neccessary to use animals for testing at all. As far as zoos go I think for the most part if a zoo is run by a good staff that takes very good care of the animals then they are allright. It is the ones that are ryun poorly and animal neglect is a common thing, that is bad. Those kinds of establishments should be shut down.

Marcey

Hi! This is my first post on a debate and I have so much to say, but I'll try to keep it small.

First: animal testing for medical purposes.

Well, I was once a med student. I must say you can't really appreciate life until you have a realtive, someone very close to you, get extremelly sick. When you practice in a hospital, or do research on a lab, just like Velvet, you get so used to people's suffering, that either way you become inhuman and don't really care about the pain, or you start figuring out how to make it stop. For me, I just wanted to contribute, to help humans, and what better way to promote it than to do research.

On the other hand, when you are close to animals, you befriend them. Animals are so kind, and grateful, they care about you, and sometimes, you get to apreciate the closeness between them and you. They get to become more than pets.

How can you use a friend for testing? Easy. Because you don't want to see your mother sick, or because you want a better life for your kids. The thing is: there is no other choice.

In my country (Costa Rica), people aren't very rich, we're just a third world country trying to make it into the world. Some years ago, after a few years of testing the Human Papiloma Virus Vaccine on animals, they upgraded the testing levels to women. Since it was a very expenssive vaccine, they convinced the women to become testing subjects in order to get the vaccine for free and in case of a medical condition, the expenses were covered. The results were so good, that the vaccine is now out for the public. Things like that help people out, and harm less animals.

My final point in this matter is that there's no other way to this, there's got to be animal testing, but just like Velvet and Lauren0891 it's got to be ethical. They're already helping us, why don't give them a good life while we can?


On Zoos, pets and shelters.

I agree on having Zoos, but they have to be extremelly regulated. Animals shouldn't be taken away from their natural environment, but sometimes, having them on a zoo is the only way to protect endangered species from being hunted down in the wild. I've heard of huge reserves where they lock up an extremelly big amount of area that either simulates, recreates or is a part of the natural environment of the animals. There, experts keep them tracked down, and promote their natural breeding.

Wild animals are not pets. Just like exotic animals are not meant to live locked in cages or act to human's amusement. I have a very strong belief on the fact that bird shouldn't be pets. Why keep an animal in a cage? Because it doesn't want to stay with you? Maybe because it isn't mean to be. Domestic dogs and cats have evolved to live with humans, sometimes they are so frail that don't even know how to live on their own, like these nice breeds of them that are called "toys" (poodles, pomerainians, himalayans, persians) that were created on labs. They don't have the skills to live on their own. Those are pets

Shelters in my country are mostly the work of people with a huge heart. They collect the animals when seen in danger, and sometimes they have agreements with the State University that teaches Veterinary, in order to restore their bad health conditions if they have any. There is an Animal Protection Association but it doesn't have very much government support. I think our government should worry a little bit more about animals. Shelters have a lot of potential. Once I adopted adog from a shelter, and I must say, it was in perfect health conditions. I have an uncle who owned three adopted dogs and they were his friends for life. Adopted animals are extremelly gratefull.

I think all situations should be treated in very ethical conditions, and animal rights, specially their right to a good life should be taken into consideration. We should only adopt or get animals if we can provide them with the very best life, and give them the love they deserve as beings with life that they are.

I love to take my kids to the zoo, and in truth I love going myself. It's a place where they can see animals that they might not ever get to see in the wild (unless you're Laurette. . .ahem). I have been to a wide variety of zoos. . .from the Cincinnati Zoo which I believe is a great and educational place to study and learn about animals to the not so nice mom and pop type zoos where you really do wonder about the welfare of the animals.

The thing that saddens me the most in zoos are the cat houses. For some reason, these kitties always look very scared and their habitats seem so small! Heck, when I had house cats, their environment was bigger than some of these little guys in the zoo! Somehow that seems wrong to me. Seems like they should have a bigger place to roam.

I suppose quality for the animals is probably the important issue. Wherever these animals are; they need a good quality of life and the people who are poviding for them need the decency to not mistreat the animals.

On another animal related note: What do you guys think about people putting their pets in their wills as beneficiaries?

"And to Fluffy, I leave my estate and a stipend of 300,000 dollars a year to hire a keeper for herself." Ahem.

LOL! Yeah, we have some really cool wildlife reserves here, and it sure is an amazing experience to see animals in their natural habitat.

Though I haven't been to the zoo in quite a few years, it's not because I oppose of the idea in any way. As long as animals have enough food, water and a reasonable amount of space, I don't think they're deprived of anything. The wild isn't a picnic, and though I have nothing to back me up on this, it's difficult for me to imagine that quality of life in a zoo, where food, water and safe shelter (guaranteed territory) is provided, is worse than in the wild. Freedom has its price: increased chances of starving to death, dying of thirst or being eaten by something else.

So obviously, as long as the animals have what they need, I think zoos can only benefit humans and animals alike, because of its educational value.

As for animal testing, I tend to agree with researchers. It goes without saying that every effort should be made to ensure that the animals are treated as humanely as possible, but medical research is extremely important. As Anita said, at some point we're all going to rely on medical research to save ourselves or loved ones, or prevent them from experiencing physical pain. In times past, corpses were stolen and examined to find out more about our physiology, and slaves and prisoners had vivisections performed on them in an attempt to learn more. There's just no getting round the fact that medical research is about trying to find out more about how creatures work. Since this specific kind of research is one that has such a close impact on our personal lives, I find it difficult to understand why people want to deny humanity the knowledge that could save lives, "important" lives (their own friends and family, perhaps), for the sake of anonymous animals.

I love animals, don't get me wrong, but as long as researchers make sure the animals are treated as humanely as possible, I don't think animal testing ought to be stopped.

As for animals in wills - that's just missing the point. Fluffy would probably be much happier sent to a loving home than parading around her very own, lonely estate. Personally, I think Fluffy's grooming money is much better spent donated to animal or wildlife conservation charities, but that's just me.

I hate zoo's! I have been to plenty enough in my lifetime to placate the kids, but on the whole I think most of the animals in them look sad. I prefer going to rescue centres like Monkey World in the UK. The apes there have all been put in danger in their natural environments or have never had the oppotunity to be themselves. I like places that do good work and attempt to intriduce the animals back into the wild. I know that this is not always practical and some animals have been in captivity for so long, to be released into the wild would mean death, but for the majority it can be worked towards.

I went to sea world in Florida a couple of times. That place is phemonenal but I always wonder if those tanks are big enough when the whales and dolphins have been used to the ocean!

...and those stoopid people who leave all their worldly goods to their pets....what Tiddles going to do with it? Isn't it funny how Tiddles new keeper is driving a Porsche?

I won't get into the debate about animal testing on the grounds that I may contradict myself.

whoa another one of my favorite subjects to discuss. i am a big animal lover! as you can tell my my screen name i specially adore monkeys!

ok first off, i recently got into a heated debate about clinical test on animals, with some people at school. they went as far as calling me cruel and saying i had no heart because i'm pro animal testing for medical studies. as much as i love animals i agree 110% with Kaitlyn. people don't really understand how many benefits we have obtained thanks to these wonderful little creatures. so when they called me cruel i smiled and replied with a single question: do you know someone with cancer? i guess they didn't expect that question so they looked utterly confused. my reply left them quiet for a good 2 minutes

i was a volunteer at a hospital here in my city where i worked with kids with cancer. it's heart breaking to see these little kids who have yet begun to live having to deal with such a horrible disease. i know the pain of loosing someone you love because of that blasted diseases. so when people call me cruel because i support the people who are trying to put an end to this kind of pain, i know they've never lost a person to cancer or AIDs or any other illness. i hope they never have to loose someone to understand the good of animal testing.

as for the zoo, i personally hate it! well at least the one in my city! all of the animals look depressed and almost dead! the living conditions there are awful! i felt so angry when i went to the zoo for the first time.


that made me laugh. i think it's really stupid to leave money to an animal. it could be better spent leaving it to a charity or something. you can leave fluffy to a nice little kid who will take care of her

I'm sorry I'm taking this thread downhill.

Can you imagine the angry relatives of the dead person who left it all to her chihuahua? The family would hire a hitman to take little Snuggems out!

Anyways, I agree. . .have a plan for the pet, certainly, but why waste all of your money on the the animal when it's simple enough to find the thing a loving home to take care of it after your death.

On with the rest of the thread! I'm sitting here today because of animal testing in the medical field. When I was first diagnosed with diabetes, I used pork insulin. Kind of odd to think about it, but yeah. If they hadn't done animal testing on the piggies to see if their insulin was compatible with humans, I'd be dead. So, me or the piggy. I think I'll go with me every time. I'm sure there are some extremists out there somewhere who would probably disagree. I'm thankful for the piggies that had to give their insulin, and their lives, so that I might live another day. Thank you, piggy!

Regrettably, I am a bit hypocritical when it comes to this topic. I staunchedly support the ethical treatment of animals, yet animal testing is a necessity for the quality of human life.
Thus, I walk the fence between both sides, depending upon the direction of the conversation.

My neighbor's young son, only in second grade, was diagnosed with diabetes last year. For months he could not play at my house for extended periods of time, as they were trying to get his dosage right, watch what he consumed, and checked on him. It was heartbreaking to see the family struggle to gain some normalacy in their life, when it was completely controlled by his diabetes. Animal testing is the reason he is still playing and I cannot fault that, rather I applaud it!

As humans we are at the top of the food chain, and that is just how I see it.

poor little doggy wouldn't know what hit her it is a bit cruel really to leave the money to the dog having other relatives who could probably enjoy it more than the dog. i don't think a hitman would be necessary, maybe they could get a bigger dog to do the job. or get your dog legally married to the rich one . that gives new meaning to "what's mine is your and what's yours is mine"

i think we all choose you over the piggies no matter how cute pigs can be.

animal testing for medical use is ok. but animal testing for cosmetic use not ok in my book. that is where i say no. little animals dying so some rich lady stops herself from getting wrinkles? or for some teenage girls to look like barbie dolls? no i think that's not very necessary. the world today is very superficial, make-up and other cosmetics make it even more so.

I don't wear makeup, and agree with you completely. Sadly, I do use soap, shampoo, creme rinse and skin lotion, which were all tested on animals at some point. So, although I disagree with animal testing for cosmetics, I am thankful for the safe products I do choose to use. So, where to draw the line? Okay for this, not okay for that? I think it is a very tough call.

sirren it's very true, make-up is where i draw the line. shampoo and soap is absolutly necessary in our lives (if not we'd all stink). make-up on the other hand isn't necessary. all it does is promote vanity and it's actually horrible for your skin. i don't use make-up (only when my mother forces me, which is very rarely).

i know it's sounds very hypocritical of me to say that it's ok to use animal testing for one thing but not for another. it is really a tough call honestly, but i don't agree with using animals to make people "beautiful". for what i've read and the research i've done cosmetic industries are the ones who treat their lab animals worse. some don't even sedate the animals before they begin their experiments. i guess it's all up to each person to know until what point they're ok with it.

what do you guys think about gambling with animals (i couldn't think of a better way to say it). i was reading about dog races, horse races, dog fights, rooster fights and all sorts of ways people use animals to make money. i can't remember what they're called in english. the dudes who fight bulls... oh wait duh bullfighters...

I do not support gambling, as you called it, with animals. I don't go to horse races, dog races or watch them on television. I don't believe it is sporting of humans to use animals in this fashion, thus I avoid it. Certainly I cannot stop it, thus I don't participate.

Prime example of human perversity is the ex-football player from the Atlanta Falcons. Dog fighting is just sick. Throw the book at him and lock him up forever for financing the ring in which he participated. I've watched the story unfold in the news and gotten into heated debates over it. It shocks and saddens me to find how many people don't see anything wrong with what he did. I do, absolutely, I do!

I recognize in America someone accused of a crime is innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. He denied it publically until his buddies took plea bargains, then wants to be forgiven for his trespass? I think not.

Once issue at a time!

Ok, Janet. I believe that even if someone has left a will, their closest relatives can demand some of this person's belongings. Especially when this person is not even a man or a woman. I think that's what greek law says, but this may not be international. But i'd be really angry if someone did that. Money are for the people. Animals need food and love. Gee...

About animal testing: i am positive when it comes to medicine but against it when it comes to make up and other products like that. Just like Janet and Dorthy said, if an animal can save millions of humans, then i am totally supporting it. Killing animals and eating them might not be the same, but still: you use an animal in order to survive. If that's what it takes, then i can not deny it. One day hopefully, doctors will have found a way of creating transplants from animals. Imagine how many people will be saved then.
Make up however, is totally different. We can survive without make up, eye shadows etc. And we can always try and make some non-chemical make up, which can be tasted on humans. If we want to make ourselves look prettier, we have to pay the price, don't we? It is not a matter of survival, it is a matter of vanity, like Stef said.

Gaining money off animals? Again, i am totally against it. Animals are animals for goodness sakes! They do not need clothes, they fight with other animals for no other reason but surviving and they deserve to live where they are supposed to live. I am ok with zoos but only when animals live in "humanly" conditions. If they can not achieve that, let the poor lion free. We don't need to have seen it all! I really admire though, people who make researches and try to help the preservation of a species. I have seen numerous documentaries on that and i believe they are doing a great job. This is totally different from gaining money, from taking advantage of animals. It is unacceptable.

It is all our fault. Things started to go down the hill when we tried to force ourselves in nature and conquer it. And the results are obvious all around us. I have so much to say on animals and on environment in general. I wish i had a little bit more free time. It is a nice discussion this one.

First, I'd like to mention that I have learned something this morning: Alkisti! Apparently I have been consistently having a dyslexic moment with that name. I've misspelled it about fifteen times. ALKISTI. Got it now. Even though that's a bit we're a team and that was rude of me. Sorry!

Secondly, on the whole animal rights issue. Since I live in the mountains, or rather on the leading edge of the Rocky Mountains, hunting is the most popular sport here. Now, I say sport, because equally half the people that get a license to bag an animal are looking for trophy heads verses meat to feed their families. I don't agree with that in the least bit.
Actually, I think stuffed heads are atrocious. ICK. Entering someone's home here, you are as likely to see a stuffed head as you are a picture hanging over the fireplace. Truly it just disgusts me.

I am not against hunting, if you are going to eat what you kill. That goes for birds, deer, elk, antelope, fish, etc. Fish are a bit different, since many fishermen don't keep their fish, but throw them back. Although, I've always wondered how many of the ones tossed back die later as a result of the mouth tearing from hooks. Hmmmmm.

I live amidst a family of hunters here. Women alike. I take an enormous amount of flack for neither participating nor supporting "sport" hunting. No issue for me. I don't approve of it, I don't do it. I speak vehemently against it. It is killing for the sake of killing. If it's not proper to do it to a fellow human, how is it proper to do it to an animal?

Dorthy, it's ok! My name is pretty hard for non-Greeks! No harm feelings! I even misspelled your name, when i finally realised it is Dorthy and not Dorothy. Do not apologize! And it certainly was not rude, do not even think about that.

Ok, hunting. I am against it. I agree when it comes to eating what you kill, but apart from that, it can not be excused. Killing crocodiles, bears and other animals we don't eat is totally unacceptable, especially when it comes to endangered species. Why kill just to kill? I totally agree Dorthy. And i agree on the fish-point. Fishes probably die after they are put back inside the water, which is even more horrible, cause they simply float and they do not even fulfill a "purpose". As for hanging heads against the walls, i always believed it is a horrible tradition. How can this be something nice to see? It doesn't even consist of an accomplishment. If you want to achieve something, then fight with the animal on equal terms. But having a gun and killing the poor helpless and unprotected animal is horrible. It is brutal. Especially when it comes to rare and beautiful animals. Just because animals can't think or express themselves the way we do, it doesn't mean that they can be killed and tortured. What should really happen is to protect and love them.

I think that in general sports that involve hurting animals are wrong. Yesterday as I was coming home from school, I had to pass by the Bull fighting stadium. Boy was I mad, there were hundreds of people going to see how some guy mistreated a bull who didn't even ask to be there! Dorthy I agree with you, that man should be punished! It breaks my heart to see poor little dogs and roosters who have been put through the torture of having to fight another animal.

As for hunting, I've always found a bit dumb. I've asked a friend why he liked to go hunting and he said that it was fun to see if he's aim was good enough. A better option for that is trap shooting! That's what I do. I grew up in Colorado and hunting is very popular there, so when ever friends invited me to go hunting I'd refuse. It's cold blooded murder!

I remembered a cartoon a friend who is a member of an Animal Rights group sent me. I thought it was amusing. It's purpose it to turn the tables on hunters, so I hope no one takes offence by it.

Who's on the wall now?

I'm trying to find this really good article on fishing that I found when I was writing a paper for my sister. It talks about all the damage fish get because of the hook. Even when you let them go you permanently injure them. I hope I can find it soon. It was very interesting

And Alkisti I use to have the same problem with you name but I guess because I wrote to you so many time I got use to it. The real problem is I have no clue how to pronounce it

That reminds me of an interesting, if eye-opening story. I attended a bull fight in Seville, Spain. Unbenounst to me, it is neither proper nor wise to verbally support the bull against the bullfighter. Not only did I have things thrown at me, my group and I almost got into a physical altercation with a few locals.

I went to the bullfight to experience the cultural aspect of the event. Regrettably, I didn't find it such a sporting event once I was there. It is perhaps my sensitivity to the inherent infliction of pain for another's pleasure that made me find the entire event distasteful.

I recognize it is a national pasttime for a variety of countries; it is not something I personally can condone though, I simply find it too cruel.

I have to agree on the whole hunting bit. If you plan on hunting with the intention of getting meat, that's fine. We need food to survive. However, to just go hunting for sport and a trophy head, that's just wrong. I used to say to people that if the deer had a gun in its "hands", then it might be a fair game. What's even worse are the hunters that take the heads and leave the meat to rot.

My father and step-father go hunting each year. Both go for meat. However, they try to wait for the "big racks" as well. They would like to add another deer head to their wall. Although I have no desire for a deer head myself, I find it hard to condone them because they are limiting themselves to one deer a year for meat. They aren't primarily after the trophy rack.

I believe this issue has not been discussed before, and since it's circulating around the internet, it'd be interesting to talk about it.

Some of you may have heard about it. I found out what had happened recently, through tv news and emails I got.

This event happened back on October 2007. An artist named Guillermo Habacuc Vargas had planned an exhibition with works of art. One of the items he presented was a starving dog which was left to die trapped inside a room. Vargas had gotten this dog by the street and decided to use it as part of his gallery. What is more disturbing than the sole fact itself, is that Vargas was chosen to represent Costa Rica at a big artistic event, the Bienal of 2008, where he will be asked to kill yet another dog.

Here is a link which presents the facts, these are a few rather disturbing pictures, and this a post from a blog.

So, what do you guys think about it? Isn't it horrible? How can this guy not only get away with it, but also be asked to repeat his act once more? And how on Earth is this a form of high art?

I was really annoyed when I found out about it. If he wanted to show the misery of life and death, he could have tied up himself and sacrifise for the sakes' of art.

Disturbing does not even being to describe this stunt.

Not only did he place the dog in a viewing environment to die, he removed compassion and human contact from it. People to view, but not touch. The dog certainly is not cowering in fear of the public, therefore I must infer the dog would have been craving human attention, and in no position to attain it even as it was dying. Torture plain and simple.

What a disgusting example of humanity. Art? Not a chance. He should be arrested for animal abuse.