# Animal testing work placement



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Im going to work at an animal testing facility for a few weeks soon on work placement. 

They mainly test on small animals and dogs, whats your view on using dogs for testing? Would you fancy doing a work placement at one?


----------



## dandogman (Dec 19, 2011)

It depends if the testing hurts them and if they are kept in good, spacious conditions.


----------



## Firedog (Oct 19, 2011)

Definately not.I don't agree with any testing on animals.


----------



## redroses2106 (Aug 21, 2011)

I personally couldn't work in an animal testing lab, it would break my heart to see it.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

I couldn't, I'd rather work for someone who was looking into alternatives to using animals in testing.


----------



## Jackie99 (Mar 5, 2010)

It is the very last place I would want to be unless I was helping to release the poor things back to the outside world. I cannot agree with testing on animals in this day and age.


----------



## CavalierOwner (Feb 5, 2012)

I once read something which said "why test on animals when we have murderers and pedophiles"......


----------



## paddyjulie (May 9, 2009)

never... I just couldn't


----------



## brackenhwv (Mar 28, 2010)

When i left school may moons ago, I trained to be a animal technician. Depending on what they are testing for, you may well see things you are not prepared for and have to do things that go against things you believe in. I got out.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Do you think you would feel different if you were there and understood it more and saw it? 

I went today and i was very happy with all the animals and it was alot better than expected. There were some upsetting aspects but no where near as bad as some people make out.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I think we should be working very hard to eliminate the need for animal testing.
I am 100% against it for cosmetics - However I am divided on medical testing 
I know my sister would of died a lot younger from diabetes if there hadn't been animal testing, she had to inject herself 5 times a day with pig insulin when she was 1st diagnosed - without animal testing she would of been dead at 16 and I wouldn't have my wonderful niece.
But even knowing that I struggle with the idea.


----------



## redroses2106 (Aug 21, 2011)

op may I ask what are your views on animal testing? and the reason you are going on work placement in a testing lab? 

you must of realised that most people here are not going to agree with it ...


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

redroses2106 said:


> op may I ask what are your views on animal testing? and the reason you are going on work placement in a testing lab?
> 
> you must of realised that most people here are not going to agree with it ...


We had a lecture at college once on animal testing by someone who is in charge of the care of the animals. It really got me interested and i think they do a wonderful job caring for the animals.

I do agree with animal testing, but not for cosmetics as they are not needed. I do agree for medical reasons, as we would not have alot of the medicines we have today, and possibly not in the future.

When i went today, it was ALOT better than i expected, some things i saw were very upsetting but they were well handled and kept.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

hayleyth said:


> Im going to work at an animal testing facility for a few weeks soon on work placement.
> 
> They mainly test on small animals and dogs, whats your view on using dogs for testing? Would you fancy doing a work placement at one?


Still necessary unfortunately but I encourage and donate to causes that are trying to develop alternatives. I've worked in labs where they've used animals for testing and I'm friends with people who use animals in their research. I know the amount of paperwork and hoops you have to jump through and the standards of care in the labs I've been in are very high. So no, no issue with working in a lab that uses animals in tests. It's not particularly pleasant but at the moment there is not a viable alternative as we cannot accurately model full systemic interaction.

We also need to be able to practice new surgical techniques and procedures which can only be done on living animals (usually pigs which I think are just as, if not more, ethically problematic then dogs). Practising on cadavers can only take you so far.

The part of the chain that I have major issue with is the breeding of lab animals and the exporting of surplus stock abroad - usually to countries with less stringent welfare standards. I would like to see the breeding more tightly controlled and the export ideally stopped, but if not then dramatically reduced.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Couldn't do it and would refuse to do a placement there. 

A friend is an equine technician and she finds it very hard to see the horses strung up with a hook through the hock and bled out then shoved in the freezer before the students cut off bits to dissect.


----------



## Muze (Nov 30, 2011)

Not something I could ever do and not really sure how I'd feel if I was offered the opportunity for a work placement.

Some forms of animal testing are another one of those necessary evils that most people prefer not to think about. 

A friend of mine got into some trouble with the Job Centre after refusing to complete a work placement in a notorious lab associated with animal testing. She got her MSc in neurobiology hoping to get a research post that never materialised.

Well, a cautious good luck to OP, I'll be interested to read about their experience


----------



## lennythecloud (Aug 5, 2011)

I've been to various places over the last few years that I personally find ethically unsound including a big animal lab. I'm absolutely glad I went and saw for myself a standard working day there rather than trusting the info given by opinionated people on both sides of the animal testing debate.

Whilst I still strongly dislike many aspects of animal experimentation, I've seen greater common cruelties on UK farms...


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

hayleyth said:


> Do you think you would feel different if you were there and understood it more and saw it?


No, I've looked into the pro side of the debate in some detail & read scientific papers & books as part of my degree. I do appreciate that we may have higher standards of welfare than many other nations, but it doesn't make it any more palatable for me I'm afraid.


----------



## LahLahsDogs (Jul 4, 2012)

Ok, so that sounds horrible, but on the bright side, us doggy lovers now have someone on the inside!!

Lets arrange a van, and you can break them all out and bundle them into the get away vehicle. It'll be like 101 dalmatians... who's in??? ME ME ME!! :ihih:


----------



## Ang2 (Jun 15, 2012)

Couldnt set foot in one of those places. All those poor animals derserve a loving home, not caged up and unloved!


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Ang2 said:


> Couldnt set foot in one of those places. All those poor animals derserve a loving home, not caged up and unloved!


Have to admit i really thought it would be like that but its not. They wernt in cages, more like boarding kennels without the outside run. They were all very cared for as each staff has their own section of dogs and the staff name them, play with them, fuss them, and treat them like there own pets. Some do get rehomed after they've finished their testing aswell. Definately not as bad as i thought!


----------



## CockersIndie (Dec 14, 2011)

hayleyth said:


> Have to admit i really thought it would be like that but its not. They wernt in cages, more like boarding kennels without the outside run. They were all very cared for as each staff has their own section of dogs and the staff name them, play with them, fuss them, and treat them like there own pets. Some do get rehomed after they've finished their testing aswell. Definately not as bad as i thought!


What about the others? I couldn't bring myself to work there or condone practices there at all. Yes I see the benefits to medicine etc but I dot think I could watch or aid- especially the larger animals and dogs- I'd just look at indie and think how lucky she is.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

*sitting on my fingers until i can reply with composure*


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

CockersIndie said:


> What about the others? I couldn't bring myself to work there or condone practices there at all. Yes I see the benefits to medicine etc but I dot think I could watch or aid- especially the larger animals and dogs- I'd just look at indie and think how lucky she is.


Do you mean what about the other animals? Yer i understand, some things are difficult to watch, but someone has to look after the animals there and they do do a good job


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Could you feed dogs, like mine, food laced with household cleaner to see how much it takes to kill half of them?


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

I understand you've only just started but have to ask - what sort of testing is going on in this particular research centre? Medical or domestic or both?

Couldn't do it for any sum of money in the world. I love animals and couldn't stand by and harm them or watch them being harmed regardless of the outcome. My uni was meant to bring in a technician from such a place to give us a lecture but never ended up doing so, possibly because of the open shouts of disgust from half the group when the prospective visit was mentioned.
I appreciate that animal testing has brought about massive medical advancements BUT I agree with what a previous poster said - we should test on the real "animals" i.e. paedophiles.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> Do you think you would feel different if you were there and understood it more and saw it?
> 
> I went today and i was very happy with all the animals and it was alot better than expected. There were some upsetting aspects but no where near as bad as some people make out.





Thorne said:


> I understand you've only just started but have to ask - what sort of testing is going on in this particular research centre? Medical or domestic or both?
> 
> Couldn't do it for any sum of money in the world. I love animals and couldn't stand by and harm them or watch them being harmed regardless of the outcome. My uni was meant to bring in a technician from such a place to give us a lecture but never ended up doing so, possibly because of the open shouts of disgust from half the group when the prospective visit was mentioned.
> I appreciate that animal testing has brought about massive medical advancements BUT I agree with what a previous poster said - we should test on the real "animals" i.e. paedophiles.


Its medical and environmental, so cancer drugs, asthma, chemicals which are used on fields to see if they are safe to use when animals are in the field, thinfs like that. Everything ive seen so far is very well done and the dogs are extremely well trained. They get alot of treats, exercise, attention, and they are very well cared for. The drugs have undergone various tests before they even use it on the animals. Its tested to see if there are any effects, the ones ive seen are extremely mild.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Thorne said:


> I appreciate that animal testing has brought about massive medical advancements BUT I agree with what a previous poster said - we should test on the real "animals" i.e. paedophiles.


There are lots of modern alternatives that would reduce the need for animal testing by a huge amount. tests on human tissues (including surgical waste), cells and DNA, computer modelling etc etc more info here Safer Medicines


----------



## Reverie (Mar 26, 2012)

No, I could never do this. I think it's utterly disgusting. 

Struggling to find words to explain how much I disagree with animal testing.

I'd far rather we tested on humans. In fact, I'm pretty sure I have a friend who gets money for testing stuff out, if there's people like him willing to do it why put an unconsenting innocent animal through this? Or, like people have said, put the dregs of this species through it. Animal testing is animal cruelty, simple as that.


----------



## RockRomantic (Apr 29, 2009)

Bjt said:


> Definately not.I don't agree with any testing on animals.





redroses2106 said:


> I personally couldn't work in an animal testing lab, it would break my heart to see it.





simplysardonic said:


> I couldn't, I'd rather work for someone who was looking into alternatives to using animals in testing.





Thorne said:


> I understand you've only just started but have to ask - what sort of testing is going on in this particular research centre? Medical or domestic or both?
> 
> Couldn't do it for any sum of money in the world. I love animals and couldn't stand by and harm them or watch them being harmed regardless of the outcome. My uni was meant to bring in a technician from such a place to give us a lecture but never ended up doing so, possibly because of the open shouts of disgust from half the group when the prospective visit was mentioned.
> I appreciate that animal testing has brought about massive medical advancements BUT I agree with what a previous poster said - we should test on the real "animals" i.e. paedophiles.


I'm with these people. Noone could pay me enough to do it, especially for cosmetic. I've done alot of research into lab testing with animals and you get some 'okay' places that have and follow welfare standards and as with everything you also get bad places, like the lab that sowed kittens eyes shut to live in darkness for some sick experiment, i just couldn't do it. I can't watch my dogs have injections at the vets and thats to help MAKE THEM BETTER. So i seriously couldnt even set foot in a lab like that. Although this thread has reminded me to start work on my Save the Harlan Beagles banner.


----------



## Gdkid (Jul 31, 2012)

so they use the dogs for chemical test? to see if it ok to use on crops or what? they should nt be putting chemicals they think might kill an animal on the crops and food we are going to eat anyway and not using animals to test that crap. thats sick. So they spray chemicals and if the animal dies then "nope that chemical wasn't good, move to the next?"! i dont agree with it at all.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

moonviolet said:


> There are lots of modern alternatives that would reduce the need for animal testing by a huge amount. tests on human tissues (including surgical waste), cells and DNA, computer modelling etc etc more info here Safer Medicines


Surely a computer couldnt show you the effects a drug causes? And if there are all these alternatives then why arent they used more? Im sure the people dont like testing on animals but there is no alternative which provides a closer an more effective match than animals? I certainly wouldnt want a drug which had been tested by a computer as they can fail and not be accurate, and how would they show the true effects of a drug?


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Gdkid said:


> so they use the dogs for chemical test? to see if it ok to use on crops or what? they should nt be putting chemicals they think might kill an animal on the crops and food we are going to eat anyway and not using animals to test that crap. thats sick. So they spray chemicals and if the animal dies then "nope that chemical wasn't good, move to the next?"! i dont agree with it at all.


No thats done on cows in a field, the drugs are not dangerous when they are being tested on the animals. They are looking for any other effects they alreay havent found, the drugs would have already gone through vigarous tests. They are not sprayed on food we eat, its a test, to make sure no harm comes to pet dogs and other animals who walk in fields which have been sprayed? How is that bad? All the tests they do have strict guidelines which have to pass vets standards, goverment and a whole load more.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Reverie said:


> No, I could never do this. I think it's utterly disgusting.
> 
> Struggling to find words to explain how much I disagree with animal testing.
> 
> I'd far rather we tested on humans. In fact, I'm pretty sure I have a friend who gets money for testing stuff out, if there's people like him willing to do it why put an unconsenting innocent animal through this? Or, like people have said, put the dregs of this species through it. Animal testing is animal cruelty, simple as that.


But surely you use things that have been tested on animals? If medicines hadnt been tested on animals alot more people would be dead now and alot more will be in the future. Things are tested on people, thats normally the next step after its been tested on the animal.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

hayleyth said:


> Surely a computer couldnt show you the effects a drug causes? And if there are all these alternatives then why arent they used more? Im sure the people dont like testing on animals but there is no alternative which provides a closer an more effective match than animals? I certainly wouldnt want a drug which had been tested by a computer as they can fail and not be accurate, and how would they show the true effects of a drug?


Because there legislation wasn't there to support them, please take a look at the link,

There needs to be legislation passed for these alternatives to be assessed. The most effective way to do this is to test the alternatives on drugs that are already in use by the population, so human side effects are known, there are animal testing results and so accuracy of these alternatives can be fully assessed. thats why there were early day motions to support this happening.

There needs to be legislation passed for surgical waste to be retained and used in these types of test.

Without people campaigning for change everything stays the same.

If animal testing is so reliable why are 9/10 drugs that pass animal testing later found to be unsuitable for humans?


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

moonviolet said:


> Because there legislation wasn't there to support them, please take a look at the link,
> 
> There needs to be legislation passed for these alternatives to be assessed. The most effective way to do this is to test the alternatives on drugs that are already in use by the population, so human side effects are known, there are animal testing results and so accuracy of these alternatives can be fully assessed. thats why there were early day motions to support this happening.
> 
> ...


I understand your opinion, but i do agre with the animal testing where i am as it has such stict guidlines and it is definately making a difference in peoples lives. 
The testing cant be that inacurate because most of the drugs today we have because of animal testing, if it didnt work then there would be no point and they would move on? I will look at the link tomorrow, im on my phone so hard to read!


----------



## MCWillow (Aug 26, 2011)

I don't like the _thought_ of animal testing - but if my son was dying and they offered him a drug that had been tested on animals, I would grab it with both hands.

No I couldnt work in a lab that tested the newest mascara or floor cleaner. We have enough of those products without needing more of them.

If it was a lab that was testing a new cancer drug (for instance) then, I don't think I would like it, but I do understand it. These drugs_ have _to go through animal tests before they are allowed to be tested on humans.

And if the people looking after the animals are there to give the _best _quality of life, in the circumstances, and they manage to _do_ that - good on them.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

_The side effects of modern 'safe' drugs hospitalise 1 BILLION people in this country every year._Sarah Boseley, The Guardian, 3 April 2008: "Adverse drug reactions cost NHS £2bn"

_Adverse drug reactions kill more than 10,000 people every year in the UK _(British Medical Journal 2004; 329:15-19)
_and 197,000 in the EU, costing €79bn (European Commission, Brussels Memo, 10 December 2008)_


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Its disgusting in my opinion and when it comes to animal testing nothing on this planet will make me change my mind. No self respecting animal lover would stand there and watch someone purposefully/potentially kill or hurt an animal whether it is for medical reasons, we have prisons full to the brim of murderers and rapists and child molesters and yet we *choose* to test on innocent untainted souls?? I have little faith in humanity as it is and it gets lesser everyday when we continue to ruin what is beautiful on this planet


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

The link put previously and the video link below both come not from an anti-vivisection group, but from Safer medicines campaign.

"Safer Medicines Campaign is an independent patient safety organisation of doctors and scientists whose concern is whether animal testing, today, is more harmful than helpful to public health and safety. Our goal is to protect human health by promoting human-specific medical research. We do not oppose animal testing per se, merely those tests which harm patients by creating a false sense of security or false alarm, or which mislead scientists' understanding of disease.

Safer Medicines Trust is a registered charity (number 1039411). We have hosted international conferences at the Royal Society and the House of Lords, showing the benefits to drug safety and medical progress offered by a focus on human, rather than animal biology.

WHAT we are calling for 
 Safe and effective treatments for patients as soon as possible
 Open discussion of the key scientific questions at the heart of this controversial issue, separately from the associated highly-charged ethical issues
Independent scientific evaluation of the utility of animal tests for drug safety. The effectiveness of animal tests has never been measured against a panel of state-of-the-art techniques based on human biology. We propose a unique comparison between the two approaches, the case for which is compelling."

The above quote from Safer Medicines Campaign

Here's the video link i mentioned.
Safer Medicines Campaign


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

No. I do not agree with animal testing, for any reason, and would find it far too upsetting and stressful to be in a place like that, with people who thought that was ok.
Animal testing is outdated, inaccurate, dangerous and my opposition to it stems as much from a concern for human welfare as it does a concern for animal welfare.
Im also a huge rat lover, one of the animals used most commonly, and one of the most abused. Everyone gets mushy about pictures of beagle pups on the front of anti-vivisection leaflets, but few people care about the rats, who are just as intelligent but get brushed aside. 
As long as Im a rat lover, and animal lover in general, I can never accept the unnecessary torture and abuse they go through.

Remember, we can all do something. Even not buying any cosmetics tested on animals is something we can all do. Don't get your lipstick from rimmel, or maybelline, get it from Marks and Spencer. Don't buy Herbal essences, buy co-op own brand shampoos, which are all BUAV approved.
There is no excuse, in my mind, for anyone to ever buy make-up that is tested on animals, other than laziness/convenience.
I used to buy all the big brand make ups many years ago, now I wouldn't touch any of those companies if you paid me. If I find it hard, because sometimes there is a lipstick or something I really like that they make, but I just imagine the rat these companies support torturing, and its suddenly really easy to walk away.


----------



## Dogless (Feb 26, 2010)

I don't agree with testing on animals for cosmetics and household cleaners etc. I cannot in good conscience say that I don't agree with it for medical reasons as I take a drug which drastically improves my quality of life and allows me to still do so many of the things that I love. It was tested on animals yet I willingly take it and will continue to do so.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I couldn't at one time as I was very anti viv & in to the AR movement but after deciding to read more rather than just propaganda I did change my opinion.

I too, am still against animal testing for cosmetics & household cleaners but do understand that the use of animal in research is still necessary. In trials & research it is not only animals that are used but there are various stages

These are some really interesting sites that detail why animals are still required in research .....

Understanding Animal Research

Speaking of Research | Improving understanding about Animal Research / Animal Testing

Congratulations on your work placement btw, hope it goes well!


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Dogless said:


> I don't agree with testing on animals for cosmetics and household cleaners etc. I cannot in good conscience say that I don't agree with it for medical reasons as I take a drug which drastically improves my quality of life and allows me to still do so many of the things that I love. It was tested on animals yet I willingly take it and will continue to do so.


I don't think hand on heart very few people are in a different situation historically animal testing was the only option, but with developments in science over the last 40 years(when animal testing became law) it's now time to truly assess what the alternatives are capable of.

If modern methods could, for instance, be used to identify drugs that wouldn't be effective or be damaging to human tissue prior to animal testing the amount of testing could be hugely reduced. without doing a full comaprison to assess the capability of modern methods we will simply never know.

It's also a misconception that animal testing is entirely reliable and produces completely safe drugs. In 2006, 8 healthy young men signed up for a drugs trial at northwick park hospital which left 6 of them fighting for their lives. this is an interview with the 'elephant men' a year after the trials, about their experience, their fight for compensation and the uncertain future they face. Simon Hattenstone meets the 'Elephant Men' to hear about their fight for compensation | Society | The Guardian

ETA: I will add (now i have her permission) My mother a few years ago was put on the new wonder drug for very slightly high cholesterol. Within a short period of time she changed both physical and mentally. Her skin came up in rashes, there was concern over her liver health and she began talking not wanting to live longer. There have been claims that even once you stop taking this drug the 'positive' effects last for 10 years. I can only hope now she's stopped the negative effects don't continue you as long.I cna't say using modern techniques would have prevented my mother going through this, but without trying them no one can say it wouldn't have either.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Thankyou everyone for your interesting comments! I do understand everyones point of view but i do feel that animal testing is still needed if we want the medicines we have and for them to be safe. 

There are always going to be reactions in people still as a human is not an animal. I would much rather have the medcines we do and ones in the future and them be tested on animals in a strict and well kept environment than die early or be in pain. 

The place im working is very modern and the facilities are great. They have very large kennels (not cages), are trained before every test, so for having an injection, to inhalation and various things. The animals are exercised, played with, have a lot of toys, and are very sociable. If the dogs felt they were hurt or mishandled in any way i do not think they would have been as sociable and i think they would have been in poor condition. All the other animals were also very well kept, and the staff which care for them alll have various animal qualifications like me, and have been trained to a high standard. I know there are some testing places which are not like this, but i definately agree with this place as it is high on animal welfare, and also if it wasnt, my college would not send people there. They are also checked very regularly to make sure all is well and they are abiding to guidelines and laws. There are also vets from around the district which visit and check the animals and also vets on site. 

They are also looking in to reducing the amount of animals and using other methods, and have started to but the need for animals is still there if we want safe drugs to use. Also the fact that most of them do get rehomed after because alot of the trials go very well and have no extreme adverse affects just mild. 

Thanks everyone for the comments, i hope i will enjoy my placement, and i will definately learn alot more and make sure i help improve the quality of life for these testing animals.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

moonviolet said:


> I don't think hand on heart very few people are in a different situation historically animal testing was the only option, but with developments in science over the last 40 years(when animal testing became law) it's now time to truly assess what the alternatives are capable of.
> 
> If modern methods could, for instance, be used to identify drugs that wouldn't be effective or be damaging to human tissue prior to animal testing the amount of testing could be hugely reduced. without doing a full comaprison to assess the capability of modern methods we will simply never know.
> 
> It's also a misconception that animal testing is entirely reliable and produces completely safe drugs. In 2006, 8 healthy young men signed up for a drugs trial at northwick park hospital which left 6 of them fighting for their lives. this is an interview with the 'elephant men' a year after the trials, about their experience, their fight for compensation and the uncertain future they face. Simon Hattenstone meets the 'Elephant Men' to hear about their fight for compensation | Society | The Guardian


But the drug used in the trial you are referring to went through preclinical in vitro tests which also failed to predict the side affects as well as the animal tests


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

moonviolet said:


> I don't think hand on heart very few people are in a different situation historically animal testing was the only option, but with developments in science over the last 40 years(when animal testing became law) it's now time to truly assess what the alternatives are capable of.
> 
> If modern methods could, for instance, be used to identify drugs that wouldn't be effective or be damaging to human tissue prior to animal testing the amount of testing could be hugely reduced. without doing a full comaprison to assess the capability of modern methods we will simply never know.
> 
> ...


Its never going to be 100%, an animal is not a human so therefore there will still be variations, the point is its meant to make sure its as safe as possible so we know what effects could happen when its used in humans.

Humans who take the drug to test know the risks, you can never be sure its going to react the same in humans as animals. But its not like we can do all tetsing on animals as it would not be allowed, and not many people would volunteer. Even if it was tested on criminals, surely they would eventually run out and it wouldnt be passed either. The amount of drugs tested on animals outweighs the ones which have gone slightly wrong, i agree with everyones point of view but dont see how people can disagree and then use the drugs which have been tested on animals. And surely people would rather have drugs to help and cure diseases rather than not? I do think animal testing will always be needed in some way or another, but hopefully it can be reduced over time.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

hayleyth said:


> Its never going to be 100%, an animal is not a human so therefore there will still be variations, the point is its meant to make sure its as safe as possible so we know what effects could happen when its used in humans.
> 
> Humans who take the drug to test know the risks, you can never be sure its going to react the same in humans as animals. But its not like we can do all tetsing on animals as it would not be allowed, and not many people would volunteer. Even if it was tested on criminals, surely they would eventually run out and it wouldnt be passed either. The amount of drugs tested on animals outweighs the ones which have gone slightly wrong, i agree with everyones point of view but dont see how people can disagree and then use the drugs which have been tested on animals. And surely people would rather have drugs to help and cure diseases rather than not? I do think animal testing will always be needed in some way or another, but hopefully it can be reduced over time.


 the number of animals used for experiments is Increasing!!!


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> the number of animals used for experiments is Increasing!!!


Not in every facility though, the one im in has drastically reduced its numbers and still is. Obviously not every facility has, proberly because it doesnt have the money or equipment to use other methods yet.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> But the drug used in the trial you are referring to went through preclinical in vitro tests which also failed to predict the side affects as well as the animal tests


in vitro isn't the only alternative method.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Yes we should be working towards not needing to use animals for testing. IT IS HAPPENING. It will not happen overnight- there will be the same issues surrounding ANY form of non human testing- as in whatever you are testing on could well react differently to a human body system.

Do also remember your dogs vaccines, medicines etc will have been tested on animals. I do hope those who are so very against it never take a paracetamol, or have their kids/animals vaccinated against potentially life threatening diseases, because all of these will have been tested on animals.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

moonviolet said:


> in vitro isn't the only alternative method.


No, it's not but all tests (including animal) did not reveal the problems with this drug until too late.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> No, it's not but all tests (including animal) did not reveal the problems with this drug until too late.


but not all available alternatives were tried. this is why they alternatives need to tested fully in comparison on already licensed medicines where not only animal test results are know but there are reported human side effects. Some of the alternatives will be of more accuracy/value than others but without running this comparison how are we ever going to know? I've been unable to find out whether microdosing was tried in this case.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Yes we should be working towards not needing to use animals for testing. IT IS HAPPENING. It will not happen overnight- there will be the same issues surrounding ANY form of non human testing- as in whatever you are testing on could well react differently to a human body system.
> 
> Do also remember your dogs vaccines, medicines etc will have been tested on animals. I do hope those who are so very against it never take a paracetamol, or have their kids/animals vaccinated against potentially life threatening diseases, because all of these will have been tested on animals.


I would love to see the end of animal testing, certainly on cosmetics (currently it's legal to sell new cosmetic products within the EU that have been tested on animals outside the EU) and household products ( our homes are already so clean that it is linked to actually causing health issues) as for medicines I believe all modern methods need reviewing, so that all reasonable and responsible steps can be taken to reducing in the hope one day they will not be necessary. I have not once screamed it must stop now.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> I would love to see the end of animal testing, certainly on cosmetics (currently it's legal to sell new cosmetic products within the EU that have been tested on animals outside the EU) and household products ( our homes are already so clean that it is linked to actually causing health issues) as for medicines I believe all modern methods need reviewing, so that all reasonable and responsible steps can be taken to reducing in the hope one day they will not be necessary. I have not once screamed it must stop now.


I was agreeing with you. :confused1: Sadly it will be a long drawn out process, as change always takes maximum time/red tape/research when it comes to medical testing.

The laws in other countries surrounding testing on cosmetics etc need tightening up immediately.... it is daft that the big pharma's just farm their testing out to India/USA


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> I was agreeing with you. :confused1:


Sorry still a little undercaffeinated


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

moonviolet said:


> I would love to see the end of animal testing, certainly on cosmetics (currently it's legal to sell new cosmetic products within the EU that have been tested on animals outside the EU) and household products ( our homes are already so clean that it is linked to actually causing health issues) as for medicines I believe all modern methods need reviewing, so that all reasonable and responsible steps can be taken to reducing in the hope one day they will not be necessary. I have not once screamed it must stop now.


But I also do want to see an end to animals bneing used, I'm sure most of those involved in research do as well but I accept that the use of animals is still necessary at the moment.

Steps are being taken to address this, this is a very informative website -
The 3Rs - Replacement, Refinement and Reduction - are a widely accepted ethical framework for conducting scientific experiments using animals humanely.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Depends on what they're testing, if its dog harnesses and how comfortable they are that's great. If its cosmetics, toiletries, drugs or other substances then I don't agree with it at all. Controversially (to many people) I don't even believe in testing medicines on animals. The mother of my stepkids (so OH's ex) was actually doing a psychology degree and had to drop out of the last year because they had to do a testing on animal modules and she's vegan and very into animal rights.


----------



## BoredomBusters (Dec 8, 2011)

As an asthmatic I would have died without animal testing - I became away of cosmetic use back in the 80s and have always chosen cruelty free products. Yes I hate to think of all the animals that died for me to live (and the millions of other people who have chronic conditions requiring medication) but so many animals live and die at a human's whim we'd all have to be vegan to really get up on our soap box about animals giving their lives for humans.

I felt uncomfortable even during my tour of Waltham because they use the dogs and cats for 'testing' their food and other products on, and there was nothing there that was unkind! Although cats being solitary predators being kept indoors 100% of the time in large groups didn't sit right with me at all. But like I say, I eat meat, how can I complain?


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Depends on what they're testing, if its dog harnesses and how comfortable they are that's great. If its cosmetics, toiletries, drugs or other substances then I don't agree with it at all. Controversially (to many people) I don't even believe in testing medicines on animals. The mother of my stepkids (so OH's ex) was actually doing a psychology degree and had to drop out of the last year because they had to do a testing on animal modules and she's vegan and very into animal rights.


But dont you have medicines, toiletries?


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

I understand the 3 R's but the numbers of animals used for testing have been increasing not reducing over recent years.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Ang2 said:


> Couldnt set foot in one of those places. All those poor animals derserve a loving home, not caged up and unloved!


this is the problem isnt it. Everyone believes the 'undercover filming' that goes on rather than the reality - which is that dogs are kept in kennels and runs, often in groups, are very well looked after, loved, played with and exercised. If they have an experiment done on them that will cause suffering then they are put to sleep.



tashax said:


> Its disgusting in my opinion and when it comes to animal testing nothing on this planet will make me change my mind. No self respecting animal lover would stand there and watch someone purposefully/potentially kill or hurt an animal whether it is for medical reasons, we have prisons full to the brim of murderers and rapists and child molesters and yet we *choose* to test on innocent untainted souls?? I have little faith in humanity as it is and it gets lesser everyday when we continue to ruin what is beautiful on this planet


I am a self respecting animal lover and I have worked (a long time ago) with animals used for experiments. You could not have had happier and better looked after dogs and horses (the species I mainly worked with ). It was terribly sad when there was a terminal experiment and the whole department went into mourning but there was no question of any animal ever suffering.

Incidentally these animals were used to test VETERINARY drugs - so how does that sit with you.

And to say that criminals should be used for testing shows a great deal of ignorance and inhumanity.

I do not agree with cosmetic testing but drug testing on animals that are given a good life and are not suffering sits fine with me.

I would say that there are bound to be badly run places just as there are badly run breeding kennels, boarding kennels and pet homes. These should all be stamped on and not allowed but while puppy farms are allowed to keep dogs in horrendous conditions I am not sure how this is ever going to happen. And of course my info on puppy farms comes from undercover filming so I may be way out on that too.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

moonviolet said:


> I understand the 3 R's but the numbers of animals used for testing have been increasing not reducing over recent years.


But surely you have to look at why the use of some species is increasing, the experiments involved, etc.

From what I have read the rise comes from the use of more fish & birds. The use of fish was increased due to use in toxicology experiments (for which rats were previously used, thwerefore the use of rats was down 33,604)

The good news (imo) was the drop in the number of procedures carried out on monkeys, down by 2,213.

I understand that there was an increase in the use of cats (up 48) but this was due to research regarding feline physiology & nutrition.

Personally, I don't think statistics can tell us the whole picture & it needs further investigation to give a better understanding of what animals were used, why & how many times, etc.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> But dont you have medicines, toiletries?


Bit of a silly argument really imo. I have toiletries, they have a lovely sticker on the back saying 'Not tested on animals'. I have make up that is also not tested on animals. Of course I've taken medicines that were tested on animals, everybody has, when you're a baby you have no choice on vaccines so every single person in this country has willingly and unwillingly been party to scinetific advances at the expense of animal life. That doesn't mean I agree with it in any way or think it's okay. To me testing on animals is just another way of saying that animal life is not worth much, and human life is worth more, and I happen to disagree with that rather speciesist approach to life. I don't think my life is worth more than a dogs, or a cats, or a rats, just because I have complex thought and have opposable thumbs.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> *Bit of a silly argument really imo*. I have toiletries, they have a lovely sticker on the back saying 'Not tested on animals'. I have make up that is also not tested on animals. Of course I've taken medicines that were tested on animals, everybody has, when you're a baby you have no choice on vaccines so every single person in this country has willingly and unwillingly been party to scinetific advances at the expense of animal life. That doesn't mean I agree with it in any way or think it's okay. To me testing on animals is just another way of saying that animal life is not worth much, and human life is worth more, and I happen to disagree with that rather speciesist approach to life. I don't think my life is worth more than a dogs, or a cats, or a rats, just because I have complex thought and have opposable thumbs.


Not really, the ingredients all would have been tested at one time. Household cleaners, washing powders, paint, even cars (I understand) used animals in crash tests to improve safety

Now you have a choice though do you still take medicines?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> Not really, the ingredients all would have been tested at one time. Household cleaners, washing powders, paint, even cars (I understand) used animals in crash tests to improve safety
> 
> Now you have a choice though do you still take medicines?


It is a silly argument, every single person in this world is a hypocrite to some degree, including myself. Every vegan I know has inadvertently eaten something with animal products in, every climate change activist has contributed to the problem of greenhouse gases. There is no way to live your 100% idyllic life, especially in this society. So yes, of course I've voluuntarily taken medicines that I'm sure were initially tested on animals, but I don't think that in any way negates the fact I'm allowed to have an opinion on animal testing and the worth of life.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Bit of a silly argument really imo. I have toiletries, they have a lovely sticker on the back saying 'Not tested on animals'. I have make up that is also not tested on animals. Of course I've taken medicines that were tested on animals, everybody has, when you're a baby you have no choice on vaccines so every single person in this country has willingly and unwillingly been party to scinetific advances at the expense of animal life. That doesn't mean I agree with it in any way or think it's okay. To me testing on animals is just another way of saying that animal life is not worth much, and human life is worth more, and I happen to disagree with that rather speciesist approach to life. I don't think my life is worth more than a dogs, or a cats, or a rats, just because I have complex thought and have opposable thumbs.


I wouldnt say its a silly argument, the reason you have the medicines for you and your dogs is because they were tested on animals, if they hadnt of been them they may not be here for us to use. I do think articles and various things paint a not so good picture, it is a whole lot different in reality to what most people do think. Why would people with animal care qualifications work with these animals if they thought they were worthless?


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

moonviolet said:


> There are lots of modern alternatives that would reduce the need for animal testing by a huge amount. tests on human tissues (including surgical waste), cells and DNA, computer modelling etc etc more info here Safer Medicines


Realistically we are years, I'd be very surprised if it was less then a decade, away from being able to safely do away with animal testing for medicines. Despite the alternatives (which I agree should be more widely tested and rolled out) we have no alternative for testing full systemic interaction. No, it's not perfect but if a drug that was targeted at heart disease cause kidney failure in preliminary tests on rodents then it's good that it doesn't progress further (completely made up example). It's not perfect and it's never likely to be able to predict all problems in people but it is the best system we currently have.

The biggest problem with animal modelling is for potentially tetragenic drugs (thalidomide is the most widely known example) and testing on inappropriate species. But honestly I have never heard of a realistic alternative to it - even for those of you advocating we test on criminals  do you think that the babies of criminals deserve to have drugs tested on them before they are even born? Anyone know of any pregnant women who are happy to test drugs to make sure they aren't tetragenic? Or donate foetal tissue from miscarriages? Stem cell research is controversial because of the need to create early stage embryos for testing - how easy is it going to be to get permission to do it to test drugs? And even then it won't show the effects on a growing foetus.



Lexiedhb said:


> Yes we should be working towards not needing to use animals for testing. IT IS HAPPENING. It will not happen overnight- there will be the same issues surrounding ANY form of non human testing- as in whatever you are testing on could well react differently to a human body system.
> 
> Do also remember your dogs vaccines, medicines etc will have been tested on animals. I do hope those who are so very against it never take a paracetamol, or have their kids/animals vaccinated against potentially life threatening diseases, because all of these will have been tested on animals.


The point that you (and Blitz) have made about veterinary medicines is very good. How do we develop these drugs without testing on animals? Honest question because at some point they have to be tested - I wouldn't be happy to give my dog an untested drug.

As always in these debates I'm going to pimp the Dr Hadwen Trust as a great organisation if you're interested in helping develop alternatives to animal testing.

As a point of interest for myself - do those advocating against animal testing in all cases eat pork? Pigs are a highly intelligent, highly social species that are kept in some horrendous conditions in large scale farming operations. That to me is far more distressing then how the vast majority of animals are kept in labs.


----------



## Quinzell (Mar 14, 2011)

Would I like to work there or visit? A definite no. But, I would be a hypocrite to say I am 100% against it because I do use drugs that have been tested on animals.

Whilst your description of how well the animals are looked after gives me a degree or reassurance its your comments to the contrary that make me feel incredibly uneasy. 

You also mention that some of the dogs get to be rehomed, but that obviously means not all of the dogs get to be rehomed.

If I were you I know that I would be constantly thinking of my own dogs.....I couldn't do it. I guess some of us are just made of stronger stuff. I don't mean any disrespect to you at all as you really do seem to have their welfare at heart, but I just couldn't switch off to the other things that you are obviously seeing and choosing not to tell us about.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> It is a silly argument, every single person in this world is a hypocrite to some degree, including myself. Every vegan I know has inadvertently eaten something with animal products in, every climate change activist has contributed to the problem of greenhouse gases. There is no way to live your 100% idyllic life, especially in this society. So yes, of course I've voluuntarily taken medicines that I'm sure were initially tested on animals, but I don't think that in any way negates the fact I'm allowed to have an opinion on animal testing and the worth of life.


I agree that everyone is a hypocrite to a degree 

I think I only feel so strongly because some people (not directed at you btw!) are so quick to condem people involved in research as 'monsters' or 'cruel' that I find it hard to understand when they also so willing reach for an aspirin or paracetamol for minor aches & pains.

I also find it hard to understand how people continue to smoke or abuse their bodies whilst being opposed to animals research. IMO surely they should be keeping themselves as fit & healthy as possible to avoid having to take medication or incur diseases caused by their unhealthy lifestyles ..... it might not be a popular opinion but it is mine!


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> I wouldnt say its a silly argument, the reason you have the medicines for you and your dogs is because they were tested on animals, if they hadnt of been them they may not be here for us to use. I do think articles and various things paint a not so good picture, it is a whole lot different in reality to what most people do think. Why would people with animal care qualifications work with these animals if they thought they were worthless?


Trying to invalidate someones opinion by saying 'oh but you do this, you do that' is childish I think. To pretend you have to be perfect and live 100% by some unattainable standard of ethics to have your opinion validated means actually nobody has a valid opinion. So yes, I find it a bit offensive and silly to answer someones opinion with 'oh but youre got this in your house'. It's like trying to pour on guilt for slavery generations down the line, because you know, in the past something you couldnt help happening happened and you're benefitting from it.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

L/C said:


> Realistically we are years, I'd be very surprised if it was less then a decade, away from being able to safely do away with animal testing for medicines. Despite the alternatives (which I agree should be more widely tested and rolled out) we have no alternative for testing full systemic interaction. No, it's not perfect but if a drug that was targeted at heart disease cause kidney failure in preliminary tests on rodents then it's good that it doesn't progress further (completely made up example). It's not perfect and it's never likely to be able to predict all problems in people but it is the best system we currently have.
> 
> The biggest problem with animal modelling is for potentially tetragenic drugs (thalidomide is the most widely known example) and testing on inappropriate species. But honestly I have never heard of a realistic alternative to it - even for those of you advocating we test on criminals  do you think that the babies of criminals deserve to have drugs tested on them before they are even born? Anyone know of any pregnant women who are happy to test drugs to make sure they aren't tetragenic? Or donate foetal tissue from miscarriages? Stem cell research is controversial because of the need to create early stage embryos for testing - how easy is it going to be to get permission to do it to test drugs? And even then it won't show the effects on a growing foetus.
> 
> ...


Very good points, must say the pigs they use where im going are very well kept. I spent a while yesterday givin them a scratch and playin! They have large pens with only about 2 or 3 in each and very goood conditions. Luckly the place is very high on animal welfare and making their environment as good as possible.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> I agree that everyone is a hypocrite to a degree
> 
> I think I only feel so strongly because some people (not directed at you btw!) are so quick to condem people involved in research as 'monsters' or 'cruel' that I find it hard to understand when they also so willing reach for an aspirin or paracetamol for minor aches & pains.
> 
> I also find it hard to understand how people continue to smoke or abuse their bodies whilst being opposed to animals research. IMO surely they should be keeping themselves as fit & healthy as possible to avoid having to take medication or incur diseases caused by their unhealthy lifestyles ..... it might not be a popular opinion but it is mine!


I know what you mean, I don't like extremes of the spectrum. I've been involved in animal rights in the past and all sorts, but villifying people and calling the monsters is not correct imo. Everyone's got an opinion one way or another, if we all agreed it would be very dull.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> It is a silly argument, every single person in this world is a hypocrite to some degree, including myself. Every vegan I know has inadvertently eaten something with animal products in, every climate change activist has contributed to the problem of greenhouse gases. There is no way to live your 100% idyllic life, especially in this society. So yes, of course I've voluuntarily taken medicines that I'm sure were initially tested on animals, but I don't think that in any way negates the fact I'm allowed to have an opinion on animal testing and the worth of life.


But either you agree with it and continue to take medicine, vaccinate your dog etc or you are against it so would refuse all modern medicine for both yourself and your pets?

Even makeup that says "not tested on animals" will contain ingredients that at some point in history HAVE been (just not by the company selling it ). Otherwise they would have to carry warnings like "may cause blindness". There is no need for new cosmetics, hence it is illegal to test in this country.

Personally i think we should begin with getting the rest of the world under some sort of licence like the UK, whilst trying to find alternatives to the use of animals.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> *But either you agree with it and continue to take medicine, vaccinate your dog etc or you are against it so would refuse all modern medicine for both yourself and your pets? *
> 
> Even makeup that says "not tested on animals" will contain ingredients that at some point in history HAVE been (just not by the company selling it ). Otherwise they would have to carry warnings like "may cause blindness". There is no need for new cosmetics, hence it is illegal to test in this country.
> 
> Personally i think we should begin with getting the rest of the world under some sort of licence like the UK, whilst trying to find alternatives to the use of animals.


In your mind maybe that's how things work. But not in mine. Shall I give up my car because the making of it caused harm? Should I look down on people using cancer drugs because I think medicines should no longer be tested on animals in this day and age?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> In your mind maybe that's how things work. But not in mine. Shall I give up my car because the making of it caused harm? Should I look down on people using cancer drugs because I think medicines should no longer be tested on animals in this day and age?


Yes if you have courage in your convictions/beliefs.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Phoolf said:


> Trying to invalidate someones opinion by saying 'oh but you do this, you do that' is childish I think. To pretend you have to be perfect and live 100% by some unattainable standard of ethics to have your opinion validated means actually nobody has a valid opinion. So yes, I find it a bit offensive and silly to answer someones opinion with 'oh but youre got this in your house'. It's like trying to pour on guilt for slavery generations down the line, because you know, in the past something you couldnt help happening happened and you're benefitting from it.


But its true? How can you say your against any form of testing even for drugs which save peoples lives? I find that very hard to uderstand, i can agree with cosmetics not being tested but to not agree with testing drugs is a bit ridiulous. Most of the drugs tested cause mild reactions and then the animal is rehomed? One yesterday had done his testing for cancer and it cause a mild reaction but now hes fine and is being rehomed. I dont see how that is bad. We need medicines or alot of peoples lives will be drastically shortened


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> In your mind maybe that's how things work. But not in mine. Shall I give up my car because the making of it caused harm? Should I look down on people using cancer drugs *because I think medicines should no longer be tested on animals in this day and age?*


Genuinely interested and not trying to have a go - would you take a new medicine that had been developed by animal testing? Would you treat your dog with a new medicine? And how do we develop new veterinary medicines without testing on animals or would you be happy to give your dog an untested drug?


----------



## goodvic2 (Nov 23, 2008)

No definitely not. 

Find it hard enough seeing the dogs in the rescue kennels ...


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Yes if you have courage in your convictions/beliefs.


In YOUR opinion. I don't have to live by any standards you want me to, I live by own and am happy with them. I've done the whole extreme route of ethics to the hilt in every single life decision I ever made, I've got the t-shirt, I'm happy with how I live and don't need to justify my life in order to hold an opinion. I don't believe animal life is worth less than human life, ergo we shouldnt test on animals anymore than we should humans.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> In YOUR opinion. I don't have to live by any standards you want me to, I live by own and am happy with them. I've done the whole extreme route of ethics to the hilt in every single life decision I ever made, I've got the t-shirt, I'm happy with how I live and don't need to justify my life in order to hold an opinion. *I don't believe animal life is worth less than human life, ergo we shouldnt test on animals anymore than we should humans.*


But then how do we test the drugs at all?


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> In YOUR opinion. I don't have to live by any standards you want me to, I live by own and am happy with them. I've done the whole extreme route of ethics to the hilt in every single life decision I ever made, I've got the t-shirt, I'm happy with how I live and don't need to justify my life in order to hold an opinion. I don't believe animal life is worth less than human life, ergo we shouldnt test on animals anymore than we should humans.


Ohh this forum has done the "an animals life is worth the same as a humans" before..... it gets messy. 

I do wish people would have belief systems that they actually used throughout their lives and not just when it suited tho.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> I know what you mean, I don't like extremes of the spectrum. I've been involved in animal rights in the past and all sorts, but villifying people and calling the monsters is not correct imo. Everyone's got an opinion one way or another, if we all agreed it would be very dull.


I agree, I too used to be involved with a animal rights group for quite a while but disgreed & left when they began to target employees of research establishments.

I find threads such as this interesting & it is always good to hear opposing views, question your own & it makes me read up on all the points raised .... although i should actually be working!! 

It's just such a shame when threads liek this turn personal & get closed - as one recently did


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

L/C said:


> Genuinely interested and not trying to have a go - would you take a new medicine that had been developed by animal testing? Would you treat your dog with a new medicine? And how we develop new veterinary medicines without testing on animals or would you be happy to give your dog an untested drug?


These are all hard questions. As to trying medicines we really don't have much choice in this society, do we? Aside from herbal medicine or refusing treatment I suppose. Human instinct of course says I'd take the medicine, because we have a survival instinct and if it saved my life I'd do it, we're animals too so a chance of life is something we generally jump at. Would I intellectually agree with it? Probably not. But I think with new research techniques like moonviolet has posted about (as have others) we should be moving away from animal testing and on to safer alternatives for both animals and humans. As for giving my dog an untested drug that would depend on many factors and I'd have to read the scientific literature and theories.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> Ohh this forum has done the "an animals life is worth the same as a humans" before..... it gets messy.
> 
> I do wish people would have belief systems that they actually used throughout their lives and not just when it suited tho.


I don't really care. It's my religious and moral belief that my life isn't worth more than others. Like it or lump it.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

L/C said:


> But then how do we test the drugs at all?


With other methods that been developed? If a human wants to voluntarily take a drug trial then that's fine, I don't disagree with consenting adults taking part in research. Animals have no consent to give.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Phoolf said:


> These are all hard questions. As to trying medicines we really don't have much choice in this society, do we? Aside from herbal medicine or refusing treatment I suppose. Human instinct of course says I'd take the medicine, because we have a survival instinct and if it saved my life I'd do it, we're animals too so a chance of life is something we generally jump at. Would I intellectually agree with it? Probably not. But I think with new research techniques like moonviolet has posted about (as have others) we should be moving away from animal testing and on to safer alternatives for both animals and humans. As for giving my dog an untested drug that would depend on many factors and I'd have to read the scientific literature and theories.


Thanks for answering - it's hard to phrase questions like that without sounding like you're nitpicking at the person.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

L/C said:


> Thanks for answering - it's hard to phrase questions like that without sounding like you're nitpicking at the person.


Not at all, you should always question what people think.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

I do accept all your opinions, they are very valid. I hope people do understand why i agree with animal testing on medicines and why i am going on this placement and why i feel the place im going to does care alot about the animals and IMO the majority do not suffer from any extreme side affects. There are always going to be a small amount which unfortunately do, but its the same with humans, we have side affects from drugs all the time. 

But thankyou everyone for your thoughts and look forward to reading more! i should be working but its too interesting!


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

Phoolf said:


> I don't really care. It's my religious and moral belief that my life isn't worth more than others. Like it or lump it.


BUT that belief falls by the way side when you have a headache and reach for the paracetamol. Don't get it.


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> I do accept all your opinions, they are very valid. I hope people do understand why i agree with animal testing on medicines and why i am going on this placement and why i feel the place im going to does care alot about the animals and IMO the majority do not suffer from any extreme side affects. There are always going to be a small amount which unfortunately do, but its the same with humans, we have side affects from drugs all the time.
> 
> But thankyou everyone for your thoughts and look forward to reading more! i should be working but its too interesting!


I'm glad you're visiting a place that treats its animals well, the alternative just isn't worth thinking about! On a lighter note have you not seen the Planet of the apes films? Don't you worry we'll pump them full of drugs and they'll take over the world? Or 28 days later and we'll cause the zombie apocalypse?


----------



## Phoolf (Jun 13, 2012)

Lexiedhb said:


> BUT that belief falls by the way side when you have a headache and reach for the paracetamol. Don't get it.


You don't really have to get it? I don't get why some people believe in mythical beings living in the clouds, but they don't have to justify themselves to me. They're entitled to think what they like so long as that belief doesn't harm anybody.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

I dont' agree with extreme measures, calling people monsters targeting staff etc, I do think that in all industries as you become exposed to things you become hardened to them and lose the objective view

...Slightly random example, many years ago i managed a photo lab in the city of London, the first time saw pics of a top city exec that required me to assess if i would be breaking pornography laws to sell them the photos ( the negatives remain the customers property and are always returned) I was shocked... after a while it became par for the course.

So checks and balances need to be maintained and inspections need to be regular and stringent.

The other thing is about change. Change does not really occur with out some pressure being applied. I prefer this to be logical and well reasoned not knee jerk or aggressive. It may take time, but slow and successful is always preferable to fast and horribly flawed.

As an aside the EU cosmetics law as it is stands is horribly, horribly flawed it stops testing within the EU, but allows new products that are tested elsewhere in the world to be sold in the EU (quite possibly the conditions are far worse than they ever where in the EU) this was due to come to an end March 2013, but large powerful rich companies are pushing for this to be extended.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

moonviolet said:


> I dont' agree with extreme measures, calling people monsters targeting staff etc, I do think that in all industries as you become exposed to things you become hardened to them and lose the objective view
> 
> ...Slightly random example, many years ago i managed a photo lab in the city of London, the first time saw pics of a top city exec that required me to assess if i would be breaking pornography laws to sell them the photos ( the negatives remain the customers property and are always returned) I was shocked... after a while it became par for the course.
> 
> ...


You've got me wondering what pics they were now .... or maybe I shouldn't!!!

I agree that people do become almost 'hardened' & I saw that myself within the AR group I was involved with. I saw how some people had changed & I began to question what their objective really were. Unfortunately I didn't like what I became witness to & had to leave as I couldn't be a part of what was then deemed to be 'acceptable'.

Completely agree with your statement regarding change


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> You've got me wondering what pics they were now .... or maybe I shouldn't!!!


They were very eye opening


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Lexiedhb said:


> Ohh this forum has done the "an animals life is worth the same as a humans" before..... it gets messy.


I don't believe animal lives are worth more than human lives, or vice versa. Humans _are_ animals. 
My opposition is based on not only the cruelty, but the inaccuracy of animal tests.
A huge number of drugs have been tested as safe for animals in the past that went on to kill or maim humans. I just don't trust them. I don't want meds developed in such backward and archaic ways.

Some of the tests that have occurred on rats, for example, include the following:

Putting them into tubes and forcing them to inhale paint fumes, to see what the effects would be. That, to me, is not about saving human lives.

Placing foreign objects into the brains of fetal rats, then studying their behaviour once born. Conclusion was brain damage. Isn't that obvious? Why does that need to be done? Thats not about saving human lives, thats just doing something because you 'can'.

These are not experiments to save human lives or find wonder drugs, they are experiments done to see 'what happens if....' when most of us could predict what would happen without needing to do this.
I wonder if people who support animal testing for non cosmetic reasons realise these kinds of tests go on, or whether they think its all about doing only what is 100% vital to find life saving medications.
It aint.

How about the recent thing about stitching the eyes of kittens shut to study lazy eyes? My OH has a lazy eye, and said he is perfectly happy living with it, and in no way would ever support torturing animals to try and 'cure' it. 
Its similar to how they artifically induce parkinsons symptoms into species which don't naturally get parkinsons to try and study parkinsons. 
An artificially induced disease in a species that doesn't naturally get that disease is NOT going to show results that are relevant to human parkinsons.

And yes, I used to be pro animal testing for the purposes of medications. I used to say the same 'oh, I have to accept it for drug purposes, its a sad necessity!'

Think about this, too:
IF we're to assume that we need to test on animals to get the best human model, then it makes sense that the best species to research on would be the chimp, our closest animal relative, and a species in our own group, primate.
If any animal can give us an idea of how humans would respond to something, it surely has to be a chimp.

And yet, chimps are frequently frowned upon hugely in experiments because of their 'intelligence' and supposed increased capacity to suffer. So some labs won't even use chimps, for these reasons. Primate studies are already being banned gradually.
The animal used most commonly in animal experimentation is rats, and mice.
The reason? Rats breed quickly, they are cheap to keep and feed, they don't take up much room, they're easy to get hold of, they're quiet. You can keep 300 rats in a lab, not so much 300 chimps.
Rats certainly aren't used because they're the best human model; they're used because they're the _cheapest_ and _easiest_. What does that tell you?
If animal experimentation was truly about finding the most accurate human model, usage of chimps would be on the increase, and people would be ok with this.

As it is, its going the other way, chimps are becoming less and we're testing more on the cheaper, easier alternative species. 
Makes no sense to me whatsoever. You have a species that is actually _related to humans_, and has very similar biology, and yet you're deciding instead to test on a species that is different in many ways, because its cheaper and easier? Mmm.....sounds very scientific.

Rats don't have a gall bladder, male rats get kidney cancer if they eat oranges, rats can't vomit, personally, I don't want any drug I might use tested on an animal so different to me.
If I _were_ to support animal testing, it would be chimps all the way, for me. Thats the only logical animal to use, to me. Mice, rabbits, rats, dogs.....no. I am not a rodent or a canine, Im a primate. Use a damn primate.

Of course, thats all said in context as I don't believe _any_ animal should be used to develop dangerous and outdated meds, but if one IS to believe it is necessary, one has to logically support usage of chimps above all others.
But people get all gooey about a baby chimp in a lab, while not giving a damn about a baby rat. Its all backwards. They object to the usage of the one species most likely to give human-accurate results, and embrace the usage of those far less like us......because its cheaper to torture rats than chimps, and easier and they can breed a lot quicker.

Thats the crux of animal testing here: use whats cheapest, most readily available and won't make too much mess or noise. Sounds totally scientific to me. 
Thats one of the reasons I don't trust the entire thing. So much of what I've read about animal experiments over the years seems so incredibly unscientific, and unecessary. 
I think sometimes the people who are pro testing like to have a little mental image in their head of very well cared for animals who are being used only when absolutely necessary to do tests for absolutely vital life saving drugs and procedures, that cannot be developed any other way, and ONLY these experiments are carried out, and the animals are given suitable pain relief and treated with respect throughout. 
This isn't how it is. Or at least, not in the majority of labs.

Animals beaten, abused, tortured, rats are rarely euthanised correctly and humanely once they're 'done with', they usually have their heads smacked against a table edge in a cack-handed attempt at cervical dislocation, and many are thrown into furnaces and freezers while still alive.
There is no gentle, respectful gradually introduced co2 death in most labs. No time, waste of money.
I won't delve into my folder of animal experimentation photographs, but needless to say, it would make your toes curl, even if you're not a rat lover like me. 
This is not science. No way.

Now, having said that, I don't hold malice to those who believe animal testing is still necessary. I really don't. Because I used to believe that, too. So I know the mindset, I know the thinking used, and it is easy to believe this way because we are brain washed into believing this way.
You can't blame people for still thinking like this. 
The only reason I actually got into researching this topic was because I wrote a book set in a lab, and had to get as much information as I could about it. Prior to that, I just went with the 'norm' view of 'well, Im sure they wouldn't do it unless it was absolutely necessary!'

And Im not a total bitch about it either.....I had someone from a large laboratory contact me to ask me advice on how to improve conditions for their rats, and understand them better.
She was completely frank with me, and said they did conduct tests on them, but hoped I could see past this to help them.
I did help them. I sent them a lot of information on how best to care for rats, how to handle them correctly (they were still picking them up by their tails at that point) and how to make their lives better.
Sure, I hate animal testing, but it would do the rats no favours at all if I ignored that email. 
My priority was the rats, and they weren't about to stop using them any time soon, so the best I could do was make sure they were cared for correctly.
And hey, at least this particular lab actually cared enough to ask how to make their rat's welfare better.

I will not ever be moved on this topic. Its too close to my heart. My rats are my children, I love them more than life. And the little white rat being tortured in the lab is no different to my little white rat, I am emotionally unable to ever support it any more than a parent would support similar abuse given to children.
No matter what the 'supposed benefits', no parent would ever support torturing kids in labs. I cannot ever support torturing rats and other animals in labs for the same reason.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

I disagree with everything you have said with regards to Lab animal welfare in this country- it is heavily monitored by the Home office, and these animals ARE well cared for by people who know what they are doing. Other countries unfortunately do not have the rules and regs we do, and some of the practices are shameful.

Totally take your point around Chimps for human disease, but what about veterinary medicine for dogs, cats, rats etc?. It is actually again down to the Home Office Ethics commity- not the scientist's as to species used- i can assure you it has nowt to do with the cheapness of rodents- many scientists would rather use chimps- but it is banned in this country.

Its really sad that you believe all rodents to be "tortured" if they spend time in a research facility, as this is not the case.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Shadowrat - can I ask how you did your research? Because tbh it doesn't match my experience in any lab that I've been in and it certainly isn't how my friends and former colleagues approached the use of animals in testing. No animals were euthanised by smacking them against a table and they certainly weren't incinerated alive - the majority required dissection so that would have been counter productive.

And I am unashamedly hierarchical when assigning rights and protections to other species. I don't eat pork because of the complexity and intelligence of pigs but I will eat (ethically farmed) chicken, I accept the use of monkeys such as rhesus macaques in testing (although there is research coming out of the US which is making me re-think it) but I fully support the ban on the use of great apes in medical testing in the UK.

My sister has a number of serious medical conditions (interlinked) and will require medication and a series of surgeries for the rest of her life. I would happily sacrifice any number of rats and mice to ensure that happens and yes, even pigs, dogs and monkeys as well. I am confident in the way the system runs in this country that the vast majority of lab animals are not mistreated and that the tests are done for valid scientific reasons (medical not testing of household cleaners etc.). Yes I want to see them reduced but not at the expense of developing new treatments and drugs.

And no, I am not brainwashed.


----------



## midnightrainbow (Dec 21, 2010)

For me, I think animal testing is disgusting, however some allowances should be made depending on the type of animals and what products are being tested. The only way it can remotely be excused is when it's for tests on medications to save humans/animals from horrific illnesses. Even then I think it would make more sense to test straight on human/human tissue than subjecting animals to needless torture. I don't think testing on intelligent animals such as dogs/monkeys etc is excusable.

And to me....testing on ANY animal for cosmetics/perfumes/etc that is beyond depraved in my eyes, it makes me sick to think it goes on. I don't see why any animals should suffer so some woman can make herself look a little bit better temporarily.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

(I think sometimes the people who are pro testing like to have a little mental image in their head of very well cared for animals who are being used only when absolutely necessary to do tests for absolutely vital life saving drugs and procedures, that cannot be developed any other way, and ONLY these experiments are carried out, and the animals are given suitable pain relief and treated with respect throughout. 
This isn't how it is. Or at least, not in the majority of labs.)

Quote from shadowrat above.

Do you know I do have a mental image just as you say. And do you know why. Because I actually have worked with experimental animals.
Where does your mental image of abused animals come from. From fake animal rights photos, from photos taken in other countries, or from your own experience of working with said animals.



Lexiedhb said:


> I disagree with everything you have said with regards to Lab animal welfare in this country- it is heavily monitored by the Home office, and these animals ARE well cared for by people who know what they are doing. Other countries unfortunately do not have the rules and regs we do, and some of the practices are shameful.
> 
> Totally take your point around Chimps for human disease, but what about veterinary medicine for dogs, cats, rats etc?. It is actually again down to the Home Office Ethics commity- not the scientist's as to species used- i can assure you it has nowt to do with the cheapness of rodents- many scientists would rather use chimps- but it is banned in this country.
> 
> Its really sad that you believe all rodents to be "tortured" if they spend time in a research facility, as this is not the case.


I totally agree with you on this.


----------



## Tapir (Mar 20, 2010)

I think I would do a placement there. Out of curiosity, and so I could see with my own eyes what goes on. It is very hard to make an informed opinion on animal testing when you have never seen it with your own eyes, and the only information you have to go on if often dramatic and passionate reports from antis and pros.

Animal testing upsets me, it is horrible to think of what some of the animals have to go through, however I think for medicines, it is a nessecary evil. And like Hayleyth said, it is up to the animal carers to make their lives better. It is a very hard matter.


----------



## thronesfan (Jun 20, 2012)

moonviolet said:


> I do think that in all industries as you become exposed to things you become hardened to them and lose the objective view


When I was about 15, I did a week of work experience at a university biology lab. They had animals that were used for student research projects - rats, finches, locusts, and some marine creatures (not sure what exactly, but I went down to the coast with a couple of the lab techs to collect some sea water for their tank). I got to help with feeding and cleaning the rats cages, and got to play with them too. I asked what happened to them after the research was finished and was told they were put to sleep. That didn't sit right with me, and I asked the lab tech how he felt about that. He shook his head and said he gave them as good a life as he could in the lab but the rest wasn't up to him. I couldn't do his job, but to his credit he spent all his break times with the rats, talking to them and handling them (the other lab techs thought that was weird, but I liked that about him).


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

thronesfan said:


> When I was about 15, I did a week of work experience at a university biology lab. They had animals that were used for student research projects - rats, finches, locusts, and some marine creatures (not sure what exactly, but I went down to the coast with a couple of the lab techs to collect some sea water for their tank). I got to help with feeding and cleaning the rats cages, and got to play with them too. I asked what happened to them after the research was finished and was told they were put to sleep. That didn't sit right with me, and I asked the lab tech how he felt about that. He shook his head and said he gave them as good a life as he could in the lab but the rest wasn't up to him. I couldn't do his job, but to his credit he spent all his break times with the rats, talking to them and handling them (the other lab techs thought that was weird, but I liked that about him).


That's a much better example than me getting used to seeing over paid bankers "exposing" themselves on film :thumbup:

Edited to add : i really really hope this doesn't get quoted out of context!:lol:


----------



## thronesfan (Jun 20, 2012)

moonviolet said:


> That's a much better example than me getting used to seeing over paid bankers "exposing" themselves on film :thumbup:


Yours was funnier though!


----------



## skip (Sep 25, 2011)

As much as I wish animal testing didn't happen I still think its a necessity and can't see a real alternative


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Im inhumane because i think we should test these products on the scum of the earth instead of animals, yes i see your reasoning there  Where do all these animals come from?? Are they bred onsite??


----------



## Izzysmummy (Oct 12, 2011)

L/C said:


> Still necessary unfortunately but I encourage and donate to causes that are trying to develop alternatives. I've worked in labs where they've used animals for testing and I'm friends with people who use animals in their research. I know the amount of paperwork and hoops you have to jump through and the standards of care in the labs I've been in are very high. So no, no issue with working in a lab that uses animals in tests. It's not particularly pleasant but at the moment there is not a viable alternative as we cannot accurately model full systemic interaction.


I totally agree with you here and understand the amount of paperwork and legislation there is in place to protect these lab animals! Far more than there are to protect dogs in puppy farms, racing kennels and farms. These animal testing establishments are licensed and monitored and the animals will have a much better standard of care than a lot of the dogs I see around Manchester.



Dogless said:


> I don't agree with testing on animals for cosmetics and household cleaners etc. I cannot in good conscience say that I don't agree with it for medical reasons as I take a drug which drastically improves my quality of life and allows me to still do so many of the things that I love. It was tested on animals yet I willingly take it and will continue to do so.


I wouldnt hesitate to take a medication if I needed to which would improve my quality of life even if it was tested on animals and I would hope my family and friends would do the same. I regularly take anti-histamines which will probably at some point in history have been tested on animals but I take them so I can leave the house and take Izzy on lovely walks in the summer!



moonviolet said:


> I would love to see the end of animal testing, certainly on cosmetics (currently it's legal to sell new cosmetic products within the EU that have been tested on animals outside the EU) and household products ( our homes are already so clean that it is linked to actually causing health issues) as for medicines I believe all modern methods need reviewing, so that all reasonable and responsible steps can be taken to reducing in the hope one day they will not be necessary. I have not once screamed it must stop now.


I agree that steps should be made to develop new techniques which can reduce the amount of animal testing that is required and totally disagree with it being used at all in developing cosmetics but for medical research I dont know if there will ever be a good enough substitute to completely erradicate the use of animals  although I would be happy to be proven wrong.



Blitz said:


> this is the problem isnt it. Everyone believes the 'undercover filming' that goes on rather than the reality - which is that dogs are kept in kennels and runs, often in groups, are very well looked after, loved, played with and exercised. If they have an experiment done on them that will cause suffering then they are put to sleep.
> 
> I am a self respecting animal lover and I have worked (a long time ago) with animals used for experiments. You could not have had happier and better looked after dogs and horses (the species I mainly worked with ). It was terribly sad when there was a terminal experiment and the whole department went into mourning but there was no question of any animal ever suffering.
> 
> ...


I totally agree with everything you have said Blitz!



Lexiedhb said:


> I disagree with everything you have said with regards to Lab animal welfare in this country- it is heavily monitored by the Home office, and these animals ARE well cared for by people who know what they are doing. Other countries unfortunately do not have the rules and regs we do, and some of the practices are shameful.


Totally agree with this. The rules that are in place to protect these animals from suffering are very closely monitored and every project needs to be approved by an ethics comittee.

I have seen farms where the animals and sheepdogs have been treated in unpleasant ways but I dont see animals rights activists protesting at the farm gates.

As I have said I dont agree with animal testing for cosmetics but I think it is still neccessary at the moment for medical research.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

midnightrainbow said:


> For me, I think animal testing is disgusting, however some allowances should be made depending on the type of animals and what products are being tested. The only way it can remotely be excused is when it's for tests on medications to save humans/animals from horrific illnesses. Even then I think it would make more sense to test straight on human/human tissue than subjecting animals to needless torture. *I don't think testing on intelligent animals such as dogs/monkeys etc is excusable.*
> 
> And to me....testing on ANY animal for cosmetics/perfumes/etc that is beyond depraved in my eyes, it makes me sick to think it goes on. I don't see why any animals should suffer so some woman can make herself look a little bit better temporarily.


Just curious to know what you think of tests done on 'less' intelligent animals, like birds, rodents & lagomorphs, as many people seem to attempt to salve their conscience by saying it's OK to test on 'verminous' & seemingly less 'lovable' species such as rats. I ask because as a rat lover I find the disposability of rats & mice in research quite distressing.

My vote goes with using genuine human test subjects such as paedophiles & rapists, that way they are actually putting something back into society rather than languishing in prison at the taxpayers' expense.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

First off, why does it matter if the abuse happens here or in another country? I don't dismiss it just because it isn't happening in the UK. So what if we have a higher percentage of 'good' (sic) labs here than elsewhere (if you say so....), does that mean we should disregard the horrendous ones because, hey, they're not happening in Britain!
Um. No.

Besides which, if people think Britain's labs are all roses and Disney songs for the animals, they're deluded. 
Sure, there probably ARE ones which are better than others, ones which don't do all the horrendous things listed, but lets remember the Huntingdon Life Sciences cruelty, which went under the radar for a long time before it was revealed just how awfully these animals were being treated. And what do you know, right in jolly old england! How could this be?!
And none of us would have had a clue if the lab hadn't been infiltrated by animal rights activists who finally got this crap revealed to the public.
People don't exactly broadcast that they're abusing animals in labs, they're not stupid, they know the cotton wool wrapped public would be up in arms if they realised that the poor wittle animals are hurt! They're good at hiding it.

It happens right under our noses, and it often doesn't get noticed. Saying that 'labs are monitored so we know no animal abuse is taking place' is as foolish as saying 'this farm is RSPCA freedom food monitored, so I know the pigs were well treated!' 
Animal Aid: Freedom Food Cruelty Exposed - Again

There are many animal related businesses which are supposedly monitored and held to 'strict guidelines' that have been revealed to have been hell holes behind closed doors. Thats not enough for me, Im afraid.

And to those who say they agree with animal testing but just not on great apes? Ridiculous.
If you're going to agree that testing on non-human animals brings results that are valid to the human species, you _cannot_ then exclude the most human-like animal of all from this just based on 'aaaww, they're so lovely!'
You either consider animal testing a necessary evil, in which case we should be using the species most like humans, or you consider it all flawed and pointless, in which case, we shouldn't use any species.
If someone had to test a drug for my usage, I'd rather it be tested on a primate, y'know, something from the same family as myself, than a rat. 
Im not a rodent. Im a primate, so test my drugs on primates, k, thanks.

Excluding great apes based on intelligence burns me. Did you know a rat has intelligence estimated to be anywhere from that of a 2 year old up to that of an 11 year old? Rats are extremely intelligent animals, social animals that live in family groups, like apes, and they have enormous capacity to suffer in those situations. 
Why exclude an ape on grounds of intelligence but allow a rat to be abused?
And for the record, Im playing devils advocate here: I don't believe apes should be used in experiments. Just like I don't believe mice, rats, dogs, cats and any other non human should be used in experiments.

Honestly, Im not an animal rights activist, I find groups like PETA to be at best laughable and at worst offensive. 
But this is one topic that I have been on both sides of, and I am not going to discount evidence just because it comes from animal rights activists. 
Photos don't lie, and neither do videos, regardless as to who obtained them. You cannot say 'where do you get your research material? Animal rights activists? Mwahahaha! Useless! How completely invalid your evidence must be!'
Well, videos of animals being abused in labs, and even, gasp, BRITISH labs, does not lie. These people have no reason to make this up, but the labs have every reason to try and cover it up. 
I know who I consider to have the more pure motive.....

Honestly, though, if people wanna tell themselves that labs are lovely places for animals, and that they're all wonderfully regulated and nothing cruel could ever go on behind closed doors, and that anyone who doesn't believe this is obviously a tree hugging animal rights activist, well, so be it. You have the right to believe this.
And I have the right to believe you're naive and brain washed. We'll both be happy.

I have to mention that I have no problem with non-invasive tests on animals, ie, tests that don't involve cruelty, dissection, abuse, pain and fear. 
Running a rat through a maze, or teaching it a series of tricks/activities doesn't concern me at all.
Putting a rat in a skinner box, shocking it electronically, making it inhale paint fumes, deliberately paralysing it, keep it awake for days to see how long it takes it to die, subjecting it to extremes of heat and cold, injecting it with toxins and putting electrical implants in its brain _does_.
And, well, that won't change as long as Im an animal lover.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Shadowrat - why exactly are you being so hostile and insulting in a debate that has remained, up until now, civil and informative? People have more views in common on this thread then they do different and you describing posters as ridiculous and brainwashed is only going to get people's backs up and increase the risk of it degenerating into a slanging match. It's an inflammatory subject but the majority of posters are trying to put their view point across neutrally and just because they disagree with you doesn't mean you get to insult them.

Some of us have first hand experience of what is being spoken about and we aren't relying on organisations that have vested interests. I have no doubt that their are labs that may fall short of the standards that they should meet but so do many other places that care for animals (and people!), no industry is perfect. And it shouldn't have to be perfect to continue existing - no one is suggesting that we close down all care homes for the elderly because some have cases of abuse.

As for hierarchy of cognition - I stand by it. My views are along the lines of (but far, far less extreme then - I do not agree with his comments about disabled people) Peter Singer's. I do believe that more complex cognition does confer more rights upon species. So I can absolutely exclude Great Apes from testing - there is a compelling weight of evidence of Great Apes acquiring language, that is quantifiably different from other animals. They also pass the mirror test (along with elephants, dolphins, orcas and, interestingly, magpies) which suggests a level of self awareness not seen in other species (or young children). It's not the be all and end all of tests but it is an important one.

As for the comments about rat cognition I'm not convinced - I know rats are intelligent and quick learners but I've never seen any evidence that they are as complex as you are saying. If there is would you please link to it so I can read it? I did a quick google scholar search but nothing came up.

ETA: The constant calls for paedophiles and rapists to be used...how many do you think are in prison? What level of rape or sexual assault gets you put in for the testing? What do you do if you later find out that the person who has been tested on was innocent? What happens if they die/need to be dissected? Are you actually advocating the death penalty by stealth? Why only these two categories of prisoner?


----------



## GoldenShadow (Jun 15, 2009)

I left my dog at the vets this morning with a swollen eye, he needed to be sedated so they can have a proper look at it and try to find a foreign body. They were unable to give me an update on the phone and said they will speak to me when I get there, so I'm sat here wondering if I'm now going to have a semi blind dog, let alone a dead one.

The thought of him being made half blind in an accident, that makes me feel sick, the thought of it happening because of an intentional experiment? I cannot even begin to comprehend being able to witness let alone carry out experiments which could cause any such harm to an animal.

ETA: there is no way in hell I could set foot in one without it scarring me for life, I need the distance to be less affected by it.


----------



## Helbo (Sep 15, 2010)

Not read the whole thread 

But just wanted to say that I don't support testing on animals at all and I try my best to avoid products that are. In this day and age there are alternatives to testing on a living being, it's just cheaper and easier to test on dogs etc. 

If there weren't any alternatives, I'd see it as a necessary evil for medication. But since there are, I can't support it.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

In an earlier post i said murderers, rapists and child molesters. According to the BBC it costs tax payers £47000 per year per person in prison, they do nothing and contribute nothing to society.

They should first be proven guilty and in this day and age we have ways to prove that some one has done something, dna, transfers, fingerprints etc. Im not advocating the death penalty by stealth at all, as far as i was aware, looking at this thread that the animals dont die?? Well most of them get rehomed is what i read so no death there


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Okay i will put this another way, will any one supporting this willing let someone test untested drugs on their dogs?? Knowing it could kill/maim/harm you beloved pet??


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

tashax said:


> Okay i will put this another way, will any one supporting this willing let someone test untested drugs on their dogs?? Knowing it could kill/maim/harm you beloved pet??


No and that's one of the arguments for animal testing - how do you develop new veterinary drugs _without_ animal testing? So would you treat your dog with a drug that hadn't been tested because animal testing isn't allowed?

And no I wouldn't surrender my pet for animal testing. The same way I used to keep pet rabbits but also ate the ones that my grandfather raised for meat. I assigned different values to them - people do it all the time. Do you feed your dog a meat based diet? If all animals are as important as one another to you then how can that be ethically sound?


----------



## Izzysmummy (Oct 12, 2011)

tashax said:


> Okay i will put this another way, will any one supporting this willing let someone test untested drugs on their dogs?? Knowing it could kill/maim/harm you beloved pet??


No! I would want to know that the drug had been tested before it was used on Izzy. I also have her vaccinated, flea treated and wormed all of which Im sure would have been tested on animals. She was spayed earlier this year and Im sure the anaethetic would also have been tested.

ETA: I would be interested to know how many people against animal testing also eat meat and feed their dog a meat based diet.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

L/C said:


> Some of us have first hand experience of what is being spoken about and we aren't relying on organisations that have vested interests.


So Im not allowed to think someone's views are ridiculous, or believe that a lot of the public are brain washed about this issue, but you're allowed to imply that your opinion is more valid than mine because you have 'first hand experience' and 'don't rely on organisations with a vested interest'.

What vested interest do those who oppose animal cruelty have, other than trying to get a better life for animals? 
The labs are the ones with money and careers tied up in what they do, so if anyone has a 'vested interest' I'd say its them. 
Seems to me that you're assuming my entire view on this issue is based on reading animal rights websites.......



L/C said:


> I do believe that more complex cognition does confer more rights upon species. So I can absolutely exclude Great Apes from testing - there is a compelling weight of evidence of Great Apes acquiring language, that is quantifiably different from other animals. They also pass the mirror test (along with elephants, dolphins, orcas and, interestingly, magpies) which suggests a level of self awareness not seen in other species (or young children). It's not the be all and end all of tests but it is an important one.


I understand what you are saying about the smarter an animal, the more you care about its rights. We all do that. Thats why we care more about dogs than fruit flies. 
But my question is how can you believe that animal testing provides results that are relevant to human biology but then promote excluding the one species that is most similar to us and would logically be of most use? Isn't that like trying to make the perfect apple pie, but using lemons instead of apples? 
If animal testing is valid, then surely apes are the species able to give the best model of a human, yet you don't agree with using them?
It makes no sense, to me. 
Why scrabble about using something inferior when you have the best model right there? It just reads to me like 'well, apes are obviously the best human model we have, but we can't use them because they're so smart and cute and appealing, so we'll mess around with some rats and dogs for a while and see if we can scrape up something relevant from them instead'.



L/C said:


> As for the comments about rat cognition I'm not convinced - I know rats are intelligent and quick learners but I've never seen any evidence that they are as complex as you are saying. If there is would you please link to it so I can read it? I did a quick google scholar search but nothing came up.


What do you want proof of, specifically?
Rats have been shown to suffer 'peer pressure', something previously only thought to exist in humans and apes:
Even rats feel peer pressure

Rats are one of the only species other than humans and apes, that have been proven to both dream and laugh. Other species likely do, but only rats, humans and apes have been proven to. 
It is widely known that they are hugely intelligent, and after living with them for 16 years, I can fully agree with this. When you live with these animals for that amount of time, you cannot fail to realise how smart they are, and Im sure other rat owners would back me up on this.
Are they as smart as, say, a gorilla? Probably not. 
But they are still above and beyond the intelligence of most other species used in laboratories, which means they should at least be given similar respect to the other 'smart' animals, but instead, they're treated possibly the worst of all.

You get some duds.....just like you do with people, but generally, rats amaze me every day with their smarts, how they manage to work things out, how they perform, how easily they pick things up. 
Some of my rats are easily as intelligent as my dog, learn as quickly and are capable of the same or greater level of performance. 
I wouldn't have believed it either if I'd never owned and worked with them.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

tashax said:


> Okay i will put this another way, will any one supporting this willing let someone test untested drugs on their dogs?? Knowing it could kill/maim/harm you beloved pet??


They arent pet dogs though? Its a buisness which IMO does need to be. But i would rather test on my dog than give medication to humans which had been untested. The dogs are well looked after but are not pets.


----------



## catseyes (Sep 10, 2010)

Wow long thread to read and i have to say i am torn.

I do not in any way think animals should be used for testing of household products etc.. BUT like many have said there wouldnt be vet treatments if animals hadnt been used to test them, im sure every one of us here regardless of what we believe in or think have used medications for our pets.

As for testing for human medications I also think that the prisoners, rapists etc should be used for this.. i put my ex in prison after he half killed me, would have no problem with him being tested on whilst he rots in hell!!

I have a health condition which isnt curable and take approx 20-30 tablets a day to keep myself able to move and live, could i do that without testing? no, could my mum have beaten breast cancer twice before she hit 51 without testing no., but i still think it should be done on humans.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Shadowrat said:


> So Im not allowed to think someone's views are ridiculous, or believe that a lot of the public are brain washed about this issue, but you're allowed to imply that your opinion is more valid than mine because you have 'first hand experience' and 'don't rely on organisations with a vested interest'.
> 
> What vested interest do those who oppose animal cruelty have, other than trying to get a better life for animals?
> The labs are the ones with money and careers tied up in what they do, so if anyone has a 'vested interest' I'd say its them.
> Seems to me that you're assuming my entire view on this issue is based on reading animal rights websites.......


I asked how you did your research and the only link you gave was to Animal Aid so that's not an unfair assumption. I'm not saying my opinion is more valid but to call people brainwashed when they have experience of what you are talking about but just haven't come to the same conclusion is insulting and rude. I'm quite capable of reading, visiting labs, talking to people on both sides of the debate and still make the decision that for now animal testing is the only way to test complete systemic interaction of drugs and to test new surgical procedures.



Shadowrat said:


> I understand what you are saying about the smarter an animal, the more you care about its rights. We all do that. Thats why we care more about dogs than fruit flies.
> But my question is how can you believe that animal testing provides results that are relevant to human biology but then promote excluding the one species that is most similar to us and would logically be of most use? Isn't that like trying to make the perfect apple pie, but using lemons instead of apples?
> If animal testing is valid, then surely apes are the species able to give the best model of a human, yet you don't agree with using them?
> It makes no sense, to me.
> Why scrabble about using something inferior when you have the best model right there? It just reads to me like 'well, apes are obviously the best human model we have, but we can't use them because they're so smart and cute and appealing, so we'll mess around with some rats and dogs for a while and see if we can scrape up something relevant from them instead'.


It has nothing to do with how smart or cute they are. It has to do with self awareness and sentience. As far as I am concerned with an animal that is as intelligent and aware as a great ape it is as morally wrong to experiment on them as it would be to experiment on a child.



Shadowrat said:


> What do you want proof of, specifically?
> Rats have been shown to suffer 'peer pressure', something previously only thought to exist in humans and apes:
> Even rats feel peer pressure
> 
> ...


I don't want proof of anything specifically. I'm interested in animal cognition and if rats are as complex as you are saying then I would revise my opinion on how it is ethical to use them in medical experiments. So I'd be interested in reading papers on just what they are capable of achieving.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Izzysmummy said:


> No! I would want to know that the drug had been tested before it was used on Izzy. I also have her vaccinated, flea treated and wormed all of which Im sure would have been tested on animals. She was spayed earlier this year and Im sure the anaethetic would also have been tested.
> 
> *ETA: I would be interested to know how many people against animal testing also eat meat and feed their dog a meat based diet*.


See this is what I struggle with when meat eaters are vehemently against animal testing. I just don't understand how people with these views continue to eat meat when the meat industry is reponsible for the deaths & mistreatment of so many more animals 

It is also so easy to live on a vegetarian diet so meat is not really an 'essential' requirement as I believe animal testing (at this time) is.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

hayleyth said:


> But i would rather test on my dog than give medication to humans which had been untested.


This is one of the problems with animal testing: people assume that if something has been tested on animals, it is therefore safe for people, like the animal test is the 'safety belt' for the drug in humans.

And often, it is the opposite. This is one of the main reasons I oppose animal testing, and would continue to do so even if I hated animals and had no concern for their welfare.
I oppose animal tests as much for human welfare reasons as for animal welfare.

You speak of an 'untested' drug as if it would be unthinkable to give such a thing to a human, but this relies on the misconception that testing something on an animal makes it safe for people.
You've just as much risk of coming to harm from a drug tested on a rat or dog as you have an untested drug. 
In the UK, the British Medical Journal estimated that 10,000 people are killed every year by medical drugs. Thats 27 every day.

In the US, a drug called Vioxx was tested extensively on animals, and declared safe.
Estimates are that 88,000 to 139,000 people had heart attacks and strokes as a result of taking this drug, and something like 55,000 of them were fatal.

And lets not forget Thalidomide, another wonder drug declared totally safe for people based on animal tests. 
There are SO many more. But these are just the ones that stick in my head.

To me, an animal tested drug and an untested drug are of the same concern.


----------



## Izzysmummy (Oct 12, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> This is one of the problems with animal testing: people assume that if something has been tested on animals, it is therefore safe for people, like the animal test is the 'safety belt' for the drug in humans.
> 
> And often, it is the opposite. This is one of the main reasons I oppose animal testing, and would continue to do so even if I hated animals and had no concern for their welfare.
> I oppose animal tests as much for human welfare reasons as for animal welfare.
> ...


But what would those numbers be if drugs were not first tested on animals! I would guess in the millions!!!


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Shadowrat said:


> This is one of the problems with animal testing: people assume that if something has been tested on animals, it is therefore safe for people, like the animal test is the 'safety belt' for the drug in humans.
> 
> And often, it is the opposite. This is one of the main reasons I oppose animal testing, and would continue to do so even if I hated animals and had no concern for their welfare.
> I oppose animal tests as much for human welfare reasons as for animal welfare.
> ...


Taken from the Pro research website

"Before submitting Vioxx to the US Food and Drug Agency in 1998, Merck conducted 58 studies involving over 10,000 patients. Over half of them took Vioxx, many for over a year. 80 million prescriptions for Vioxx were issued in total while the drug was on the market.

The FDA estimated that it caused 88,000 to 139,000 heart attacks, 30 to 40 per cent of which were fatal.

The maximum number of fatal heart attacks is therefore 55,600 - out of 80,000,000 prescriptions. As a fraction, this is extremely low (0.0007). This is not to rule out the seriousness of the alleged side-effects on those it affected, but rather to point out how rarely these side effects were produced.

*When side effects are this rare, it is almost impossible to detect them in clinical trials. For example, the number of animals used in trials was limited for ethical reasons - only a few hundred were used. This made it impossible to detect a side effect that would only show up in every 1 in 400 cases. To detect a 1 in 400 incidence of a side effect would require the use of at least 5,000 animals to be sure the data was statistically significant (p = 0.005) rather than just a chance occurrence*"

If you really believe that these drugs are unsafe do you use them? If do then why? I genuinely am interested as many people argue that they have no choice but if you genuinely believe they are unsafe then I would be confiused as to why you would use them?


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

I cannot abuse the trust placed in me by animals we have bred as companions for thousands of years so no, I could not.

People who commt serious crimes like rape, pedophlia, murder should be put on these testing units. They are far more deserving of sufferng and the results would be alot better :thumbup:


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

I have stomach reflux for which i am ment to take meds, i dont. I have been prescribed sertaline by my doctor, never picked it up. The only drug i will use is my anti sickness drugs because if i didnt take them i would be locked up in a mental hospital by now. Frey is not vacinated, she had her first vacs but didnt have them again. I dont eat meat or fish. Frey eats meat simply because she needs it. I understand everyones opinions on this and where every one stands on the matter and everyone has my respect for standing up for what they believe in. I dont think any one should have to justify why they believe in something, it should just be taken as a part of who they are, because every single person is unique in every way


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

L/C said:


> It has nothing to do with how smart or cute they are. It has to do with self awareness and sentience. As far as I am concerned with an animal that is as intelligent and aware as a great ape it is as morally wrong to experiment on them as it would be to experiment on a child.


You're still not addressing my point though.
If you believe animal experimentation is vital to help human beings, then you clearly agree that animal suffering is acceptable if it is for the greater good of humanity.
So why do you still shun the experiments that are likely to be the _most_ accurate and most helpful to humans, ie, apes?
I understand your point about them being self aware etc, I've always understood that, but if you're going to believe that animal experimentation is vital for the good of mankind, you can't then logically omit the one animal species that would advance this the most, ie, apes because you're personally uncomfortable with it.
You either believe we vitally need animal testing, or you don't. And if you believe we do, then you have to support doing it in the most accurate and beneficial way, which would be on apes. 
Whats the point in testing drugs on animals that are not like us, when we have examples of those that are?

Is your priority humans, or apes?
If its humans, and you believe animal testing is the only way to get life saving meds, then you have to 'sacrifice' the apes.

I really do get what you're saying, honestly, I do. I love apes, and I know how special they are. 
But if I supported animal testing, because I genuinely thought it was the only way to get life saving drugs for humans, I would have to support it being tested on primate species, no matter how personally uncomfortable I found it, because logic tells you that apes will bring the best results for humans.

Now, if you honestly believe that apes are comparable to human children, and that even if they could bring great advancements to human medicines, we shouldn't use them, well, I respect that. Because thats how I feel about rats.



L/C said:


> I don't want proof of anything specifically. I'm interested in animal cognition and if rats are as complex as you are saying then I would revise my opinion on how it is ethical to use them in medical experiments. So I'd be interested in reading papers on just what they are capable of achieving.


I'll try and dig some things out later, I used to have folders full of these articles.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Starlite said:


> I cannot abuse the trust placed in me by animals we have bred as companions for thousands of years so no, I could not.
> 
> *People who commt serious crimes like rape, pedophlia, murder should be put on these testing units. They are far more deserving of sufferng and the results would be alot better* :thumbup:


And if they die during testing? If they turn out to be innocent? What level of sexual assault gets you put in the programme? Flasher? Groping? Rape without overt violence? Stranger rape? What type of murder? Bar fight gone wrong? Dangerous driving? Who gets to decide who gets put in these trials? Judges at sentencing? Does the home secretary? Are they responsible if the person turns out to be innocent?


----------



## Coinneach (Apr 18, 2012)

Part of the issue with animal testing is that it is mandated by the government. No drug can progress to human trials without first being tested on animals. The scientific community in general is trying to move away from animal testing, but until two things happen - the development of reliable non-animal tests/models and a change in legislation - that's not going to be possible.

I trained as a microbiologist and cell biologist and although I haven't worked in animal labs, I have visited them. In most cases (I can't say all, because I haven't visited all labs) the animals' welfare is very important. They are better-cared for than most people's pets because they have to be in the best condition for the tests.

There are much stricter regulations in place to ensure the welfare of animals used in experiments than there are for the welfare of farm animals, and they are monitored more closely and receive veterinary treatment much more quickly than people's pets.

Many of the images and information used by animal rights campaigners are out of date and depict practices which are no longer in use - at least in the UK. Yes, unethical experiments were carried out in the past, but that doesn't mean they still go on. Before an experiment is allowed to go ahead, it is assessed by an ethics committee which decides whether it has merit or will cause undue suffering to the test subjects. If it doesn't meet the required standards, it doesn't go ahead.

Yes, there are differences in the way people and animals react to different drugs. That's why a variety of animals are used, because this gives the best chance of understanding the effects of a substance on a human.

Personally, I think animal testing is the lesser of two evils. I'd rather have the medicines and treatments which have been developed using animal testing than rely on trial and error and old wives' tales. The ultimate aim is to move away from animal testing, but I can't see that happening any time soon, and until then, we're stuck with it. All we can do in the meantime is to keep learning, press for changes in legislation and ensure that the animals are well treated.


----------



## Helbo (Sep 15, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> See this is what I struggle with when meat eaters are vehemently against animal testing. I just don't understand how people with these views continue to eat meat when the meat industry is reponsible for the deaths & mistreatment of so many more animals
> 
> It is also so easy to live on a vegetarian diet so meat is not really an 'essential' requirement as I believe animal testing (at this time) is.


I don't think eating meat means that you can't disagree with animal testing.

It's up to each person to be responsible with their purchases - free range eggs, fish from sustainable sources, not buying battery chickens...trying to avoid products tested on animals. What is the difference?

I eat meat/fish - I wish the people mistreating animals to provide it would use alternative methods. I use medicine sometimes - I wish the people developing it didn't test it on animals but would use alternative methods.


----------



## L/C (Aug 9, 2010)

Shadowrat said:


> You're still not addressing my point though.
> If you believe animal experimentation is vital to help human beings, then you clearly agree that animal suffering is acceptable if it is for the greater good of humanity.
> So why do you still shun the experiments that are likely to be the _most_ accurate and most helpful to humans, ie, apes?
> I understand your point about them being self aware etc, I've always understood that, but if you're going to believe that animal experimentation is vital for the good of mankind, you can't then logically omit the one animal species that would advance this the most, ie, apes because you're personally uncomfortable with it.
> ...


Because to me the moral good of helping people does not outweigh the ethical problems of experimenting on animals who have such complex cognition. In the same way I would not support experimenting on elephants or cetaceans. For other less complex species the moral good of helping people outweighs the ethical issues with the experiments. And yes I do believe Great Apes are comparable to children - Kanzi and his sister's acquisition of language supports that.



Shadowrat said:


> I'll try and dig some things out later, I used to have folders full of these articles.


I'd really appreciate that, thanks.


----------



## gayle38 (Jul 16, 2012)

Why would you post on a pet forum saying you are going to work where they test on animals :mad2:


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

hayleyth said:


> Do you think you would feel different if you were there and understood it more and saw it?
> 
> I went today and i was very happy with all the animals and it was alot better than expected. There were some upsetting aspects but no where near as bad as some people make out.


Everyone has said it all but I would just add - what the hell gives you the right? Why do you imagine you are so superior and more important that you can lock up these animals and test out god knows what on them, just so humans can be safe?

"there were some upsetting aspects"? Give me a break! It comes down to the simple fact that human beings are of no more importance than animals and if they want to make stuff safe for themselves, then they should be experimenting on themselves.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

tashax said:


> Im inhumane because i think we should test these products on the scum of the earth instead of animals, yes i see your reasoning there  Where do all these animals come from?? Are they bred onsite??


A lot of the animals will be bred for the job. They have to have a known health history which would include diet etc for a lot of the experiments. Another reason, apart from common sense , why humans cannot be used initially as their diverse health status including the use of drugs, alcohol and tobacco would preclude them from initial testing.



Shadowrat said:


> This is one of the problems with animal testing: people assume that if something has been tested on animals, it is therefore safe for people, like the animal test is the 'safety belt' for the drug in humans.
> 
> And often, it is the opposite. This is one of the main reasons I oppose animal testing, and would continue to do so even if I hated animals and had no concern for their welfare.
> I oppose animal tests as much for human welfare reasons as for animal welfare.
> ...


surely though it is better to test on animals in case of extreme side effects then test on humans - which is what currently happens - when the drug has been proved as safe as possible.
By the way I took vioxx for some years and was then taken off it and put on to something else. I think I have been on 3 or 4 similar drugs which have been withdrawn because of risks of stroke and heart attack. Some of them are still available, you just get given the choice - and most people would prefer lack of pain to the tiny tiny chance of a drug related stroke or heart attack.

Another problem with testing on criminals is that it would contravene their human rights. Do not forget that they got compensation for having to empty their potties and they have to be allowed to vote. So even if I agreed, which I most definitely do not, it is never going to happen.



gayle38 said:


> Why would you post on a pet forum saying you are going to work where they test on animals :mad2:


Why shoudn't she post that. If you read the whole thread you will see there are others, including me, that have worked in such places and who are quite comfortable about it. Just because you own a pet and love animals you are not precluded from working with research animals. In fact I really hope that everyone that works with them loves animals and will give them the care and affection they deserve.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

gayle38 said:


> Why would you post on a pet forum saying you are going to work where they test on animals :mad2:


Why not? It is some peoples career. It does not mean they do not love animals, in fact quite the opposite- they do everything in their power to ensure these animals are well cared for and do not suffer whilst under going the necessary evil (currently) that is animal testing.

These animals ARE NOT PETS. They are bred for purpose, much like meat animals. We do not NEED to eat meat so should we target farmers who raise animals purely so we can indulge? Or those Veggies that still eat dairy......... what do you think happens to a vast majority of male calves born to dairy herds?

I am still utterly utterly confused by the fact that folk class the life of a human (rapist's etc aside) as of the same importance as that of an animal. Who dies My mum or my dog? Heartbreaking as it would be I would have to value the human life more.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Helbo said:


> I don't think eating meat means that you can't disagree with animal testing.
> 
> It's up to each person to be responsible with their purchases - free range eggs, fish from sustainable sources, not buying battery chickens...trying to avoid products tested on animals. What is the difference?
> 
> I eat meat/fish - I wish the people mistreating animals to provide it would use alternative methods. I use medicine sometimes - I wish the people developing it didn't test it on animals but would use alternative methods.


I disagree, I said in earlier post that we are all guilty of hypocricy to a degree but to eat meat which is not vital to a human diet (I am living proof! ) & yet object to animal experimentaion baffles me 

Whether you eat free range or not the animal in question will suffer at the end of it's life. Hopefully, it's life whilst aliove will be better if it is free range but at the end it will suffer, it will be incredibly stressed as it is transported to the slaughter house & may suffer pain. The animals that will suffer for the sake of people plates is millions, far greater than those used in experimentation & the suffering they endure (imo) is far, far greater.

I just don't get how people can be so concerned for laboratory animals & think their suffering is inexcuseable yet can't see the same for farm animals :confused1:


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> If you really believe that these drugs are unsafe do you use them? If do then why? I genuinely am interested as many people argue that they have no choice but if you genuinely believe they are unsafe then I would be confiused as to why you would use them?


I don't, I wasn't going to bring this up, but I am lucky in that I am generally healthy, I have not been to visit the Doctor since i was 16. I treat minor ailments with herbs and weeds! Many that I grow myself. I'm in the process of drying my winter cold supplies. I appreciate it's not an option for everything or everyone. I honestly can't say i never will if faced with a serious condition or illness. when i began this path i was quite convinced would die in some clumsiness related accident. Hasn't happened yet and as i get older the possibility of some painful debilitating condition becomes greater. I guess I will face that if/when the time comes.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

gayle38 said:


> Why would you post on a pet forum saying you are going to work where they test on animals :mad2:


Because not all people disagree with it? And im going there to cAre for the animals ? I have various qualifications with animals so working there does not mean i dont like animals? Animal testing is going to happen for a long time, if i can make a difference in the animals live there then i will.


----------



## Lexiedhb (Jun 9, 2011)

hayleyth said:


> Because not all people disagree with it? And im going there to cAre for the animals ? I have various qualifications with animals so working there does not mean i dont like animals? Animal testing is going to happen for a long time, if i can make a difference in the animals live there then i will.


Partly because you would need to be licensed by the Home Office to be able to carry out even minor procedures!


----------



## catseyes (Sep 10, 2010)

moonviolet said:


> I don't, I wasn't going to bring this up, but I am lucky in that I am generally healthy, I have not been to visit the Doctor since i was 16. I treat minor ailments with herbs and weeds! Many that I grow myself. I'm in the process of drying my winter cold supplies. I appreciate it's not an option for everything or everyone. I honestly can't say i never will if faced with a serious condition or illness. when i began this path i was quite convinced would die in some clumsiness related accident. Hasn't happened yet and as i get older the possibility of some painful debilitating condition becomes more greater. I guess I will face that if/when the time comes.


Its not a hard decision when your choices are lay in bed day to day unable to move in agony or to take 6 different prescription medications each day to allow you to live relatively normally.. i have had 9 surgeries in 4 years wouldnt have been possible without testing on humans or animals.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

moonviolet said:


> I don't, I wasn't going to bring this up, but I am lucky in that I am generally healthy, I have not been to visit the Doctor since i was 16. I treat minor ailments with herbs and weeds! Many that I grow myself. I'm in the process of drying my winter cold supplies. I appreciate it's not an option for everything or everyone. I honestly can't say i never will if faced with a serious condition or illness. when i began this path i was quite convinced would die in some clumsiness related accident. Hasn't happened yet and as i get older the possibility of some painful debilitating condition becomes more greater. I guess I will face that if/when the time comes.


Good on you! :thumbup: I do admire people who can & do stick to their beliefs no matter how difficult it is at times. I recognise that some people will do all they can to ensure they are healthy, research other medication for ailments, etc & that is how it should be (imo)

But that's why I do have to query why people who are so anti still continue to live such unhealthy lifestyles which may (or more likely will) increase their chances of diseases/conditions that require medication therefore contributing to animal research.


----------



## JustmeGemmy (Jun 30, 2011)

I read a lot of the replies, and I'll go back and read some more in a sec. I'm starting an animal management and welfare course in Sept. I've been offered the opportunity to do a work placement in an animal testing lab. I've been going back and forth with it ever since my interview in Feb! I've found it incredibly difficult to just make a decision! The lab is extremely well thought of & it would be an honour to be offered the placement. However, I just don't think I could be in that environment. I know labs probably aren't as bad as my mind makes them out to be.. I'm sure the RSPCA comes across worse cases when investigating neglect or abuse. But, at the same time, it makes me so sad to think of these poor dogs, rabbits or mice not living a life that they're supposed to. Not being allowed to be free, in the wild, or even in a loving home. They know no better, I suppose. Their lives are probably very nice. Still, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. 

I'm not sure if it's been said.. One of the main reasons animals are used is that they don't take as long to mature physically as Humans do. It wouldn't be practical to use people for the first few rounds of testing. 

I agree with a couple of other people on here, that animal testing doesn't even really prove anything is safe for Humans. I wouldn't take a drug that hadn't been tested on people! Could you imagine it? Here are your tablets, don't worry.. They didn't kill any of our rats! Ack. Animals are so different to people.


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

catseyes said:


> Its not a hard decision when your choices are lay in bed day to day unable to move in agony or to take 6 different prescription medications each day to allow you to live relatively normally.. i have had 9 surgeries in 4 years wouldnt have been possible without testing on humans or animals.


Oh please dont' think i'm judging anyone who uses prescription, pharmacy or over the counter drugs. I have been truly fortunate in that i haven't had my conviction tested. I do hope i haven't caused any offence.

While spiritual i dont' believe in a single being who made it all happen... but i can't guarantee i won't find god when i'm on my deathbed.

I'm no saint, I smoked for many years and i do go to the dentist


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> Everyone has said it all but I would just add - what the hell gives you the right? Why do you imagine you are so superior and more important that you can lock up these animals and test out god knows what on them, just so humans can be safe?
> 
> "there were some upsetting aspects"? Give me a break! It comes down to the simple fact that human beings are of no more importance than animals and if they want to make stuff safe for themselves, then they should be experimenting on themselves.


I don't think I've ever seen you post anything I disagree with. This is no exception. Thankyou.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

moonviolet said:


> I don't, I wasn't going to bring this up, but I am lucky in that I am generally healthy, I have not been to visit the Doctor since i was 16. I treat minor ailments with herbs and weeds! Many that I grow myself. I'm in the process of drying my winter cold supplies. I appreciate it's not an option for everything or everyone. I honestly can't say i never will if faced with a serious condition or illness. when i began this path i was quite convinced would die in some clumsiness related accident. Hasn't happened yet and as i get older the possibility of some painful debilitating condition becomes greater. I guess I will face that if/when the time comes.


Good for you, I use alternatives where I can & will be growing my own once my garden's properly sorted. My dad has an amazing, but time consuming, recipe for an elderberry cordial, it makes an amazing cold relief when hot water's added (with or without a wee dram to spice it up)
I did spend many years trying to find an alternative to conventional medication for my severe depression, but unfortunately nothing worked. I tried St. John's Wort, B complex vitamins, Agnus Castus, Evening Primrose Oil & a couple of obscure one (IIRC one was called dong quhi or something) & counselling.
I take my antidepressants because I have others dependent on me being mentally & physically well. If there was an alternative I would be there like a shot, instead I support & donate when I can to those who will help to find alternatives to animal testing


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> Good for you, I use alternatives where I can & will be growing my own once my garden's properly sorted. My dad has an amazing, but time consuming, recipe for an elderberry cordial, it makes an amazing cold relief when hot water's added (with or without a wee dram to spice it up)
> I did spend many years trying to find an alternative to conventional medication for my severe depression, but unfortunately nothing worked. I tried St. John's Wort, B complex vitamins, Agnus Castus, Evening Primrose Oil & a couple of obscure one (IIRC one was called dong quhi or something) & counselling.
> I take my antidepressants because I have others dependent on me being mentally & physically well. *If there was an alternative I would be there like a shot,* instead I support & donate when I can to those who will help to find alternatives to animal testing


There is no anti depressant as effective as a puppy licking your face!


----------



## OMC (Jul 28, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> There is no anti depressant as effective as a puppy licking your face!


Hmmmm I doubt anyone suffering from clinical depression would agree with that


----------



## Helbo (Sep 15, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> I just don't get how people can be so concerned for laboratory animals & think their suffering is inexcuseable yet can't see the same for farm animals :confused1:


It may sound hypocritical to you - thats your opinion, thats fine

But to me, an animal having to live for the rest of it's life blind or crippled from having a drug tested on them - but being kept alive because they could still have shampoo put down their throats to see what happens is worlds away from a chicken having a nice but short life, being stressed out for a day being transported and what not, then having their life ended as quickly as possibly.

I see it like this: if there was another way to get a nice steak (an actual steak, not a substitute with the same nutrition...) on my plate without an animal having to suffer and/or die, I'd want it done that way. Unfortunately what I've just said is nonsense. But, there IS another way to get that medicine on the shelf without an animal having to suffer and/or die.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Helbo said:


> It may sound hypocritical to you - thats your opinion, thats fine
> 
> But to me, an animal having to live for the rest of it's life blind or crippled from having a drug tested on them - but being kept alive because they could still have shampoo put down their throats to see what happens is worlds away from a chicken having a nice but short life, being stressed out for a day being transported and what not, then having their life ended as quickly as possibly.
> 
> ...


I really don't understand your logic, lab animals are bred to be used the same way as farm animals :confused1:

Animals that have been used in research have benefitted millions of people & helped them lead better lives & yet that is 'wrong' but the many more millions of animals who have been killed to simply fill peoples stomachs is justified - no I don't understand at all.

Many farm animals live longer in their captivity than a lab animal would so you could argue their 'suffering' would be longer. A lab animal would be humanely pts whilst a farm animal may travel alot before finally being killed & have to wait it's turn in line to die, I know which I think is worse but yes that is my opinion.

You say to be stressed for a day as if it is an easy thing for an animal to endure - I can assure you it isn't 

Whilst you can't have (most) medication without an animal suffering you can easily have a nice plate of food that doesn't involve this so I don;t understand why people who would fight for the 'rights' of animals would still continue to support the meat industry if they truly were that committed


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

For those who claim to have either worked at labs or visited labs that were a far cry from the horror stories we've seen, Im genuinely interested in what they were like.
So I could at least appease myself that some animals are better cared for, but also because what one person considers decent, another may not.
For example.....
This is the typical cage a lab rat is kept in:
Rat cage | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

http://www.sciencephoto.com/image/213739/530wm/G3520247-Laboratory_rats-SPL.jpg

As you can see, barren, small, void of anything to do or play with, no bedding. 
If someone kept a pet rat in an enclosure this small, alone, with no bedding and no toys, they would be accused of animal cruelty.
This rat will be driven insane with boredom and loneliness in this kind of set up. At the very_ least_, they need companions. Having had rats come into my sanctuary after living in similar set ups in pet homes, I can assure people that this life will destroy a rat mentally. 
But to a lot of people, this may look like a perfectly acceptable enclosure for a rat. But it _really_ isn't.
Yet this is how most lab rats are kept. 
Unless anyone who has been to one of these 'good' labs can tell me differently? Were their rats kept in larger enclosures with levels and toys and companionship? If so, thats great to hear. 
If not, they're still, in my opinion, abusing an animal.

If the rats are not given sufficient room to climb, play, explore and do natural rat things, it is still abuse as far as Im concerned, no matter how 'good' the lab claims to be. 
A rat kept alone is absolutely abuse, and inexcusable.

I don't expect these animals to be treated like pets, I don't expect them to be carried around on someone's shoulder and cuddled and taken to bed at night.
But I do expect every step to be taken to ensure the rats are mentally and physically comfortable.
Keeping them in small boxes where they can't move much more than a few inches either way, with absolutely nothing to stimulate their brains, no companionship and nothing to do other than lie there is not meeting their physical or mental needs one bit.
Its like keeping a puppy locked in a room the size of a public toilet with no toys, no bedding, no companionship, no exercise and expecting it to be happy.

So if someone can tell me there are labs that don't use these awful boxes for their rats, and do in fact keep them in pairs or more, and give them room to move about and perform natural acts, then I would be quite prepared to alter my opinion on labs somewhat.
Because that, above, is torture for a social and intelligent animal for a rat. 
But Im sure most people would look at that pic and not realise this.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> I don;t understand why people who would fight for the 'rights' of animals would still continue to support the meat industry if they truly were that committed


Depends on your view of how necessary animal products are to human health.

If I didn't believe they were necessary for me to be in the best health, I'd happily omit them from my diet. My consumption of meat isn't based on the taste, or convenience or anything other than health reasons.
Im not going into a vegan debate here, its not the place, nor is it the place to discuss whether or not people can live healthily without animal products. 
But my personal opinion, based on experience and research, is that not everyone can. This is what I believe. 
And I don't believe it is healthy for me to be vegan. That is why I continue to consume some free range, organic, locally sourced animal products. Not for any other reason.
If I felt I could live without them healthily, and so could my dogs, cats, ferrets and rats, I'd drop them without pause.

Once again, not looking for a rebuttal of 'Oh but veganism is so much healthier for everyone!' Heard it, looked into it, tried it, thats not my experience. Im only stating this as something to think about, and an explanation as to why people may continue to eat some animal produce.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Shadowrat said:


> Depends on your view of how necessary animal products are to human health.
> 
> If I didn't believe they were necessary for me to be in the best health, I'd happily omit them from my diet. My consumption of meat isn't based on the taste, or convenience or anything other than health reasons.
> Im not going into a vegan debate here, its not the place, nor is it the place to discuss whether or not people can live healthily without animal products.
> ...


I'm not advocating hard core veganism 

I've never, ever met anyone who 'has' to eat meat for 'health reasons' though, a vegatarian diet is alot healthier if followed correctly. If people were that committed they would put the effort in & make sure they did their research to ensure their diet was balanced if they were that concerned

I was vegan for years, strict vegetarian for many more & am now a pescatarian. I am rarely ill (even when I was vegan) & do not put much thought in to my diet, just eat what I know to be healthy & avoid eating too much of the bad stuff.

I have no probelms with my pets eating meat & if I did then I wouldn't have them. I also have no problems with others eating meat & can quite easily skin/gut/prepare most animals for my OH or the dogs.

As I said earlier I am just baffled by those of speak of 'cruelty' relating to lab animals yet quite happily ignore the more 'cruelty' that goes in to putting the bit of pork/beef/lamb on their plate ..... but that is my opinion


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> I've never, ever met anyone who 'has' to eat meat for 'health reasons' though, a vegatarian diet is alot healthier if followed correctly.


Im sure you do believe this. However, this has not been my experience, and I have indeed met people who are healthier with some animal produce in their diet, without a shadow of a doubt. 
Not all humans are identical, and what works for one will be a dietary disaster for another. Look at the dog food threads on here, and how one diet causes one dog to be in prime health, while the same diet negatively affects another.

Humans are no different. We cannot all be expected to thrive on the same foods.

I respect your belief that veganism works for everyone, but this is absolutely not my belief, nor my experience, and I can't see that changing.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

I don't agree with animal testing unless it's absolutely necessary. Animal testing shouldn't be allowed for cosmetics (unless dealing with the safety of the product). Scientists should move away from animal testing wherever possible. Better written and enforced humane slaughter laws should be passed.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

DogLover1981 said:


> I don't agree with animal testing unless it's absolutely necessary. Animal testing shouldn't be allowed for cosmetics (unless dealing with the safety of the product). Scientists should move away from animal testing wherever possible. Better written and enforced humane slaughter laws should be passed.


That makes no sense whatsoever. Whatever else would they test cosmetics for, except safety. Therefore you are agreeing that it is ok to test for cosmetics. We don't need cosmetics, we do need medicines, but I see no reason why animals should be made to suffer for them when we have all these scumbags locked up and costing us a fortune.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

L/C said:


> And if they die during testing? If they turn out to be innocent? What level of sexual assault gets you put in the programme? Flasher? Groping? Rape without overt violence? Stranger rape? What type of murder? Bar fight gone wrong? Dangerous driving? Who gets to decide who gets put in these trials? Judges at sentencing? Does the home secretary? Are they responsible if the person turns out to be innocent?


Err, then they die. Why is it ok for an animal to be tortured to death but not a child murderer?
Rape is rape is rape, I will make NO excuse for a beast! If someone had pinned and sexually assulted you I doubt you would be pleading for their excusal from such a thing. I think you know what level of crime I am referring to, dont insult both our intelligence. People like the Soham killer should be first in line, or what about the woman who sexually assulted nursery children, or the man and woman who raped a 1mth old? These people should have no rights!

Trials continue as normal knowing they can ask for referral to the "programme". The jury should decide as they are reps of the people, judges are out of touch. If they are found to be not quilty give them an apology and release them, what else do they want?



Cleo38 said:


> See this is what I struggle with when meat eaters are vehemently against animal testing. I just don't understand how people with these views continue to eat meat when the meat industry is reponsible for the deaths & mistreatment of so many more animals
> 
> It is also so easy to live on a vegetarian diet so meat is not really an 'essential' requirement as I believe animal testing (at this time) is.


The majority of meat animals arent tortured to death, that is why I can sleep at night. I also shoot rabbits, they lived a far better life than any in a lab, they feel nothing when they die.



Lexiedhb said:


> Why not? It is some peoples career. It does not mean they do not love animals, in fact quite the opposite- they do everything in their power to ensure these animals are well cared for and do not suffer whilst under going the necessary evil (currently) that is animal testing.
> 
> These animals ARE NOT PETS. They are bred for purpose, much like meat animals. We do not NEED to eat meat so should we target farmers who raise animals purely so we can indulge? Or those Veggies that still eat dairy......... what do you think happens to a vast majority of male calves born to dairy herds?
> 
> I am still utterly utterly confused by the fact that folk class the life of a human (rapist's etc aside) as of the same importance as that of an animal. Who dies My mum or my dog? Heartbreaking as it would be I would have to value the human life more.


I couldnt claim to love animals and essentially torture them, listen and see them in pain knowing Im the cause. 
I have value for human life but when you ask if I would rather a pedophile be experimented on or my dog, I think you will know the answer.



newfiesmum said:


> There is no anti depressant as effective as a puppy licking your face!


Try being Bipolar, puppies dont work. I know I take anti psychotics every day that have tested on animals and it is so conflicting for me, if I had an alternative I would take it!


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Sometimes, I don't think people even think about the cosmetics/household toiletries thing. I've honestly met people who were shocked when I told them that the vast majority of the make-up in their make-up bag, and the cleaners in their cupboards were tested on animals. 
They genuinely thought that animal testing for these purposes was something that hardly occurred any more, and was the minority of products. 

When I went through and told them the companies that test, pointed out how many procter and gamble items they had, how many lipsticks by rimmel, Loreal and bourgeois, they were kinda gobsmacked. Even moreso when I told them I don't even buy non make-up products that are made by these companies, so no more pringles for me  

I did point them toward cruelty free make up (marks and spencers entire make up range is BUAV approved, as well as co-op's shampoos and own brand toiletries) but found a fortnight later they had bought a new rimmel eyeshadow :mad2:
Its kinda 'out of sight, out of mind' with a lot of people. They probably would be in tears if they saw what happens to animals for the sake of their vanity, but as soon as they're in the shop and see something they like, well, lets just casually forget about that. Its easy to just push it to the back of your mind, sometimes.
But yeah, while I can accept that some people still believe animal experiments for meds are necessary, and still support it, I cannot accept anyone thinking experiments for make up and toiletries are necessary.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> That makes no sense whatsoever. Whatever else would they test cosmetics for, except safety. Therefore you are agreeing that it is ok to test for cosmetics. We don't need cosmetics, we do need medicines, but I see no reason why animals should be made to suffer for them when we have all these scumbags locked up and costing us a fortune.


True but I think a case could be made for the testing of the safety of cosmetics so people don't die from their use. However, you could also say, if your concerned about the safety of cosmetics such as lipstick for example, don't use them. They're not essential for you to live.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Starlite said:


> Err, then they die. Why is it ok for an animal to be tortured to death but not a child murderer?
> Rape is rape is rape, I will make NO excuse for a beast! If someone had pinned and sexually assulted you I doubt you would be pleading for their excusal from such a thing. I think you know what level of crime I am referring to, dont insult both our intelligence. People like the Soham killer should be first in line, or what about the woman who sexually assulted nursery children, or the man and woman who raped a 1mth old? These people should have no rights!
> 
> Trials continue as normal knowing they can ask for referral to the "programme". The jury should decide as they are reps of the people, judges are out of touch. If they are found to be not quilty give them an apology and release them, what else do they want?
> ...


The majority of lab animals are not 'tortured to death' 

I don't know why people continue with the whole 'they should experiment of paedophiles & rapists' arguments - it may be your opinion but it's never going to happen so isn't really a sensible suggestion.

Regarding the section in bold - So again you couldn't justify lab animals feeling this but could with farm animals (if you eat meat that is)? ..... Odd :confused1:


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Let's not forget a lot of these companies that advocate the testing of animals are huge, huge conglomerates which manufacture & distribute food as well as cosmetics/toiletries/household goods. 
They have their fingers in many pies & it's very hard to make the best ethical choices when one doesn't know all the facts. 
I'll use the example of Pringles, as it was a mistake I originally made when going back to vegetarianism- some varieties may be suitable for vegetarians & even vegans, but they are owned by Procter & Gamble, who currently have one of the worst reputations as far as animal experimentation goes.


----------



## caitlinwade (Jan 8, 2012)

NEVER EVER! i think it is pretty sickening! i dont care if the animals are kept in good conditions or anything.. they deserve to have a free happy life not cooped up in cages and only used for testing instead of working or whatever! it made me so ANGRY!!!!!!1111:mad2::mad2:


USE MURDERERS/PAEDOPHILES!


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> The majority of lab animals are not 'tortured to death'
> 
> I don't know why people continue with the whole 'they should experiment of paedophiles & rapists' arguments - it may be your opinion but it's never going to happen so isn't really a sensible suggestion.
> 
> Regarding the section in bold - So again you couldn't justify lab animals feeling this but could with farm animals (if you eat meat that is)? ..... Odd :confused1:


So animals in labs feel no pain when exprimented on? Well why didnt you say so?! 
Women having a vote was once regarded as ludicrous, things change.

Feeling what exactly? they are stunned into unconciousness and have their throat cut, my rabbits are dead with one shot, the pain is where exactly?


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> Regarding the section in bold - So again you couldn't justify lab animals feeling this but could with farm animals (if you eat meat that is)? ..... Odd :confused1:


I don't know about anyone else, but I don't get my meat from people who torture their live stock to death. 
It is possible to eat meat and NOT support cruelty or abuse of animals. As others have said, shooting a rabbit and having it die instantly is a world away from keeping a rat in a plastic box and performing invasive procedures on it for its entire life time. Buying free range, organic chicken from the local farm is not the same as a rat being forced to inhale paint fumes, having needles stuck in it, and so on.

While a comparison could be made between the meat animals in factory farms, and the lab animals in labs, this is precisely why we strive not to support factory farms, isn't it?
Also, if you do eat meat, it is presumably with the understanding that it is necessary to your health. I certainly wouldn't eat it if I didn't think it was necessary. 
Therefore, it is entirely possible to believe animal produce is necessary for your health, and obtain it from ethical sources AND condemn animal testing that you believe is _Un_necessary and where you can't see how the animals are treated.


----------



## Grace_Lily (Nov 28, 2010)

I'm totally against all and any testing on animals. I definitely wouldn't be able to go inside one of those places, I'd just end up releasing all the animals.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Shadowrat said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I don't get my meat from people who torture their live stock to death.
> It is possible to eat meat and NOT support cruelty or abuse of animals. As others have said, shooting a rabbit and having it die instantly is a world away from keeping a rat in a plastic box and performing invasive procedures on it for its entire life time. Buying free range, organic chicken from the local farm is not the same as a rat being forced to inhale paint fumes, having needles stuck in it, and so on.
> 
> While a comparison could be made between the meat animals in factory farms, and the lab animals in labs, this is precisely why we strive not to support factory farms, isn't it?
> ...


If every single rabbit, pheasant was shot cleanly then great - but they aren't every time

If every single farm animal was transported quickly & with care to their point of slaughter - but they aren't mainly

If every, single farm animal was slaughtered quickly & humanely - but they aren't always

Wherever you source your meat from it is ineveitable that the animal will suffer in order to become your dinner, it's just a question of the amount of suffering you deem to be reasonable & what people are willing to sacrfice.

For me it seems that it's very easy to sit back & condemn research whilst taking the medication that is produced, eating meat & not actually really changing much about your lifestyle


----------



## lozzibear (Feb 5, 2010)

I haven't read the whole thread, just the first few pages, but I will catch up eventually  This is a long thread!

I don't like animal testing. I hate it, in fact.

However, I can't be a hypocrite and say it has no place. My gran was, firstly, diabetic. She needed insulin, which as far as I am aware was/is tested on animals. Then, she got cancer. Again, the treatments she was given, will have been tested on animals. It didn't save her life, but it gave us more time with her.

Now, I don't like the idea that those treatments were tested on animals. But, I would *never* have not wanted her to have that treatment. Regardless of what it was tested on. I know that might sound selfish to some, but she did, and still does, mean the world to me... It was devastating to lose her. I would do anything to have just one more day with her.

I would much prefer murderers, paedophiles etc were tested on though... they are far more deserving of that, and after commiting those crimes to get that title, then they should at least do something to serve the rest of the population. It saddens me that people like that have such privileges in prison (a place to sleep, food, gym, television, games etc) and yet innocent animals are put through hell.

I am totally against testing for non-medical things though, but it is hard to find things for sale that aren't tested on animals. I have also heard that some companies get around it by saying that they do not test on animals, but that some of the ingredients in the products have been... or something along those lines.

I think it is tricky though, because every time we take something as simple as a paracetamol, that will have been tested on animals. I think it is about time it ended though.

I couldn't ever work in a place that tested on animals though.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Shadowrat said:


> I don't know about anyone else, but I don't get my meat from people who torture their live stock to death.
> It is possible to eat meat and NOT support cruelty or abuse of animals. As others have said, shooting a rabbit and having it die instantly is a world away from keeping a rat in a plastic box and performing invasive procedures on it for its entire life time. Buying free range, organic chicken from the local farm is not the same as a rat being forced to inhale paint fumes, having needles stuck in it, and so on.
> 
> While a comparison could be made between the meat animals in factory farms, and the lab animals in labs, this is precisely why we strive not to support factory farms, isn't it?
> ...


Most of the animals are not cooped up all their life though, and are not tourtured? As i said alot of them do get rehomed after an experiment. And actually the animals at the place where i am are not forced to do anything, they are highly trained for the procedure they are having, if they show signs of stress and are not cooperating they do not have it done. I do not agree these animals are tortured, some placess are bad though i do agree and do need to be stopped. But not all places are like that


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> For me it seems that it's very easy to sit back & condemn research whilst taking the medication that is produced, eating meat & not actually really changing much about your lifestyle


I sleep well at night.
I am comfortable with were my meat comes from, how it is kept and killed, Im comfortable that I consume meat for my own health not convenience or laziness, don't buy anything that is tested on animals, and so on.

But then, we could easily get into the argument of: unless you're a vegan, you have no right to speak out about ANY animal welfare issue.
Which basically means unless everyone here is vegan, we should shut up about BSL, puppy farms, dog fighting etc.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

hayleyth said:


> Most of the animals are not cooped up all their life though, and are not tourtured? *As i said alot of them do get rehomed after an experiment*. And actually the animals at the place where i am are not forced to do anything, they are highly trained for the procedure they are having, if they show signs of stress and are not cooperating they do not have it done. I do not agree these animals are tortured, some placess are bad though i do agree and do need to be stopped. But not all places are like that


Whereabouts & to whom do they rehome them? & do they charge people for them?


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

hayleyth said:


> Most of the animals are not cooped up all their life though, and are not tourtured? As i said alot of them do get rehomed after an experiment. And actually the animals at the place where i am are not forced to do anything, they are highly trained for the procedure they are having, if they show signs of stress and are not cooperating they do not have it done. I do not agree these animals are tortured, some placess are bad though i do agree and do need to be stopped. But not all places are like that


Did you see the dog rehomed that Cesar Milan helped with? What a happy boy he was eh, poor thing


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

Kay here is my question then. Take frontline spray for example, forget the whole you cant disagree then use the products bit for a minute. Now i buy a bottle of frotline spray because it will do all my animals twice over for fleaing. Reading the leaflet with it it says 'caution fatal when used on rabbits' so how many rabbits died so the could come to this conclusion??
Then further on it says 'fatal to aquatic life' what so they purposefully put it in with aquatic life to see what would happen??
Then a little further on it says 'fatal to dogs/puppies and cats/kittens when given 4 times recommended dose' so they purposefully gave them higher doses until they died?? What happens when they show adverse effects?? Do they stand there and watch them die? Do they try and save them? Or do they just pts??


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

hayleyth said:


> As i said alot of them do get rehomed after an experiment.


Is there any proof of this?
Perhaps behavioural/non invasive procedures, they could be, but I know that lab rats who are used for the actual invasive tests are not rehomed. 
Lab rats are SPF, meaning that they are unsuitable to go out into a typical pet home. I have enquired about rehoming ex lab rats before, and told a very clear NO by every one I contacted.


----------



## Pupcakes (Jun 20, 2011)

OMC said:


> Hmmmm I doubt anyone suffering from clinical depression would agree with that


I've suffered from dark, dark, dark days and my dogs licking my face has cheered me up, by no means a "cure" for depression, I'm weaning off ADs as we speak but a dog can enrich your life so much and I know a lot of depressed/low people that are cheered up by just touching a dog.

The elderly people where I work who suffer an array of mental illnesses love petting Charlie, so I think _some_ would agree with that.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Shadowrat asks how animals were kept where people have worked with them.

Ok, the dogs were kept in spacious kennels with outdoor runs. They were actually bred there and when I was working with them I was working with terminal experiments on 4 month puppies. The puppies were living the good life until I went into the pen and gave one a cuddle and sedated it before I took it away from its friends. Ok, it is not nice and it was not allowed to wake up from the experiment. And do you know why. Because it would have been in pain afterwards and that is not allowed.

The ponies were kept stabled during the months they were used then were turned out in a field in a group for the rest of the year. Nothing invasive was done with most of them so they were allowed to carry on living in comfort. The odd one was terminal and that was very very sad.

I know I worked there a long time ago but there was a strict law that no animal could be kept alive at the end of an experiment. The ponies were on long term experiments so were allowed to be kept until the end of the experiment - which was extended for years so they could live out their lives in a field. So unless things have changed I do wonder how these dogs are being rehomed. And if they really are then it might be better not to say so on here.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Shadowrat asks how animals were kept where people have worked with them.
> 
> Ok, the dogs were kept in spacious kennels with outdoor runs. They were actually bred there and when I was working with them I was working with terminal experiments on 4 month puppies. The puppies were living the good life until I went into the pen and gave one a cuddle and sedated it before I took it away from its friends. Ok, it is not nice and it was not allowed to wake up from the experiment. And do you know why. Because it would have been in pain afterwards and that is not allowed.
> 
> ...


Thats good to know, most of it. 
What about the rats?


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Shadowrat said:


> Is there any proof of this?
> Perhaps behavioural/non invasive procedures, they could be, but I know that lab rats who are used for the actual invasive tests are not rehomed.
> Lab rats are SPF, meaning that they are unsuitable to go out into a typical pet home. I have enquired about rehoming ex lab rats before, and told a very clear NO by every one I contacted.


They do not get rehomed to members of the public. Only people who work there, family members and people they reccomend.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Shadowrat said:


> Is there any proof of this?
> Perhaps behavioural/non invasive procedures, they could be, but I know that lab rats who are used for the actual invasive tests are not rehomed.
> Lab rats are SPF, meaning that they are unsuitable to go out into a typical pet home. *I have enquired about rehoming ex lab rats before, and told a very clear NO by every one I contacted.*


I've heard the same, not sure if the OP means rodents as well, as I feel they have just as much right to a loving home.
I'm really interested to know if they charge a 'rehoming fee'


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

hayleyth said:


> They do not get rehomed to members of the public. Only people who work there, family members and people they reccomend.


Again, rats tend not to be rehomed as they are SPF, and if they are rehomed they can suffer due to this.

Also, given how many animals are used in experiments each year, the grouping of 'only people who work there, family members and reccomended people' narrows down the potential homes a lot. I'd go as far to guess that the ones re-homed are the extreme minority countrywide.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> I've heard the same, not sure if the OP means rodents as well, as I feel they have just as much right to a loving home.
> I'm really interested to know if they charge a 'rehoming fee'


The reason I harp on about the rats on this topic is not only because I believe they deserve the same rights as the dogs and apes, but because they are so often the most abused and neglected species in animal experimentation.
So if _they_ are cared for correctly, it bodes well that the other species are, perhaps. 
But sometimes even in labs where other animals are cared for 'well', it often seems to be that the rats are not, so when someone claims the lab animals are kept wonderfully, I want to know 'ok, but does that include the rats? Because if it doesn't, Im not too impressed!'


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Animal testing is a broad topic. People ignore the fact that there are many types of animal testing that involve varying degrees of suffering and discomfort to the animal. Testing varies from seeing what food a dog prefers to dissecting awake live animals.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

A friend works with animals that have been experimented upon. The equines are PTS, regardless of potential as they have to be by law. There are 2 year old dogs coming up for rehoming soon: none are toilet trained or used to being with people or being on the lead. They will need serious training. Possibly better PTS, I don't know. I still struggle to see the need for experimentation on animals.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Shadowrat said:


> The reason I harp on about the rats on this topic is not only because I believe they deserve the same rights as the dogs and apes, but because they are so often the most abused and neglected species in animal experimentation.
> So if _they_ are cared for correctly, it bodes well that the other species are, perhaps.
> But sometimes even in labs where other animals are cared for 'well', it often seems to be that the rats are not, so when someone claims the lab animals are kept wonderfully, I want to know 'ok, but does that include the rats? Because if it doesn't, Im not too impressed!'


The rats are very well cared for at the place near me. Very big cages with toys and very spacious


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

hayleyth said:


> The rats are very well cared for at the place near me. Very big cages with toys and very spacious


What types of experiments are performed on these rats? Are they non invasive ones or the 'nasty' kind (for wont of a better word).


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> Whereabouts & to whom do they rehome them? & do they charge people for them?


I expect they turn them over to the RSPCA, and you can guess what happens then.



hayleyth said:


> Most of the animals are not cooped up all their life though, and are not tourtured? As i said alot of them do get rehomed after an experiment. And actually the animals at the place where i am are not forced to do anything, they are highly trained for the procedure they are having, if they show signs of stress and are not cooperating they do not have it done. I do not agree these animals are tortured, some placess are bad though i do agree and do need to be stopped. But not all places are like that


Not forced to do it? Do they volunteer then? Perhaps put their names down on a list and get paid an extra bone or something? Just because a dog is trained for something does not in any way mean he wants to do it.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

But do you know if they charge a fee for adoption of the animals? I'm really interested in knowing


----------



## thronesfan (Jun 20, 2012)

Shadowrat said:


> This is the typical cage a lab rat is kept in:
> Rat cage | Flickr - Photo Sharing!


It was a long time ago and my memory isn't perfect, but the rats at the university biology dept I did work experience at were in much larger cages and were in groups of about 4 per cage. I can't remember if they had different levels, but they had cardboard tubes and things to gnaw on. Not the most stimulating environment, but better than the example you posted.


----------



## LottieLab (Jan 2, 2012)

I wouldn't be able to do it. Dogs aren't meant to be tested on, they need a loving home, not some person who comes in every now and then to feed them or exercise them. Just because they might have spacious rooms, luxurious food, good exercise, doesn't mean they are happy.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

newfiesmum said:


> Just because a dog is trained for something does not in any way mean he wants to do it.


Very true, and its actually an argument used by those who use dogs for sexual means: he didn't turn around and bite me, therefore, he didn't have a problem with it.
They don't seem to understand either that animals are naturally stoic and dogs will do something if they think it pleases their owner to do so.

Lab rats in particular are bred to be extremely docile, specifically because they have to be in order to put up with some of the tortures they endure.
I can lance an abscess on a rat, squirt meds down its throat, give it an injection, and it won't try and retaliate against me, because they're naturally gentle animals, and social animals that have an instinct to submit to a stronger animal.

One of the other reasons I hate the whole lab thing is that there are certain strains of rat developed specifically for experimentations (zuckers, for one) which leeched out into the pet rat population and cause suffering to our pets.
Its even thought that the main reason we have such huge issues with cancer in our pet rats is because of lab rats being bred to have a weakness to this so they are better to perform cancer experimentation on.
That, alone, would make me hate the whole process.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> But do you know if they charge a fee for adoption of the animals? I'm really interested in knowing


Nope no fee


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Shadowrat said:


> What types of experiments are performed on these rats? Are they non invasive ones or the 'nasty' kind (for wont of a better word).


The experiments on the rats at the one near me are injections, creams (cant say exactly what for but medical), and inhalation. No operations etc, and most ARE rehomed, one lady takes all her rats home from her section after there done.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

hayleyth said:


> Nope no fee


Thanks for clarifying. The reason I asked is that I've heard a lot of ex battery hens are bought off the farms by the rescues, which I feel defeats the object of rescuing them as they are still profiting from their sale, I wondered if the lab perhaps did the same thing


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Shadowrat said:


> Very true, and its actually an argument used by those who use dogs for sexual means: he didn't turn around and bite me, therefore, he didn't have a problem with it.
> They don't seem to understand either that animals are naturally stoic and dogs will do something if they think it pleases their owner to do so.
> 
> Lab rats in particular are bred to be extremely docile, specifically because they have to be in order to put up with some of the tortures they endure.
> ...


Completely agree, rats get such a raw deal. Charles River Institute stock these 'products'- rats with hypertension, rats predisposed to obesity, hairless animals to make observations of dermatological tests easier. 
Just out of interest do you know if that's how our 'fuzzy' rescued rats got into the pet population as well?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Shadowrat said:


> Thats good to know, most of it.
> What about the rats?


I have never worked with rats and I doubt if there were any where I worked. We did sometimes work with cats (non terminal) and rabbits (terminal)



LottieLab said:


> I wouldn't be able to do it. Dogs aren't meant to be tested on, they need a loving home, not some person who comes in every now and then to feed them or exercise them. Just because they might have spacious rooms, luxurious food, good exercise, doesn't mean they are happy.


That is not a good analogy at all. Very many working dogs live in identical or worse situations than laboratory dogs. Dogs do not NEED a loving home, they need routine and care and some affection which is what these dogs get. In fact in a lot of situations they probably get more interaction than some pet dogs get and very often will be living in a group of other dogs so have constant company - again more than a lot of pet dogs get.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Can anyone find the charming video of a lab worker smacking the crap out of a labrador puppy (which btw did nothing wrong, he just knew it wouldn't retaliate cos it was a tiny puppy?) Made me bawl my eyes out, think it was on the news at the time.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

simplysardonic said:


> Thanks for clarifying. The reason I asked is that I've heard a lot of ex battery hens are bought off the farms by the rescues, which I feel defeats the object of rescuing them as they are still profiting from their sale, I wondered if the lab perhaps did the same thing


They are rehomed to the staff who work there, or there family or people who they recommend. They are not just rehomed to anyone but they do get rehomed once they have finished there testing. Some dont even get used, they do a blood test when the dog first comes in to make sure they are healthy etc. if they dont meet criteria then they go straight to a loving home.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

cinammontoast said:


> Can anyone find the charming video of a lab worker smacking the crap out of a labrador puppy (which btw did nothing wrong, he just knew it wouldn't retaliate cos it was a tiny puppy?) Made me bawl my eyes out, think it was on the news at the time.


I don't think I've seen that one, but it sounds dreadful. There's cruelty exposed everywhere though, not just labs, I've seen videos from on farms, in slaughterhouses, massive amounts of cruelty in the pet trade & even a couple from supposed 'rescue' organisations


----------



## moonviolet (Aug 11, 2011)

simplysardonic said:


> I don't think I've seen that one, but it sounds dreadful. There's cruelty exposed everywhere though, not just labs, I've seen videos from on farms, in slaughterhouses, massive amounts of cruelty in the pet trade & even a couple from supposed 'rescue' organisations


So true and lets not leave out trainers. I am still in disgust about a Sparsholt College allowing someone with a a cruelty conviction and a one year ban to complete an animal management and behaviour degree.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

moonviolet said:


> So true and lets not leave out trainers. I am still in disgust about a Sparsholt College allowing someone with a a cruelty conviction and a one year ban to complete an animal management and behaviour degree.


Our 'animal welfare' tutor was aggressively pro fox hunting. I always thought that a massive WTF.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

moonviolet said:


> So true and lets not leave out trainers. I am still in disgust about a Sparsholt College allowing someone with a a cruelty conviction and a one year ban to complete an animal management and behaviour degree.


I hadn't even thought of that
I know where I'm studying there were quite a few people I observed handling the animals & I thought 'if I were an employer in the animal care sector I wouldn't employ you, love'.


----------



## brackenhwv (Mar 28, 2010)

Hayleth , when I worked in animal testing, by law all animals that enter a animal house, wether used for experiment or not, had to be destroyed oncde they were no longer of use , is this still the case ? Or has the law been changed ? as there is a paper trail that follows these animals , I used to smuggle some out and falsified papers  but couldn't get every single one out


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

brackenhwv said:


> Hayleth , when I worked in animal testing, by law all animals that enter a animal house, wether used for experiment or not, had to be destroyed oncde they were no longer of use , is this still the case ? Or has the law been changed ? as there is a paper trail that follows these animals , I used to smuggle some out and falsified papers  but couldn't get every single one out


It depends on the experiment. But i know at this place they allow the animals to be rehomed as they only do a very small amount of testing on very few anomals which requires them not to be rehomed.


----------



## brackenhwv (Mar 28, 2010)

If that's the case, that's good as home office required everything to be pts when i worked in it, mind you I was 16 when I worked there and I'm now 53 so a lot of years ago, it gladdens my heart .


----------



## Coinneach (Apr 18, 2012)

I hope all the animals that are rehomed or smuggled out have been neutered, because you definitely don't want the traits that have been bred into some of them to spread into the wider population.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Grace_Lily said:


> I'm totally against all and any testing on animals. I definitely wouldn't be able to go inside one of those places, I'd just end up releasing all the animals.


good idea, they would enjoy starving to death or becoming prey for other animals.



cinammontoast said:


> Can anyone find the charming video of a lab worker smacking the crap out of a labrador puppy (which btw did nothing wrong, he just knew it wouldn't retaliate cos it was a tiny puppy?) Made me bawl my eyes out, think it was on the news at the time.


That is awful. Wonder how many puppies get the the crap smacked out of them in pet homes too.



Shadowrat said:


> Our 'animal welfare' tutor was aggressively pro fox hunting. I always thought that a massive WTF.


erm, I am pro hunting and pro good animal welfare. I think you will find that most people that are pro hunting have very high welfare standards.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Blitz said:


> erm, I am pro hunting and pro good animal welfare. I think you will find that most people that are pro hunting have very high welfare standards.


I personally don't think people who find fun in ripping another animal to bits should be teaching college students about animal welfare, and if they do find enjoyment in blood sports, they probably shouldn't voice it in front of a room of students who are on the course because they love animals, not a wise move. I lost a LOT of respect for her when she began talking about how great it was to see something pulled to bits. Just my opinion.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Shadowrat said:


> I personally don't think people who find fun in ripping another animal to bits should be teaching college students about animal welfare, and if they do find enjoyment in blood sports, they probably shouldn't voice it in front of a room of students who are on the course because they love animals, not a wise move. I lost a LOT of respect for her when she began talking about how great it was to see something pulled to bits. Just my opinion.


I do disagree with that. I am sure people who work in these places do not enjoy ripping animals apart which they do not do. It is there job to find cures for diseases and make sure drugs are safe and we know the side affects. And i Do enjoy disections of animals which are dead which we have done at college, does not mean i dont care about animals.

I am also pro fox hunting, and so are alot of people on my course. It does not mean people who fox do not like animals, there are high standards and all my family have hunted for years and care alot for their animals.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

hayleyth said:


> It does not mean people who fox do not like animals,


Just not foxes, eh?


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Shadowrat said:


> Just not foxes, eh?


Its not about no liking foxes? We do the same to rabbits an pheasants? Its a buisness for my family and a sport yes. But tbh we dont want wild rabbits digging our garden and bringing in mixi. And foxes are as much of a nosense where we live. Its our lifestyle so... But i woulnt spend alot of money on animal courses and etc if i didnt like all animals. We just deal with some differently .


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> Its not about no liking foxes? We do the same to rabbits an pheasants? Its a buisness for my family and a sport yes. But tbh we dont want wild rabbits digging our garden and bringing in mixi. And foxes are as much of a nosense where we live. Its our lifestyle so... But i woulnt spend alot of money on animal courses and etc if i didnt like all animals. We just deal with some differently .


Sorry but animal cruelty is animal cruelty/abuse, whether its done by a pet owner, lab assistant or under the socially acceptable (by some) heading of sport (that includes races like the Grand National imo). An animal lover cares for the welfare of all animals not excepting a few in the name of sport.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

chichi said:


> Sorry but animal cruelty is animal cruelty/abuse, whether its done by a pet owner, lab assistant or under the socially acceptable (by some) heading of sport (that includes races like the Grand National imo). An animal lover cares for the welfare of all animals not excepting a few in the name of sport.


In a lovely perfect world there would be no horse racing, hunting, animals testing etc. im sorry but these things are buisnesses, and horse racing and hunting is a way of life for people. My horses do cross country most weeks and jump extreme fences, that is not animal cruelty, if they dint wanna do it they wouldnt. And the horse rAcing industry is extremely High on animal welfare as i did a research project on it. People have their own opinions but what else do you expect all the horses in the world to do? Just stand in a field when their capable of amazing things? Have you worked in a testing lab? Because if not its hard to actually know what goes on. Some people do have a very odd point of view, and do seem to be persuaded by articles and pictures when they have never actually had anythin to do with it


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

I was under the impression that fox hunting is now illegal so i do hope you are not still participating in the lovely  sport


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> In a lovely perfect world there would be no horse racing, hunting, animals testing etc. im sorry but these things are buisnesses, and horse racing and hunting is a way of life for people. My horses do cross country most weeks and jump extreme fences, that is not animal cruelty, if they dint wanna do it they wouldnt. And the horse rAcing industry is extremely High on animal welfare as i did a research project on it. People have their own opinions but what else do you expect all the horses in the world to do? Just stand in a field when their capable of amazing things? Have you worked in a testing lab? Because if not its hard to actually know what goes on. Some people do have a very odd point of view, and do seem to be persuaded by articles and pictures when they have never actually had anythin to do with it


You dont have to have worked in a business to find it morally wrong:

I would never work in an animal testing lab. Would rather clean public loos if I needed the money.

I find your points of view rather odd, considering you call yourself an animal lover. Fine if your pleasure is watching animals ripped apart.......nobody can stop that but You cant then call yourself an animal lover and expect everyone to agree.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Thanks for all the comments people, very valid and interesting but can we please keep it about the thread title and not get too off track as it then gets personally. And this thread is not about hunting, racin etc or anim welfare in general. Its about animal testing and wannting to kow if you agree, disagree or if you woud like to work in a place to gain knowledge and experience it. Thanks


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

chichi said:


> Sorry but animal cruelty is animal cruelty/abuse, whether its done by a pet owner, lab assistant or under the socially acceptable (by some) heading of sport (that includes races like the Grand National imo). An animal lover cares for the welfare of all animals not excepting a few in the name of sport.


I would consider myself an animal lover yet have had to kill 2 mice this week. We live in the countryside & whilst one of the cats deals with them we still have a few in the house.

A few nights ago we heard considerable gnawing in the ceiling so they had obviously got under the floor boards upstairs. I cannot afford for mice to ruin the electrics in the house & potentially cause a danger to myself, my OH & my animals so we set traps for them.

I could have used 'humane' traps but I don't believe trapping an animal & causing it stress for hours on end is 'humane' & neither do I want to release them outside for them come straight back in again.

Personally I do not think this makes me guilty of cruelty as the mice were killed very quickly & did not suffer.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

chichi said:


> You dont have to have worked in a business to find it morally wrong:
> 
> I would never work in an animal testing lab. Would rather clean public loos if I needed the money.
> 
> I find your points of view rather odd, considering you call yourself an animal lover. Fine if your pleasure is watching animals ripped apart.......nobody can stop that but You cant then call yourself an animal lover and expect everyone to agree.


my thoughts exactly


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

chichi said:


> You dont have to have worked in a business to find it morally wrong:
> 
> I would never work in an animal testing lab. Would rather clean public loos if I needed the money.
> 
> I find your points of view rather odd, considering you call yourself an animal lover. Fine if your pleasure is watching animals ripped apart.......nobody can stop that but You cant then call yourself an animal lover and expect everyone to agree.


Well i wouldnt have spent thousands of pounds on courses if i wasnt. My family all hunt, and so do alot of my friends. If you dont have anything else to say regarding my thread and what it is actually about then thats all. My thread is to say whether you agree, disagree etc. not to bring horse racing an others up. Thanks


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

I think setting mice traps and hunting are completely different things


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

hayleyth said:


> Well i wouldnt have spent thousands of pounds on courses if i wasnt. My family all hunt, and so do alot of my friends. If you dont have anything else to say regarding my thread and what it is actually about then thats all. My thread is to say whether you agree, disagree etc. not to bring horse racing an others up. Thanks


The way you are saying this comes across as they *still* hunt? But its illegal??


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> Thanks for all the comments people, very valid and interesting but can we please keep it about the thread title and not get too off track as it then gets personally. And this thread is not about hunting, racin etc or anim welfare in general. Its about animal testing and wannting to kow if you agree, disagree or if you woud like to work in a place to gain knowledge and experience it. Thanks


To me lab testing on animals and animal welfare are going to come hand in hand in a discussion like this and people will bring other examples of animal cruelty (if thats how they see it) as part of their argument. Thanks.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> In a lovely perfect world there would be no horse racing, hunting, animals testing etc. im sorry but these things are buisnesses, and horse racing and hunting is a way of life for people. My horses do cross country most weeks and jump extreme fences, that is not animal cruelty, if they dint wanna do it they wouldnt. *And the horse rAcing industry is extremely High on animal welfare* as i did a research project on it. People have their own opinions but what else do you expect all the horses in the world to do? Just stand in a field when their capable of amazing things? Have you worked in a testing lab? Because if not its hard to actually know what goes on. Some people do have a very odd point of view, and do seem to be persuaded by articles and pictures when they have never actually had anythin to do with it


You couldn't be more wrong if you tried with that comment I'm afraid. I've actually worked in the industry (racing, breeding and betting side), some of the things that are acceptable within the industry would upset any true animal lover.

I'll keep my views about animal testing to myself, but I will say that I agree with Shadowrat regarding great apes tho, it makes no sence to me that "scientists" will rule out the one species that could help the most because these same "scientists" have decided it is cruel to do so?????


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

tashax said:


> The way you are saying this comes across as they *still* hunt? But its illegal??


Not illegal at certain times of year


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> Well i wouldnt have spent thousands of pounds on courses if i wasnt. My family all hunt, and so do alot of my friends. If you dont have anything else to say regarding my thread and what it is actually about then thats all. My thread is to say whether you agree, disagree etc. not to bring horse racing an others up. Thanks


Oh so youd rather I stopped commenting on your thread. Well okay I will but not without saying that I dont care whether you have spent your entire earnings on animal courses, you still partake in a sport that is considered cruel by many, so sorry for disagreeing but you are not imo an animal lover in my interpretation of the term. Sorry if thats "personal" but a fox would probably take It pretty personally when a crowd of hunters and dogs are chasing It before it gets ripped to pieces


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2012)

tashax said:


> The way you are saying this comes across as they *still* hunt? But its illegal??


About 12,000 foxes are killed each season, and despite being banned in February 2005, the sport is still prevalent. :mad2:

Most hunts use a loop hole, like taking a BOP for the day or saying they are exercising the hounds and the "accidently"


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Shadowrat said:


> I personally don't think people who find fun in ripping another animal to bits should be teaching college students about animal welfare, and if they do find enjoyment in blood sports, they probably shouldn't voice it in front of a room of students who are on the course because they love animals, not a wise move. I lost a LOT of respect for her when she began talking about how great it was to see something pulled to bits. Just my opinion.


I would lose respect for anyone who said how great it was to see something pulled to bits  that is not what happens in fox hunting and it would be a bit weird if people participated to see something like that.

It is not the right thread to discuss it but I think you will find that anyone that hunts has a huge love and respect for animals including foxes and that there is a reason for fox hunting as a method of control. The fact that it is a sport too means that it can be financed and does not cost the farmer a lot of money to rid his land of foxes.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

chichi said:


> Oh so youd rather I stopped commenting on your thread. Well okay I will but not without saying that I dont care whether you have spent your entire earnings on animal courses, you still partake in a sport that is considered cruel by many, so sorry for disagreeing but you are not imo an animal lover in my interpretation of the term. Sorry if thats "personal" but a fox would probably take It pretty personally when a crowd of hunters and dogs are chasing It before it gets ripped to pieces


Ok... Just because you do not agree with fox hunting does not mean you can call somones who has 10 dogs, 3 horses, rodents, god know how many animals ive had in the past. Round my area there is way too many foxes, my dog nearly got killed by a fox as there are so many round here. I understand you dont like it but your comment is out of line. This thread is turning into a completely different one. Your welcome to comment but please keep it about the subject in questionz


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Can we please keep to the subject of this thread. I wanted to know peoples opinions and people not to slate other peoples opinions! It is about animal testing, not racing, hunting etc. please make another thread if that is a topic you want to discuss


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> Can we please keep to the subject of this thread. I wanted to know peoples opinions and people not to slate other peoples opinions! It is about animal testing, not racing, hunting etc. please make another thread if that is a topic you want to discuss


The joys of a public forum is threads take on a mind of their own 

I commented on racing because you had posted an incorrect statement


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> Ok... Just because you do not agree with fox hunting does not mean you can call somones who has 10 dogs, 3 horses, rodents, god know how many animals ive had in the past. Round my area there is way too many foxes, my dog nearly got killed by a fox as there are so many round here. I understand you dont like it but your comment is out of line. This thread is turning into a completely different one. Your welcome to comment but please keep it about the subject in questionz


Ive said all I want to say and stand by my opinions. I didnt bring up the subject of fox hunting or the racing of horses. I just expressed my opinion on what I saw had been posted. If you are that upset by peoples opinions on fox hunting then maybe you are not as comfortable with it as you seem to project.......and that is all I have to say on this thread


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

So you choose to work in an animal testing lab and choose to hunt, yet you claim to be an animal lover!!

I see no reason why you would want to work there but to each their own i suppose! 

You said that there were very upsetting parts, what were those i wonder?
Also you said that some get to be rehomed and then it was all of them, im guessing the ones who cant be rehomed must be damaged beyond repair and then pts.

Very sad subject.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> The joys of a public forum is threads take on a mind of their own
> 
> I commented on racing because you had posted an incorrect statement


Thats fine  thanks


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

hayleyth said:


> Ok... Just because you do not agree with fox hunting does not mean you can call somones who has 10 dogs, 3 horses, rodents, god know how many animals ive had in the past. Round my area there is way too many foxes, my dog nearly got killed by a fox as there are so many round here. I understand you dont like it but your comment is out of line. This thread is turning into a completely different one. Your welcome to comment but please keep it about the subject in questionz


im guessing the reason you can detach yourself emotionally from animals used for experimentation..is because youve been desensitized to the suffering of animals..ie the ones you hunt for 'sport'.

.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> im guessing the reason you can detach yourself emotionally from animals used for experimentation..is because youve been desensitized to the suffering of animals..ie the ones you hunt for 'sport'.
> 
> .


I think there are quite a few people on here that hunt animals for sport, also quite a few farmers who rear animals for slaughter.
Does not stop them being animal lovers, and neither does it 'desensitize' them from suffering. It does help to see things more realistically and less emotively though.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Blitz said:


> I think there are quite a few people on here that hunt animals for sport, also quite a few farmers who rear animals for slaughter.
> Does not stop them being animal lovers, and neither does it 'desensitize' them from suffering. It does help to see things more realistically and less emotively though.


sorry Blitz but everyone knows fox hunting is there purely to satisfy the blood lust of a minority...so how can anyone who hunts for pleasure claim that they care about the suffering of the fox...to participate they must have been desensitized or they would see its abhorant!!


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

I am going to work at the animal testing facility on placement, i do not have a job there. I have chosen to go there as i want to be able to see what its like for myself without being persuaded by videos, pictures and other peoples opinions. 

I am there purely to look after the animals, cleaning, feeding, playing, exercising, providing enrichment, recording data, traning, restraining and observing. 

Just because its an animal testing facility does not mean i do not care about animals, i am hoping to help them make some changes and improve various things. Also spending time with the animals there just giving them fuss and attention will make a big difference to them. 

I do believe animal testing is still needed. While its still being done it is important people are caring for the animals and making their life as good as possible while there. 

I think it will be a very good experience and i am lucky to be able to go. My college is about animal welfare, anything i see which i believe is truly wrong by any members of the staff i will be reporting such as mishandling, neglect, wrong training techniques etc. 

I thankyou all again for the comments.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

If you are there on a placement from college there is no way that you can make changes. You are there to tow the line.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> If you are there on a placement from college there is no way that you can make changes. You are there to tow the line.


The animal testing facility ask every student who goes there to help make changes. They want peoples view and opinions on various aspects what they could improve. Like a student who went their last managed to get the dogs to be allowed to have beds in their kennel.


----------



## Helbo (Sep 15, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> I really don't understand your logic, lab animals are bred to be used the same way as farm animals :confused1:
> 
> Animals that have been used in research have benefitted millions of people & helped them lead better lives & yet that is 'wrong' but the many more millions of animals who have been killed to simply fill peoples stomachs is justified - no I don't understand at all.
> 
> ...


I feel like you're completely missing my point.

Farm animals providing food aren't physically tortured in the way lab animals are - they aren't subjected to experiments that will cost them their sight, their hearing, the use of their limbs, pain in their nervous systems, bleeding, vomiting...they are raised, transported and killed.

I don't agree with all types of farming either...and I try my best to avoid supprorting it with my purchases. But bringing up whether or not it's right to eat meat only clouds issues like this about animal testing. Whether you like it or not it is a separate issue. Someone can eat meat and still not agree with animal testing. I can ride a horse or buy leather shoes and not support animal testing. People's views aren't and don't have to be black and white.

But like I said earlier - I choose to eat meat as part of a varied diet and there is no other way of getting it to my plate. If there was another way I'd support it. BUT There are other ways of getting safe medicines on our shelves and so I can't support the unneccessary torture of animals.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

hayleyth said:


> The animal testing facility ask every student who goes there to help make changes. They want peoples view and opinions on various aspects what they could improve. Like a student who went their last managed to get the dogs to be allowed to have beds in their kennel.


Wow so before that they didnt even have beds??


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

hayleyth said:


> I do disagree with that. I am sure people who work in these places do not enjoy ripping animals apart which they do not do. It is there job to find cures for diseases and make sure drugs are safe and we know the side affects. *And i Do enjoy disections of animals which are dead* which we have done at college, does not mean i dont care about animals.
> 
> I am also pro fox hunting, and so are alot of people on my course. It does not mean people who fox do not like animals, there are high standards and all my family have hunted for years and care alot for their animals.


But how did they get dead?



hayleyth said:


> Its not about no liking foxes? We do the same to rabbits an pheasants? Its a buisness for my family and a sport yes. But tbh we dont want wild rabbits digging our garden and bringing in mixi. And foxes are as much of a nosense where we live. Its our lifestyle so... But i woulnt spend alot of money on animal courses and etc if i didnt like all animals. We just deal with some differently .


People shoot rabbits and pheasants, quick and painless. Why not the same for foxes, unless it is not so much fun? Just because it is a business and a way of life does not make it right. It was once a way of life to spend sundays watching the bear baiting or go laugh at the inmates in Bedlam mental hospital. So we think we are superior enough to experiment on animals, then we were superior enough to change that way of life and we can change this one too.



hayleyth said:


> Can we please keep to the subject of this thread. I wanted to know peoples opinions and people not to slate other peoples opinions! It is about animal testing, not racing, hunting etc. please make another thread if that is a topic you want to discuss


You cannot start a thread on an emotive subject like animal testing and expect it not to go off course. That is what forums are all about.

You think you are lucky to be going to work at an animal testing facility, your family and you enjoy fox hunting, and weren't you the one who commented on a thread about rehoming a dog that "it is a new home. No big deal". Or words to that effect.

So go kid yourself you are an animal lover - you are not, neither do you have any empathy for the animal kingdom.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> But how did they get dead?
> 
> People shoot rabbits and pheasants, quick and painless. Why not the same for foxes, unless it is not so much fun? Just because it is a business and a way of life does not make it right. It was once a way of life to spend sundays watching the bear baiting or go laugh at the inmates in Bedlam mental hospital. So we think we are superior enough to experiment on animals, then we were superior enough to change that way of life and we can change this one too.
> 
> ...


Ok  so shall i just go turn all my animals out on the street then.. I obviously dont love them...


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

tashax said:


> Wow so before that they didnt even have beds??


No, they felt it would compromise the experiment if the dogs ate the bed or something. But then when they did a trial their were only a few dogs which chewed the bed, most didnt.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

hayleyth said:


> Ok  so shall i just go turn all my animals out on the street then.. I obviously dont love them...


I didn't say you didn't love your animals, but you obviously don't care for all animals which is what an animal lover does.


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> Ok  so shall i just go turn all my animals out on the street then.. I obviously dont love them...


I'm sorry but I find this kind of reaction to a debate the funniest thing ever :lol:

I'm sorry but going by your posts it seems you are only interested in listening to the people that agree with you. Which is probably why you came to the conclusion that



> And the horse rAcing industry is extremely High on animal welfare


Why not grab some pics of these amazing conditions that the lab animals live in? Not as though you have to announce who they are, but it might put a few of us in our place if the accommodation is as good as you say it is.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> I didn't say you didn't love your animals, but you obviously don't care for all animals which is what an animal lover does.


I care for all animals, when my family go hunting we dont have dogs they use shotguns, because its quick. We dont agree with using the dogs, i wouldnt want to cause suffering. Its the way ive been brought up by my family and what they do.

I disect animals as part of my course for anatomy and i enjoy watchin an learning. The animals hAve died naturally or road kill.

I feel i am lucky goin to the facility as they are very stict with who they let in. I feel it will be an experience and it will be good to spend time with the animals who dont get much attention.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

B3rnie said:


> I'm sorry but I find this kind of reaction to a debate the funniest thing ever :lol:
> 
> I'm sorry but going by your posts it seems you are only interested in listening to the people that agree with you. Which is probably why you came to the conclusion that
> 
> Why not grab some pics of these amazing conditions that the lab animals live in? Not as though you have to announce who they are, but it might put a few of us in our place if the accommodation is as good as you say it is.


The dogs are in kennels? You know what a kennel is. It is extremely good conpared to some facilitys that do animal testing and keep the dogs in cages. Im not allowed cameras etc or it will jepodise my course.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Nothing like a quick slaughter!!!!


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> Nothing like a quick slaughter!!!!


Better than slow.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

hayleyth said:


> I care for all animals, when my family go hunting we dont have dogs they use shotguns, because its quick. We dont agree with using the dogs, i wouldnt want to cause suffering. Its the way ive been brought up by my family and what they do.
> 
> I disect animals as part of my course for anatomy and i enjoy watchin an learning. The animals hAve died naturally or road kill.
> 
> I feel i am lucky goin to the facility as they are very stict with who they let in. I feel it will be an experience and it will be good to spend time with the animals who dont get much attention.


Nobody hunts foxes with a shotgun. You were advocating fox hunting; that is not foxhunting. Why do you and your family go hunting at all? If it is for the thrill of hitting something, what is wrong with a clay pigeon?

I don't care how much attention or how well cared for you say these lab animals get, they are still being hurt and used for the security of humans. I repeat: you have no right.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

newfiesmum said:


> Nobody hunts foxes with a shotgun. You were advocating fox hunting; that is not foxhunting. Why do you and your family go hunting at all? If it is for the thrill of hitting something, what is wrong with a clay pigeon?
> 
> I don't care how much attention or how well cared for you say these lab animals get, they are still being hurt and used for the security of humans. I repeat: you have no right.


We hunt foxes because there are alot where we are? And we get paid by farmers to do it when the season starts.

Well animal testing is still needed at the minute and proberly will be for alont time. If we didnt have it then we certainly would not have the medicines we do.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Thanks for all the comments guys but im done with this forum. Met some lovely people but i dont have time to be on here arguing about what i believe and do etc. i wanted to hear peoples opinions and everyone should respect eachother but on here it doesnt seem like that. 

Thanks everyone who has posted their opinions.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

hayleyth said:


> Thanks for all the comments guys but im done with this forum. Met some lovely people but i dont have time to be on here arguing about what i believe and do etc. i wanted to hear peoples opinions and everyone should respect eachother but on here it doesnt seem like that.
> 
> Thanks everyone who has posted their opinions.


You wanted to hear people's opinions but you don't what to argue about your beliefs? In other words you wanted to hear opinions which agreed with you. On this forum we respect animals, which is enough.

Goodbye.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

hayleyth said:


> Better than slow.


Better none at all!!!


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2012)

hayleyth said:


> The dogs are in kennels? You know what a kennel is. It is extremely good conpared to some facilitys that do animal testing and keep the dogs in cages. Im not allowed cameras etc or it will jepodise my course.


Please don't try to belittle me, it won't work.
I am fully aware of what kennels look like, I am also aware that kennels differ in size and suitability 

Ever thought why these places don't allow camera's, as I said if they are as good as you say they are then all the establishments would have to do is post a few pics to shut up the animal rights activists 



hayleyth said:


> Thanks for all the comments guys but im done with this forum. Met some lovely people but i dont have time to be on here arguing about what i believe and do etc. i wanted to hear peoples opinions and everyone should respect eachother but on here it doesnt seem like that.
> 
> Thanks everyone who has posted their opinions.


You got peoples opinions, people are discussing a topic *you* started, I only joined in due to incorrect statements *you* posted but then I doubt you would want to listen to someone that worked in the industry and is no longer brain washed by it because the truth might upset your beliefs.

No arguments here that I see, just a debate.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

newfiesmum said:


> I didn't say you didn't love your animals, but you obviously don't care for all animals which is what an animal lover does.


But then again you could argue that unless a person is a vegan most people are not animal lovers as they eat meat which obviously comes from animals & causes suffering or they drink milk which again inflicts suffering on the cows involved (at times if what I have read about the dairy industry recently is correct), milk derivities which are in many items, battery eggs & their derivitives, etc.

Again, my arguement is that most people by the fact they eat meat do not value the animals involved in the same way as they value their pets so there is almost a 'hierarchy of compassion' relating to animals & certain animals are not 'cared' about in the same way as dogs & cats are.

I consider myself an animal lover but as I said earlier I killed two mice this week. I am not proud of this & wished I didn't have to but they were causing damage to my house which could have costs alot ot repair. Do I feel guilty? No I don't so it could be said that I value their lives less which would be true to an extent.


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Like I said before I dont think that the OP is as comfortable with her beliefs as she would have us think. Why else close the door on a forum because several of us have expressed our views/horror at some of her beliefs. There is such a thing as agreeing to disagree but I am guessing the OP isnt quite as long in the tooth as some of us.........


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I eat meat, use over the counter and prescription drugs as well as cosmetics and household cleaners etc, and occasionally kill something, and I obviously hate my dogs!


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Lol, I love it when people flounce off. 

This is a forum of animal lovers. Killing animals for fun, or money, isn't generally going to be welcomed with open arms here.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I eat meat, use over the counter and prescription drugs as well as cosmetics and household cleaners etc, and occasionally kill something, and I obviously hate my dogs!


Many people love their pets, no doubt, but will happily dish out abuse to a different animal, the kind of abuse they'd never allow to happen to their pets.

Hell, I even know owners of pet rats who will put poison out for the wild ones! :mad2:

Then you get people who live for their children, but turn a blind eye or don't care about kids starving right next door. 
Im more likely to jump in front of a car to save MY dog than a dog I don't know.

Human nature. All I ask is that people are honest about it and don't claim to care about the welfare of foxes, when they then get joy out of going and needlessly killing them for fun.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Eating meat for protein is very different to getting a kick from killing a fox.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Shadowrat said:


> Many people love their pets, no doubt, but will happily dish out abuse to a different animal, the kind of abuse they'd never allow to happen to their pets.
> 
> Hell, I even know owners of pet rats who will put poison out for the wild ones! :mad2:
> 
> ...


My neighbour is unfortunately poisoning rats atm, the fact that they leave food on the ground for birds encourages them to live there in the first place, common sense really.

You see fox hunting as unecessary, unfortunately, control of numbers is necessary sometimes, as with any predator. I care that foxes overall maintain a healthy population where they are at a level that means they have enough prey, and disease doesn't have chance to take hold and spread to the extent it does with urban foxes. Lots of people I know shoot foxes, and undertake vermin control on behalf of farmers and land owners, including shooting rabbits and crows, the latter of which can't really be used for much at all, except fox bait.

Does that mean all those people involved don't care about their pets or about wildlife as a whole? Not really, some of them probably, but many of them enjoy being a part of the countryside, it's not killing for fun for them, it's being part of something much larger, understanding wildlife and the countryside, and actually living it, rather than (as many do) merely commenting on it from the comfort of a sofa in the middle of a city. That's by no means a slight on those commenting on here, as I know many make the effort to learn more than the average sofa expert, but the vitriolic hatred for many involved with the countryside and countryside pursuits is sadly apparent and misplaced.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You see fox hunting as unecessary, unfortunately, control of numbers is necessary sometimes, as with any predator. I care that foxes overall maintain a healthy population where they are at a level that means they have enough prey, and disease doesn't have chance to take hold and spread to the extent it does with urban foxes. Lots of people I know shoot foxes, and undertake vermin control on behalf of farmers and land owners, including shooting rabbits and crows, the latter of which can't really be used for much at all, except fox bait.


I see foxes all the time yet fox hunts aren't a normal practice here and are probably not even legal in my state. Overpopulation shouldn't be an issue. If the prey animals and food is less, some will die off. It works out that way with most predators in nature.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

I would rather stick hot needles in my eyes then work in such a place tbh.

However they try to package it and say they are well cared for the animals havent got a choice but to be incarcerated and have things dome to them on an ongoing and regular basis.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> My neighbour is unfortunately poisoning rats atm, the fact that they leave food on the ground for birds encourages them to live there in the first place, common sense really.
> 
> You see fox hunting as unecessary, unfortunately, control of numbers is necessary sometimes, as with any predator. I care that foxes overall maintain a healthy population where they are at a level that means they have enough prey, and disease doesn't have chance to take hold and spread to the extent it does with urban foxes. Lots of people I know shoot foxes, and undertake vermin control on behalf of farmers and land owners, including shooting rabbits and crows, the latter of which can't really be used for much at all, except fox bait.
> 
> Does that mean all those people involved don't care about their pets or about wildlife as a whole? Not really, some of them probably, but many of them enjoy being a part of the countryside, it's not killing for fun for them, it's being part of something much larger, understanding wildlife and the countryside, and actually living it, rather than (as many do) merely commenting on it from the comfort of a sofa in the middle of a city. That's by no means a slight on those commenting on here, as I know many make the effort to learn more than the average sofa expert, but the vitriolic hatred for many involved with the countryside and countryside pursuits is sadly apparent and misplaced.


I don't pretend to know too much about it, but fox hunting with dogs is barbaric, and while I know the population has to be kept down the hunting of them in this way is unnecessary; there are cleaner more humane ways. But there are many game animals who are bred specifically so some pratt can come along and shoot them; that is all wrong.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> My neighbour is unfortunately poisoning rats atm, the fact that they leave food on the ground for birds encourages them to live there in the first place, common sense really.
> 
> You see fox hunting as unecessary, unfortunately, control of numbers is necessary sometimes, as with any predator. I care that foxes overall maintain a healthy population where they are at a level that means they have enough prey, and disease doesn't have chance to take hold and spread to the extent it does with urban foxes. Lots of people I know shoot foxes, and undertake vermin control on behalf of farmers and land owners, including shooting rabbits and crows, the latter of which can't really be used for much at all, except fox bait.
> 
> Does that mean all those people involved don't care about their pets or about wildlife as a whole? Not really, some of them probably, but many of them enjoy being a part of the countryside, it's not killing for fun for them, it's being part of something much larger, understanding wildlife and the countryside, and actually living it, rather than (as many do) merely commenting on it from the comfort of a sofa in the middle of a city. That's by no means a slight on those commenting on here, as I know many make the effort to learn more than the average sofa expert, but the vitriolic hatred for many involved with the countryside and countryside pursuits is sadly apparent and misplaced.


'countyside persuits' like bloodsports have nothing to do with controlling populations...they are only there because some people enjoy killing animals for fun....how repulsive can you get!


----------



## chichi (Apr 22, 2012)

Fox hunting....as in a pack of dogs chasing the fox before ripping it to pieces is in no way humane and cannot be attributed to controlling vermin. It is a sport enjoyed by many and it can be dressed up anyway they want to but the reality is that it is a sport humans get pleasure from, resulting in the torture and death of an animal. Animal lovers my backside!


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> 'countyside persuits' like bloodsports have nothing to do with controlling populations...they are only there because some people enjoy killing animals for fun....how repulsive can you get!


If it is/was a matter of over population and vast numbers causing problems then there is a lot more humane ways to control the population if it was really needed.

You dont need to dress up and ride like maniacs all over the countryside and have a pack of dogs rip an animal to pieces to control numbers.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

Same thing can be said for Myxomatosis in rabbits that was used as a method of population control in the 50s and I think before that too in Australia. Again OK the poulation may well have needed to be controlled not denying that but again why give animals a disease that causes a slow and painful death surely there is a better way if you need to control them thats more humane. Plus not put domestic animals at risk too.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> If it is/was a matter of over population and vast numbers causing problems then there is a lot more humane ways to control the population if it was really needed.
> 
> You dont need to dress up and ride like maniacs all over the countryside and have a pack of dogs rip an animal to pieces to control numbers.


exactly,

also the fact that hunts have been caught out encouraging foxes to breed in the artificial earths they provide for them, kind of blows the population control claim right out of the water doesnt it


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> exactly,
> 
> also the fact that hunts have been caught out encouraging foxes to breed in the artificial earths they provide for them, kind of blows the population control claim right out of the water doesnt it


You learn something new everyday, thats something I didnt know, does seem to really squash the arguement then that one, and defeats the so called object.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sled dog hotel said:


> You learn something new everyday, thats something I didnt know, does seem to really squash the arguement then that one, and defeats the so called object.


dosent it just...even the hunt supported by Prince Charles, the Beaufort hunt, was caught out...they showed the undercover footage on a documentary about foxhunts 'breeding foxes' on the BBC a few years ago.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

hayleyth said:


> Thanks for all the comments guys but im done with this forum. Met some lovely people but i dont have time to be on here arguing about what i believe and do etc. i wanted to hear peoples opinions and everyone should respect eachother but on here it doesnt seem like that.
> 
> Thanks everyone who has posted their opinions.


Seriously? The thread is a bunch of written words! Today's hot & throbbing thread is tomorrow's dead & buried thread....
You'll need to develop a thicker skin if people on an online forum get your back up for having a different opinion. Trust me, real life is much harsher, especially on subjects as emotive as animal testing.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

hayleyth said:


> We hunt foxes because there are alot where we are? And we get paid by farmers to do it when the season starts.
> 
> Well animal testing is still needed at the minute and proberly will be for alont time. If we didnt have it then we certainly would not have the medicines we do.


We have quite a few round my house at the moment & the farmer asked if we wanted any shooting. Tbh I don't as they are no bother to me but they are to some people so I can understand why this happens.

I hope your placement goes well, for the animals welfare it is best that they have people who do actually care for them & am sure most people who work in these posts do.

Everone has different views regarding what is & isn't cruel for animals but so as long as you are happy with your choices & way of life then I wouldn't worry too much if others don't agree with you!


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> You see fox hunting as unecessary, unfortunately, control of numbers is necessary sometimes, as with any predator. I care that foxes overall maintain a healthy population where they are at a level that means they have enough prey, and disease doesn't have chance to take hold and spread to the extent it does with urban foxes. Lots of people I know shoot foxes, and undertake vermin control on behalf of farmers and land owners, including shooting rabbits and crows, the latter of which can't really be used for much at all, except fox bait.


I agree that with some species, population control is a necessary evil.
I just don't agree that chasing a terrified animal to exhaustion with a pack of dogs then ripping it apart is the way to do this.
If there is a real, genuine over population problem in one area with foxes, shooting performed by an experienced marksmen with a proper gun is a far better way of doing it .

I've lived in the country for most of my life, so I never buy this 'its the country way, city people don't get it' argument, its a cop out, to me and an easy 'get out' for people.
I've been a country person, I still don't agree with hunting animals with packs of dogs, not when a single bullet to the head is available. 
Added to which, I have never seen any evidence that there is a serious over population problem with foxes, the only people I've ever heard say that are pro fox hunters, strangely enough!

Its sad about your neighbour poisoning the rats  That really upsets me. Poison is a horrific way for an animal to die. Rats can take 7 days to die from poison, each one of them excruciating. I have no respect for anyone that uses poison.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

newfiesmum said:


> I don't pretend to know too much about it, but fox hunting with dogs is barbaric, and while I know the population has to be kept down the hunting of them in this way is unnecessary; there are cleaner more humane ways. But there are many game animals who are bred specifically so some pratt can come along and shoot them; that is all wrong.





noushka05 said:


> 'countyside persuits' like bloodsports have nothing to do with controlling populations...they are only there because some people enjoy killing animals for fun....how repulsive can you get!


I never mentioned hunting with dogs, I mentioned population control, which is very much needed in some areas. This thread isn't about foxhunting, whether with dogs or without, and we've had various long discussions about it in the past, but the sad fact is there are too many foxes in some areas, and I've lost one quote, but if people would rather one species was wiped out, and then to allow the predator to starve, that to me is more barbaric than maintaining a viable population with much more human methods, such as shooting at night, lamping with a rifle. Even where there is enough of a prey species, you can't tell a fox what to eat, it will take what it can, and they can and do take lambs, which is just not something farmers can put up with, and so the foxes need to be controlled. The more wary of humans for me, the better, it means they are more likely to stay away and keep out of bother, and therefore have a long and natural life, which is the best you could hope for.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Im sorry if i upset anyone with my views. Ive had an absolutely terrible day today reguarding my dogs so really wasnt in the mood to be arguing my point and reading things i didnt agree with tbh. 

So im very sorry if i upset anyone who has different views from me.. I just wanted to hear a few peoples opinions and it not to get too over the top. 

Thankyou for the comments, and i am sorry.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

hayleyth said:


> Im sorry if i upset anyone with my views. Ive had an absolutely terrible day today reguarding my dogs so really wasnt in the mood to be arguing my point and reading things i didnt agree with tbh.
> 
> So im very sorry if i upset anyone who has different views from me.. I just wanted to hear a few peoples opinions and it not to get too over the top.
> 
> Thankyou for the comments, and i am sorry.


Don't worry too much, everyone has different views, that's what makes great threads :thumbup:

People you will disagree on one thread you will be giving rep to o n another, that's just the way this forum is 

Hope your dogs are ok btw


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> and so the foxes need to be controlled.


The solution should be too reintroduce wolves. I think many people forget foxes are beneficial as they eat the pests of farmer's crops and in a way help protect the lawns of the general public from pests. If their populations are high, there must be lots of prey for them.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DogLover1981 said:


> The solution should be too reintroduce wolves. I think many people forget foxes are beneficial as they eat the pests of farmer's crops and in a way help protect the lawns of the general public from pests. If their populations are high, there must be lots of prey for them.


Not in the UK it isn't, it's not a large enough island I'm afraid. The solution would be a cull of humans to stop them encroaching onto wild areas, and also to reduce the requirement for the amount of food we need to grow/rear, but somehow I don't think many people would go for that one!


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

hayleyth said:


> Im sorry if i upset anyone with my views. Ive had an absolutely terrible day today reguarding my dogs so really wasnt in the mood to be arguing my point and reading things i didnt agree with tbh.
> 
> So im very sorry if i upset anyone who has different views from me.. I just wanted to hear a few peoples opinions and it not to get too over the top.
> 
> Thankyou for the comments, and i am sorry.


what on earth are you sorry for? We all have different opinions, you are entitled to your as well x


----------



## Ellielilac (Aug 4, 2012)

Im disgusted that animal testing still goes on Im a member of wspa compassion in world farming and I give to several rescues charitys,for someone to actually say they have a workplacement there sorry! but what sort of person can stand there and inflict pain and suffering on poor living creatures shame on all of them and all I hope is that God has a great big bull mastiff at his side when everyone queues up to go through St peters great big gates.Its a vile hateful practice.
When I wa sa little girl I campagined and wrote to the papers tv about beagles been forced to smoke cigerettes it did get coverage and it did halt.If anyone ever wants support help to rescue please let me know!


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> sorry Blitz but everyone knows fox hunting is there purely to satisfy the blood lust of a minority...so how can anyone who hunts for pleasure claim that they care about the suffering of the fox...to participate they must have been desensitized or they would see its abhorant!!


Is 'everyone' the emotional public who have no knowledge of fox hunting because I think if you asked every single person who has ever ridden on a hunt they would give you a rather different answer. The majority want a good ride across country, the more knowledgeable few want to appreciate watching hounds working and if a fox is killed then it is honoured. It is not ripped apart when alive by the way, the first hound will break its neck.

I think the advantage of fox hunting with hounds as against shooting foxes is a real one. shot foxes often do not die and then suffer a horrendous long drawn out death. In areas where there is overpopulation it is the weakest foxes that will get caught so allowing a smaller healthier population to survive. There is also culling of young foxes in the autumn, but these are not chased, they are killed in cover so they are not run around and exhausted.
I am sure there are bad practices as in all sports and all animal keeping but that is the general idea of what is being achieved - and as it costs a lot to keep a pack of hounds and the staff needed for hunting it could not happen unless there were followers who paid for their day out.
I have not hunted often and only as a child/teenager - but I never even saw a fox let alone one killed.



Shadowrat said:


> Lol, I love it when people flounce off.
> 
> This is a forum of animal lovers. Killing animals for fun, or money, isn't generally going to be welcomed with open arms here.


It is odd, at least two of the popular posters on here kill animals for fun and use their dogs to retrieve them. Why have I never seen you having a go at them.

By the way I poison rats as do all farmers. I prefer for my cows and horses not to have their feed ruined and for them and my dogs not to be at risk of disease. I do not believe they suffer. They slow up and wander around a bit then die. They slowly bleed internally and go dopey and sleepy. Ok so it is sad they have to die but if they are so intelligent why do they eat poison when they have watched their friends die of it, why do they interfere with our lives and why do they crap in full view of us so we know they have been around at night. If they would mind their own business then we could coexist.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Foxes eat rats, BTW.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DogLover1981 said:


> Foxes eat rats, BTW.


Yes they do, but they also eat chickens and lambs, and given a choice, they'd go for the one that doesn't bite back


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Yes they do, but they also eat chickens and lambs, and given a choice, they'd go for the one that doesn't bite back


That is the farmer's and _only_ the farmer's responsibly to prevent by fencing or whatever means, if he chooses to be a farmer. I don't go around shooting bears preemptively because of the possibility of losing my life to one, I become smart about their habits.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DogLover1981 said:


> That is the farmer's and _only_ the farmer's responsibly to prevent by fencing or whatever means, if he chooses to be a farmer.


Foxes can't be kept out by fencing, and are you seriously suggesting a farmer has to fence numerous fields over many, many acres and maintains those fences in a futile effort to keep foxes out? That just isn't cost effective I'm afraid, and I'm sure consumers wouldn't want those costs passed on to them. Shooting foxes is cost effective, and humane in comparison to other practices.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> and are you seriously suggesting a farmer has to fence numerous fields over many,


Not necessarily. I'm saying loosing livestock is the risk you take by becoming a farmer. The wildlife was here first.  I'm sure other ways and a combination of ways could be found to keep out foxes, if people were imaginative enough.


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Ok so it is sad they have to die but if they are so intelligent why do they eat poison when they have watched their friends die of it, why do they interfere with our lives and why do they crap in full view of us so we know they have been around at night. If they would mind their own business then we could coexist.


I believe rats do learn from others' experiences & will not approach bait or traps as a result of this. As for them 'minding their own business' they are an animal & have no concept of what is right or wrong, just a strong desire to survive, like every other species on the planet, including one of the most voracious & destructive of them all, _**** sapiens_


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Blitz said:


> Is 'everyone' the emotional public who have no knowledge of fox hunting because I think if you asked every single person who has ever ridden on a hunt they would give you a rather different answer. The majority want a good ride across country, the more knowledgeable few want to appreciate watching hounds working and if a fox is killed then it is honoured. It is not ripped apart when alive by the way, the first hound will break its neck.
> 
> I think the advantage of fox hunting with hounds as against shooting foxes is a real one. shot foxes often do not die and then suffer a horrendous long drawn out death. In areas where there is overpopulation it is the weakest foxes that will get caught so allowing a smaller healthier population to survive. There is also culling of young foxes in the autumn, but these are not chased, they are killed in cover so they are not run around and exhausted.
> I am sure there are bad practices as in all sports and all animal keeping but that is the general idea of what is being achieved - and as it costs a lot to keep a pack of hounds and the staff needed for hunting it could not happen unless there were followers who paid for their day out.
> ...


tbh im all worn out with foxhunting debates lol...but you'll never convince me that persuing a terrfied animal across the countryside then digging it out if it goes to ground is either humane Or sporting!....and the wonderful autumn passtime of cubbing...is even more barbaric!



DogLover1981 said:


> Foxes eat rats, BTW.


and rabbits Each year, rabbits cause an estimated £120 million of damage to agriculture in Britain. Foxes cause an estimated £12 million of damage but this needs to be put in perspective, because rabbits are the main prey of foxes in rural areas. By eating rabbits, foxes provide an indirect economic benefit to farmers of at least £7 million annually. Because fox benefits offset their costs, foxes are probably economically neutral to farmers

The fox website | Foxes & agriculture



Sleeping_Lion said:


> Foxes can't be kept out by fencing, and are you seriously suggesting a farmer has to fence numerous fields over many, many acres and maintains those fences in a futile effort to keep foxes out? That just isn't cost effective I'm afraid, and I'm sure consumers wouldn't want those costs passed on to them. Shooting foxes is cost effective, and humane in comparison to other practices.


if farmers care about wildlife rather than kill it they could invest in humane deterants....in the USA they have more predator species and bigger ones!...yet caring farmers have found ways to live alongside their wildlife

Predator Friendly Farming


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

DogLover1981 said:


> Not necessarily. I'm saying loosing livestock is the risk you take by becoming a farmer. The wildlife was here first.  I'm sure other ways and a combination of ways could be found to keep out foxes, if people were imaginative enough.


Unfortunately foxes aren't edible, otherwise they may become a priority over livestock, but that isn't the case, and won't be the case. We are ruled by economics, and it simply isn't economical to allow a fox to take lambs, and some take ten, twenty a night, simply because they can. It is economical to get the local guy in who you have given shooting rights to, to get them to control numbers. It doesn't help when you also find out that rescue centres are releasing urban foxes, and even foxes that have had major surgery, into rural areas where they have no idea to fend for themselves, and so prey on what's easiest.

Plenty of foxes survive without coming into conflict with humans and their need to preserve livestock, and plenty of wildlife also survives because fox numbers are controlled, so I don't see what your problem is really


----------



## Thorne (May 11, 2009)

How on earth did this turn into a foxhunting debate?  About to walk the dogs instead of trawl through it but feel like adding that I've lived in the countryside all my life and have probably seen 3 or 4 foxes - seen dozens of dead ones on the motorway though. 
Most people don't give a stuff about cats killing vulnerable bird and rodent species because it's "nature" - but a fox following its instincts is a cruel vermin.
_
IMO, if you're going to keep livestock, you should do your utmost to prevent them falling victim to danger, including foxes. Prevention is better than cure..._

OP - If you come back to this thread, I hope your dogs are ok.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Thorne said:


> How on earth did this turn into a foxhunting debate?  About to walk the dogs instead of trawl through it but feel like adding that I've lived in the countryside all my life and have probably seen 3 or 4 foxes - seen dozens of dead ones on the motorway though.
> Most people don't give a stuff about cats killing vulnerable bird and rodent species because it's "nature" - but a fox following its instincts is a cruel vermin.
> _
> IMO, if you're going to keep livestock, you should do your utmost to prevent them falling victim to danger, including foxes. Prevention is better than cure..._
> ...


Thanks, have a massive problem with 2 of my huskies... Had a huge fight earlier and one ripped an enormous chuck of the other ones back... Was an absolute nightmare!!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Unfortunately foxes aren't edible, otherwise they may become a priority over livestock, but that isn't the case, and won't be the case. We are ruled by economics, and it simply isn't economical to allow a fox to take lambs, and some take ten, twenty a night, simply because they can. It is economical to get the local guy in who you have given shooting rights to, to get them to control numbers. It doesn't help when you also find out that rescue centres are releasing urban foxes, and even foxes that have had major surgery, into rural areas where they have no idea to fend for themselves, and so prey on what's easiest.
> 
> Plenty of foxes survive without coming into conflict with humans and their need to preserve livestock, and plenty of wildlife also survives because fox numbers are controlled, so I don't see what your problem is really


alpacas are amazing livestock guardians www.farminguk.com/

poor husbandry is the biggest cause of lamb losses.

In 1998, a study by the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (now part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) calculated that each year 4 million lambs are lost at a cost of £120 million for the industry. Deaths due to all predators (i.e. not just foxes) and misadventures combined account for only 5% of this figure, whereas 95% is due to poor husbandry and a variety of management problems.


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

Did I mention I love this site?  Threads can get so off topic. lol  This thread has gone from talking about working at an animal testing place to animal testing in general to fox hunting to fighting Siberian Huskies.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

hayleyth said:


> Thanks, have a massive problem with 2 of my huskies... Had a huge fight earlier and one ripped an enormous chuck of the other ones back... Was an absolute nightmare!!


do you know what triggered the fight?...have they seen the vet?


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

noushka05 said:


> do you know what triggered the fight?...have they seen the vet?


Yep i took him to the vet and hes staying overnight as they were worried he was going in to shock. They cleaned the wound etc, but it is too big to stitch up. They stitched the bit they could, but have had to leave part open and cover it with special stuff :s not 100% sure what they have done atm as i had to rush home and they wisked him off. But they are going to give me a ring in a bit.

As for what caused the fight, my "pack leader" was playing with a ball in the garden throwing it around etc. Then i noticed another one of my huskies go up to him and start playing very rough.. i kept a close eye on them and they both went seperate ways and were fine. A few minutes later he ran up to the one playing with the ball, tried to grab the ball, other one wouldnt let him and he just grabbed his back and pulled a massive chuck of flesh off...

Could not believe it!!!!!!


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

Ellielilac said:


> Im disgusted that animal testing still goes on Im a member of wspa compassion in world farming and I give to several rescues charitys,for someone to actually say they have a workplacement there sorry! but what sort of person can stand there and inflict pain and suffering on poor living creatures shame on all of them and all I hope is that God has a great big bull mastiff at his side when everyone queues up to go through St peters great big gates.Its a vile hateful practice.
> When I wa sa little girl I campagined and wrote to the papers tv about beagles been forced to smoke cigerettes it did get coverage and it did halt.If anyone ever wants support help to rescue please let me know!


What have you got against bull mastiffs?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> alpacas are amazing livestock guardians www.farminguk.com/
> 
> poor husbandry is the biggest cause of lamb losses.
> 
> In 1998, a study by the Ministry for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (now part of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) calculated that each year 4 million lambs are lost at a cost of £120 million for the industry. Deaths due to all predators (i.e. not just foxes) and misadventures combined account for only 5% of this figure, whereas 95% is due to poor husbandry and a variety of management problems.


Poor husbandry is a poor excuse really if you are a farmer affected by this, it's like saying poor pet ownership is to blame for the vast majority of cruelty to dogs, it's true, and both you and I own pet dogs, but that doesn't make us cruel owners. The simple fact is some farmers are badly affected by losses to foxes, not down to poor animal husbandry, but down to foxes being clever predators, and in some instances, losing their fear of humans, and in some instances, that is down to urban foxes being released in close proximity to livestock. If you are one of those farmers whose lambs are being taken, even in broad daylight, I doubt you'd start encouraging a flourishing rabbit or rat population in the hope the foxes might divert their predatory tactics elsewhere, it is a business after all.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

hayleyth said:


> Yep i took him to the vet and hes staying overnight as they were worried he was going in to shock. They cleaned the wound etc, but it is too big to stitch up. They stitched the bit they could, but have had to leave part open and cover it with special stuff :s not 100% sure what they have done atm as i had to rush home and they wisked him off. But they are going to give me a ring in a bit.
> 
> As for what caused the fight, my "pack leader" was playing with a ball in the garden throwing it around etc. Then i noticed another one of my huskies go up to him and start playing very rough.. i kept a close eye on them and they both went seperate ways and were fine. A few minutes later he ran up to the one playing with the ball, tried to grab the ball, other one wouldnt let him and he just grabbed his back and pulled a massive chuck of flesh off...
> 
> Could not believe it!!!!!!


goodness how awful for you both, i would remove all toys if i were you incase one becomes posessive over them, hope he gets better soon.


----------



## Sled dog hotel (Aug 11, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> goodness how awful for you both, i would remove all toys if i were you incase one becomes posessive over them, hope he gets better soon.


Agree with Noushka no toys and you may have to watch them with food and other things too.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Poor husbandry is a poor excuse really if you are a farmer affected by this, it's like saying poor pet ownership is to blame for the vast majority of cruelty to dogs, it's true, and both you and I own pet dogs, but that doesn't make us cruel owners. The simple fact is some farmers are badly affected by losses to foxes, not down to poor animal husbandry, but down to foxes being clever predators, and in some instances, losing their fear of humans, and in some instances, that is down to urban foxes being released in close proximity to livestock. If you are one of those farmers whose lambs are being taken, even in broad daylight, I doubt you'd start encouraging a flourishing rabbit or rat population in the hope the foxes might divert their predatory tactics elsewhere, it is a business after all.


its not an excuse its based on a study by DEFRA.

But if farmers are suffering from fox related losses they should invest in an alpaca or two imo. They are getting very popular as flock guardians In Australia....Many sheep breeders have reported their best-ever lambing
percentages following the introduction of guardian alpacas. Alpaca wethers are readily available at very low cost in comparison to their benefits and feeding and husbandry costs are also very low. These quiet and friendly animals are rapidly becoming accepted as essential complements to all sheep and goat breeding enterprises where predators cause lambing and kidding losses.


----------



## hazyreality (Jan 11, 2009)

*edit* whoops, didnt realise it went off topic, ah well, maybe back on...

I went for a job interview once at a "commercial kennels" I was rather naive at the time. When I got there, I had to state my name and why I was there, I was then let to drive between 2 sets of gates, and one had to close before they would open the other, thats when I knew what sort of "commerical kennels" I was going into. 
Turns out they were breeders of beagles for testing  

I will admit that they were kept better than I would have expected, and they all looked happy (and obviously healthy) in large enclosures(with on demand water which I had never seen before, they pushed the metal thing down and water came out) but as I looked around, I could only think of these poor dogs going off to Huntington Life Sciences (their biggest customer) and all sorts happening to them. The thing that tipped me over the edge, was her telling me that, from very small puppies, the dogs are taught that it is OK to have masks put over their faces so they can be gassed later on with no fighting (as they are used to it) 
I never filled in the paperwork and I never went back, I just couldnt have done it 

She also said that employees cars would have to be registered under the companies name so animal rights people couldnt found out where I lived, I never felt so scared going home. My initials on my personalised plate are HLS and as the woman pointed out, unfortunately it is also Hunts Life Sciences  I've never felt the same about my initials since!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

hazyreality said:


> *edit* whoops, didnt realise it went off topic, ah well, maybe back on...
> 
> I went for a job interview once at a "commercial kennels" I was rather naive at the time. When I got there, I had to state my name and why I was there, I was then let to drive between 2 sets of gates, and one had to close before they would open the other, thats when I knew what sort of "commerical kennels" I was going into.
> Turns out they were breeders of beagles for testing
> ...


That must have been heartbreaking, I don't blame you for not going back, I couldn't work somewhere like that either


----------



## hazyreality (Jan 11, 2009)

simplysardonic said:


> That must have been heartbreaking, I don't blame you for not going back, I couldn't work somewhere like that either


That was about 7 years ago now, and I still think about those dogs when I go past the roundabout that leads to the place on occasion  I dont even know if they are still there. I remember the white coverall and booties I had to put on to go in the kennel blocks and how the dogs reacted, thinking I was the vet 

They didnt do their checks very well, mind you, as at college I needed to research animal rights groups and had to "sign up" for an information pack on how bad Hunts LS was, so technically I could have been there to let them all loose!


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2012)

hazyreality said:


> That was about 7 years ago now, and I still think about those dogs when I go past the roundabout that leads to the place on occasion  I dont even know if they are still there. I remember the white coverall and booties I had to put on to go in the kennel blocks and how the dogs reacted, thinking I was the vet
> 
> They didnt do their checks very well, mind you, as at college I needed to research animal rights groups and had to "sign up" for an information pack on how bad Hunts LS was, so technically I could have been there to let them all loose!


I think I know where that is, it is a heart breaking place, I think it is still running


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Is 'everyone' the emotional public who have no knowledge of fox hunting because I think if you asked every single person who has ever ridden on a hunt they would give you a rather different answer. The majority want a good ride across country, the more knowledgeable few want to appreciate watching hounds working and if a fox is killed then it is honoured. It is not ripped apart when alive by the way, the first hound will break its neck.


I love how pro fox hunters always assume their opponents have 'no knowledge of fox hunting'. How about hunt sabs? They've been present at a lot of fox hunts. 
I've only ever heard this 'first dog breaks the neck' thing from pro hunters, surprisingly. How come every video I've seen of the 'kill' has involved foxes being ripped to bits while still very much alive? 
Just search youtube for it, you'll find a lot of videos of it. Can't find many to show the fox dying instantly from a quick, painless bite to the neck from the first dog.

But maybe these videos of foxes being pulled apart by dogs are fake? 

Besides which, it isn't just the killing style which makes fox hunting and its supporters so vile, it is the chase. 
Foxes can, and are, chased to exhaustion. This is a predator that is not designed to run for miles to escape a larger predator. Deer are perhaps adapted to that, foxes are not. The stress of being made to run for so long, in such terror, with all your bolt holes blocked up, and even if you do managed to escape underground you'll get the terriers set on you, well, that is just as disgusting.
And disgusting that anyone can watch that happening and think its all ok, and totally humane.



Blitz said:


> shot foxes often do not die and then suffer a horrendous long drawn out death.


Not when they're shot by an experienced person who is responsible and knows what they're doing.



Blitz said:


> There is also culling of young foxes in the autumn, but these are not chased, they are killed in cover so they are not run around and exhausted.


So you admit there is an exhausting chase involved in fox hunting? And one so inhumane, they don't inflict it on the cubs.
How are the cubs 'culled', and why do they get the luxury of not being chased and terrified for ages, but the adults don't? Not as much fun with a baby? Not able to give a 'fun' or long enough chase?



Blitz said:


> I have not hunted often and only as a child/teenager - but I never even saw a fox let alone one killed.


Then how do you know that the first dog to get to it gives it a neck bite and kills it instantly? How do you know they are not ripped to bits while alive, if you admit you never saw one killed?



Blitz said:


> It is odd, at least two of the popular posters on here kill animals for fun and use their dogs to retrieve them. Why have I never seen you having a go at them.


I have a low opinion of anyone who hunts for fun, and had I been in a thread where I saw them supporting it, I'd say the same to them as to you.



Blitz said:


> By the way I poison rats as do all farmers. I prefer for my cows and horses not to have their feed ruined and for them and my dogs not to be at risk of disease. I do not believe they suffer. They slow up and wander around a bit then die. They slowly bleed internally and go dopey and sleepy.


PLEASE. 
Do not even go there. 
You don't believe they suffer, or you choose to kid yourself that they don't, so you don't feel so disgusting?
Have you ever been involved with a rat that has been poisoned? Ever held one in your hand and seen the agony it is in? Ever had to choose to kill the rat, against all your natural instincts to protect it, just to save it from the agony?
Do you even know how to recognise signs of pain in rats? Or do you assume that if they're not squealing or whining like a dog, then they're feeling fine and dandy? Would you even know what a rat in agony looked like?
'Dopey and sleepy', yeah, ok. Or perhaps they go slow and vacant because they're in such extreme agony.
You do realise that rats that are in pain typically don't move, they squint their eyes (giving a 'sleepy' appearance), they hunch up, all giving this 'sleepy' appearance you seem to think is just lovely.

Do NOT try to talk to me about how humane you think murdering these intelligent animals is in the way you do it: you do not have even one iota of the experience with these animals that I do, or experience with their pain and suffering, so you have NO right to say how painless or humane poison is.
Next time I get one in, I'll call you so you can hold her as she dies in agony.



Blitz said:


> Ok so it is sad they have to die but if they are so intelligent why do they eat poison when they have watched their friends die of it, why do they interfere with our lives and why do they crap in full view of us so we know they have been around at night. If they would mind their own business then we could coexist.


You're joking, right?
Ok, first off, lots of rats DON'T go for poison. They are that smart that if they have seen a friend die of it, or can smell it on them, they avoid that substance. 
The same happens with non lethal substances. For example, if a rat eats something and feels a bit dicky for a day or so, the other rats will avoid that food themselves and sometimes, for life. 
The rats who fall victim to poison tend to be the very young, the lone rats without a group to learn from, those that are desperate for food, and the old ones who are a bit doddery and slow. 
This is the reason poisons are so pointless: rats learn to avoid them, and some even manage to build up a resistance to them.

I can't believe you have the gall to ask 'why do they interfere with our lives'.

Reason one: YOU are interfering with THEIR life. As humans encroach more and more into every territory we have, the animals get forced into closer and closer interactions with us. I can't believe you are so arrogant that you believe you have more right to be here than them. 
Reason two: rats go where there is food and shelter for them. If you're leaving food out for them, they will return. Common sense.


----------



## hazyreality (Jan 11, 2009)

B3rnie said:


> I think I know where that is, it is a heart breaking place, I think it is still running


Yeh, its local. I was convinced someone was going to follow me home, I even went round a couple of roundabouts a 2nd time to be on the safer side 
It, as I say, was better than I expected it would be, and the dogs looked happy but its so hard knowing where they are going after. 
I am so glad those dogs don't know why they have been bred or where they are going 

*Heidi*


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Blitz said:


> If they would mind their own business then we could coexist.


Also, have to add....they do.
Wild rats won't run up to you and attack you, they have no interest in you, they'd rather you go away and left _them_ alone. They are there for food, and shelter, and thats it. You're simply an annoyance. 
This image you seem to have of rats deliberately existing just to spite you is a bit tragic. They live where they feel they have a plentiful food supply and good shelter, like every other animal.
Wild rats are typically timid of people and will retreat when they see you.

I had a wildie in my shed, she lived there, just turned up one day, a lone girl without a group. I fed her, I left her water, she had a box she slept in that I'd given her. She virtually never left my shed, she had no need to. Occasionally she'd pop outside, then come back later. After time, she learned I wasn't a threat to her, and she'd begin to hang about a bit when I was out there in the shed, watching me. She was about 8 months old when she turned up, and she lived with me for almost another year. 
She way outlived her life expectancy as a wildie (usually only a year). 
I even managed to get close enough to treat her for mites. She was a lovely, lovely animal. Never bothered me, never tried to hurt me, was gentle and more shy than anything else. 
Then one day, she disappeared. No sign, didn't eat her food, not in her nest, just disappeared. She used to pop out for an hour or so here and there, but she was gone for a day, then two days, then three.
Found out the neighbours had found out she was there, must have seen her coming home one night, and killed her. 
She wasn't bothering them. She had lived in my shed for months without them even knowing. She didn't bother anyone. But because she was a rat, they killed her. I have nothing but contempt for people who think these beautiful, intelligent, social animals should be killed just for being 'rats', when they wouldn't inflict such suffering on other British wildlife.

If poison is so humane, Im assuming you think it is a fair way to control feral/wild dog populations also? Or cats? Or any animal that inconveniences us. Never mind that it can take 7 days for a rat to die of poison.....7 days. 7 days of being in agony, unable to hunt or move as you once did, I wonder if you understand how distressing that is to a prey animal like a rat, to know they are debilitated and disadvantaged.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Shadowrat said:


> PLEASE.
> Do not even go there.
> You don't believe they suffer, or you choose to kid yourself that they don't, so you don't feel so disgusting?
> Have you ever been involved with a rat that has been poisoned? Ever held one in your hand and seen the agony it is in? Ever had to choose to kill the rat, against all your natural instincts to protect it, just to save it from the agony?
> ...


Sorry, but some of what you say here is rubbish. I have probably seen far more rats die from poison than you have. I have also seen dogs and cats that are poisoned and they go the same way. they bleed out internally.

And the rats most certainly do not avoid poison when they have seen their mates die. We usually have to put poison down for several weeks to clear out the rats. We actually put the poison near the other animal food that they have been stealing - yet they choose the poison. One or two of all ages die every day or so. They are not lone rats. I will admit there are more young rats that die but that is because there are more young rats around - fairly obvious as one male and female can produce lots of babies.

As the majority of farmers, pest controllers and horse owners lay bait then you will just have to accept that lots of rats will die and most farmers will see far more dying rats than you will. And if poison is put down for long enough, in spite of there being plenty of other food available, eventually every rat will take enough poison to kill them - so not so bright are they. And the reason they build up resistance is because poison is not put down for long enough. They have to eat a bit every day for quite a few days for it to work. One big meal will probably not kill them.

On a lighter note I was once feeding a feral cat and her kittens and a young rat used to sit just behind them and wait for me to put the food down. He did not come forward while I was there but I had this wonderful image of him sharing the dish with the cats.

and do you notice that everyone is very impressed with this http://www.petforums.co.uk/dog-chat/250554-sublime-gun-dog-work.html


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> its not an excuse its based on a study by DEFRA.
> 
> But if farmers are suffering from fox related losses they should invest in an alpaca or two imo. They are getting very popular as flock guardians In Australia....Many sheep breeders have reported their best-ever lambing
> percentages following the introduction of guardian alpacas. Alpaca wethers are readily available at very low cost in comparison to their benefits and feeding and husbandry costs are also very low. These quiet and friendly animals are rapidly becoming accepted as essential complements to all sheep and goat breeding enterprises where predators cause lambing and kidding losses.


It is an excuse, if you are one of those sheep farmers who looks after your animals, and you are told that actually, the greatest loss is down to poor animal husbandary, so stop moaning about it, and fox control isn't necessary if you just go and buy an alpaca.

So what happens to the fox population when the alpaca is there, do the foxes have a discussion and decide to that contraception is the best policy since the local farmer bought an alien speices in to control their desire to nick off with a lamb or ten?


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It is an excuse, if you are one of those sheep farmers who looks after your animals, and you are told that actually, the greatest loss is down to poor animal husbandary, so stop moaning about it, and fox control isn't necessary if you just go and buy an alpaca.
> 
> So what happens to the fox population when the alpaca is there, do the foxes have a discussion and decide to that contraception is the best policy since the local farmer bought an alien speices in to control their desire to nick off with a lamb or ten?


Actually there is a lot of truth in it, starvation is one of the commonest reasons for lamb death and of course while they are on the way to dying they are easy prey for predators and have often already been abandoned by their mother who would otherwise protect them. At the same time, we do not have foxes here but we have black back gulls and no doubt they are as big a problem, the gulls will take a newborn lamb while the ewe is having the second one, and they will also peck the ewes eyes out while she is lambing and sometimes peck her back end too so she either dies or has to be put down.
We had a couple of alpacas for a while but I did not use them for protecting sheep, though when I sold them one was bought for just that job. I cant imagine they would be a lot of use against foxes except with very small flocks in small fields. The ewes will see the fox off if they are able.

I fully agree with you though, if you are a farmer losing healthy lambs to foxes you would not be too amused to say it was your husbandry causing it.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Blitz said:


> Actually there is a lot of truth in it, starvation is one of the commonest reasons for lamb death and of course while they are on the way to dying they are easy prey for predators and have often already been abandoned by their mother who would otherwise protect them. At the same time, we do not have foxes here but we have black back gulls and no doubt they are as big a problem, the gulls will take a newborn lamb while the ewe is having the second one, and they will also peck the ewes eyes out while she is lambing and sometimes peck her back end too so she either dies or has to be put down.
> We had a couple of alpacas for a while but I did not use them for protecting sheep, though when I sold them one was bought for just that job. I cant imagine they would be a lot of use against foxes except with very small flocks in small fields. The ewes will see the fox off if they are able.
> 
> I fully agree with you though, if you are a farmer losing healthy lambs to foxes you would not be too amused to say it was your husbandry causing it.


This is it though, I appreciate that a lot of lamb mortality is down to poor animal husbandry, but there is, in places, a genuine problem with mortality of lambs to foxes, and in that instance, predator numbers need to be controlled. Sticking an alpaca in a field isn't going to do anything except divert predatory activities elsewhere, and if there isn't anything else to prey on, do people mind foxes driving up the price of lamb? Or killing pets? Or even in the extreme, do they mind foxes starving, because there isn't enough food? Or would people prefer to see a managed population?


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Sorry, but some of what you say here is rubbish. I have probably seen far more rats die from poison than you have. I have also seen dogs and cats that are poisoned and they go the same way. they bleed out internally.


Really?
You may have seen more poisoned rats staggering helplessly around the farm yard, but I would bet you've not cared for as many, held as many, been close to as many, watched as many die in your care. I am also absolutely certain you do not have even a fraction of the knowledge on rat behaviour as I do, so have absolutely no basis on which to base your observation that it is painless. I am aware of how poison kills. Bleeding out internally is certainly not going to be painless.
I am also aware of what rats in agony look like. Perhaps you are not.
And trust me when I tell you the poisoned rats I've been with are in _agony_.



Blitz said:


> As the majority of farmers, pest controllers and horse owners lay bait then you will just have to accept that lots of rats will die and most farmers will see far more dying rats than you will.


I've owned rats for 16 years. I've owned over 300. I've watched each and every one die, in a number of ways. Add to that the wildies I've seen die.
And not just 'die from a distance' like a farmer, but die in my arms, in my bed, inches away from me. This is a laughable statement. 
Please talk sense.



Blitz said:


> And if poison is put down for long enough, in spite of there being plenty of other food available, eventually every rat will take enough poison to kill them - *so not so bright are they*.


Are you for real?


----------



## Guest (Aug 4, 2012)

Blitz said:


> Sorry, but some of what you say here is rubbish. I have probably seen far more rats die from poison than you have. I have also seen dogs and cats that are poisoned and they go the same way. they bleed out internally.
> 
> And the rats most certainly do not avoid poison when they have seen their mates die. We usually have to put poison down for several weeks to clear out the rats. We actually put the poison near the other animal food that they have been stealing - yet they choose the poison. One or two of all ages die every day or so. They are not lone rats. I will admit there are more young rats that die but that is because there are more young rats around - fairly obvious as one male and female can produce lots of babies.
> 
> *As the majority of farmers, pest controllers and horse owners lay bait* then you will just have to accept that lots of rats will die and most farmers will see far more dying rats than you will. And if poison is put down for long enough, in spite of there being plenty of other food available, eventually every rat will take enough poison to kill them - so not so bright are they. And the reason they build up resistance is because poison is not put down for long enough. They have to eat a bit every day for quite a few days for it to work. One big meal will probably not kill them.


I'm sorry but where I am from the majority wouldn't even entertain having poison, the majority will get people in to shoot the rats or they will hire a terrier man so that the rats get a quick and stress free (as possible) kill.

Poison doesn't only effect the rats, it will affect anything that picks up a poisoned rat (be that BOP, foxes, feral/stray/barn cats, dogs, badgers, owls and the list continues).

Poison is an extremely painful way to die, you do know that internal bleeding hurts right?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> It is an excuse, if you are one of those sheep farmers who looks after your animals, and you are told that actually, the greatest loss is down to poor animal husbandary, so stop moaning about it, and fox control isn't necessary if you just go and buy an alpaca.
> 
> So what happens to the fox population when the alpaca is there, do the foxes have a discussion and decide to that contraception is the best policy since the local farmer bought an alien speices in to control their desire to nick off with a lamb or ten?


no im pretty sure the foxes that live in that territory will stay there and breed, but in peace...the yongsters will then disperse as they do..but they wont interfere with the farmers livestock because Alpaca would be on guard....which by the way is a domesticated species just the same as sheep,pig or horses are .

.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> no im pretty sure the foxes that live in that territory will stay there and breed, but in peace...the yongsters will then disperse as they do..but they wont interfere with the farmers livestock because Alpaca would be on guard....which by the way is a domesticated species just the same as sheep,pig or horses are .
> 
> .


So where would their food come from, because if their parents didn't have sufficient prey, so that the farmer felt the need to bring in an alpaca (which is let's face it, an alien species) where would the offspring of the foxes find food? And let's face it, if there was prey available in a territory the offspring could migrate to, surely the parents would have done that?


----------



## DogLover1981 (Mar 28, 2009)

I don't understand why people think it's acceptable to shoot wildlife when it isn't being used for food. It would be like me shooting the woodpeckers in the neighborhood because they sometimes peck at my house (and it's cost me money to fix the damage they've done) or shooting every squirrel around because they caused us to loose our phone service chewing on the line outside.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So where would their food come from, because if their parents didn't have sufficient prey, so that the farmer felt the need to bring in an alpaca (which is let's face it, an alien species) where would the offspring of the foxes find food? And let's face it, if there was prey available in a territory the offspring could migrate to, surely the parents would have done that?


foxes being omnivorous have a very varied diet, invertebrates make up a large percentage of their diet,.... not all foxes go out killing livestock..but practically every fox will ultimately pay the price just for being a fox!!

if you class Alpaca as an alien species then in the same context so is the horse..

anyway i dont know why youre questioning the use of livestock guardians when its been proved over and over that using them really works!...so why persecute wildlife when there are proven humane methods of protecting farmed animals from them

.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> foxes being omnivorous have a very varied diet, invertebrates make up a large percentage of their diet,.... not all foxes go out killing livestock..but every practically every fox will ultimately pay the price just for being a fox!!
> 
> if you class Alpaca as an alien species then in the same context so is the horse..
> 
> ...


What have horses got to do with it? Yes Alpaca's are an alien species, like rabbits, and cats, and yet thankfully because of one alien species, there is an alternative source of prey for foxes. I am well aware of the diet of foxes, I think we've had these discussions enough times previously, my gripe is that despite predation being documented, despite ares of over population, people are still against control of numbers. It's for the benefit of foxes overall that nujbers are kept at a viable level, anyone who thinks they should be allowed to live just because they are born, isn't being realistic as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> What have horses got to do with it? Yes Alpaca's are an alien species, like rabbits, and cats, and yet thankfully because of one alien species, there is an alternative source of prey for foxes. I am well aware of the diet of foxes, I think we've had these discussions enough times previously, my gripe is that despite predation being documented, despite ares of over population, people are still against control of numbers. It's for the benefit of foxes overall that nujbers are kept at a viable level, anyone who thinks they should be allowed to live just because they are born, isn't being realistic as far as I'm concerned.


lol because Alpaca in this country are no different from any other domesticated species of farm animal or the horse, a lot of domesticated animals 'used' in farming didnt evolve over here , naturalists class rabbits as a naturalized species, cats a domesticated species which causes immense damage to wildlife.. alien....just to clear that up lol

show me stats that show where theres an overpopulation of foxes then?...they are territorial animals so disperse! ... it appears to me that foxes are just randomly killed in an unstructured individualistic way, no studies of individual animals or populations...this isnt 'wildlife management.... the majority of foxes dont live beyond 2yrs old in the wild, i dare say this is largely due to persecution!.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

Just to get even more off topic . Not too sure about alpacas, having owned them. They are not that easy to keep, they do need shelter, they are not ideally suited to our weather. I am not sure how they guard. Is it just the smell of them that keep the foxes away or do they never sleep and guard huge areas of sheep grazing by rushing over and threatening a fox every time they see one. A genuine question because, though I have read that they are good guards, I do not know how it works - and I would be concerned for their welfare if they were kept out with sheep in bad weather.

Maybe I live in an odd area but there are no pest control services here, there is no terrier men, or rat shooters. Everyone uses poison. I think it is amazing that this thread has gone to pest control!

Shadowrat why would you put a wild dying rat in your bed - yuck! Would it not be the kind thing to knock it over the head. And how do you end up with it in the first place. Are there farmers who collect up the dying rats every morning and bring them to you to nurse till they die.
Over 30 years I dare say I have seen several hundred poisoned rats and I have also kept rodents as pets so have a tiny bit of knowledge of them - I would not think I have as much knowledge of domestic rodents as you do but I am not totally ignorant of them.

Interesting point too, is it kinder to put a dog among them and chase them around and terrify them - I am not sure why. My dog will get one in passing but I have never hunted huge amounts of rats though some people find it a good sport to have a dog around when the final oat sheaves are moved from a stook and the rats run around in panic as they are exposed.


----------



## Starlite (Sep 9, 2009)

Here's a crazy idea.

How about those who are wanting to discuss hunting start their own thread instead of hijacking others?


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Blitz said:


> Just to get even more off topic . Not too sure about alpacas, having owned them. They are not that easy to keep, they do need shelter, they are not ideally suited to our weather. I am not sure how they guard. Is it just the smell of them that keep the foxes away or do they never sleep and guard huge areas of sheep grazing by rushing over and threatening a fox every time they see one. A genuine question because, though I have read that they are good guards, I do not know how it works - and I would be concerned for their welfare if they were kept out with sheep in bad weather.
> 
> Maybe I live in an odd area but there are no pest control services here, there is no terrier men, or rat shooters. Everyone uses poison. I think it is amazing that this thread has gone to pest control!
> 
> ...


I cant speak from personal experience, but everything ive read about Alpaca on the internet says the opposite, that they are easy to keep. Heres what the experts have to say.....

General Husbandry

The alpaca is a lean, hardy animal which carries a lot of fleece, shorn they look like skinny little giraffes for a while. As such, symptoms of illness or imbalance are not easy to spot until the very last minute. It is not to the alpacas advantage to voluntarily show any weakness which means that when the symptoms are obvious it usually means that any deficiency or disease has taken a firm hold on the animal and it is more often than not time to call the vet. It is essential that alpacas are monitored at least twice a day.

This can mean no more than a walk round the paddock to check that all is well, which ninety nine times out of a hundred will be the case but they do need looking at. Alpacas are rapidly building a reputation as an easy to manage user friendly livestock, all of which is true, but if you are under the impression that they look after themselves you are mistaken. As with all livestock it is our responsibility to take care of the health and welfare of our charges, a routine quick visual inspection twice a day once in the morning another at feeding is quite sufficient. 
That beautiful fibre can mask a lot of things, weight loss, abscesses and infection and the only way you will know what condition your alpacas are in is to body score, touch and feel and get hands on and close every so often with your alpacas

PETS 
Many people with a small paddock or even large gardens have discovered the joys of alpaca ownership. They provide a fascinating, quiet, low maintenance interest for all the family, neighbours and the local community. We only sell alpacas as pets that are halter trained, good nautred and easy to handle.

GUARD ANIMALS

Chickens- We sell mature gelded alpacas as guard alpacas to protect free range chicken flocks. Waitrose currently use alpacas as guards on tier free range chicken flocks.

Sheep-We sell mature castrated alpacas as guard alpacas to sheep flocks throughout the UK. The alpacas adopt the herd and successfully reduce the predation rate by protecting the flocks from predators.

Australian sheep farmers are queuing up at the alpaca farms to ship these gelded boys out to the sheep stations to protect their flocks. The addition of an alpaca or two is reported to reduce the predation rate at lambing by up to 85%.

It makes sense- Alpacas live 15-20 yrs, are low maintenance, fit neatly into the sheep regime and can provide a quality fleece. They will certainly add something special to your flock and provide some added security at those vulnerable times.

General Husbandry



Starlite said:


> Here's a crazy idea.
> 
> How about those who are wanting to discuss hunting start their own thread instead of hijacking others?


dont blame me! I didnt start it


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Blitz said:


> Shadowrat why would you put a wild dying rat in your bed - yuck!


Why is that yuk? Is it yuck for people to let their dogs onto their beds? Or are you just being ignorant because its a rat?
My last heart rat, Mandylor, slept in with my every night. He'd curl up beside me, and if he needed a wee in the night, he'd wake me up for it. I'd wake up in the morning to his little yawning face draped over me. Its lovely.

When my pet rats are ill, they very much will come up to bed with me, absolutely. Rats are pack animals, they feel safe with their 'alpha', which is their owner. In fact, as Im sure many rat people will confirm for you, sick rats will often move heaven and earth to try and get to their owner. Its not uncommon, I've had several rats over the years who have performed feats I never knew they could, just so they could ensure they were with me when they died.
One lad, Jerry, was really old and I could tell he wasn't feeling 100% that day. He used to free range on my bedroom floor but as he was so old, his back legs were weak and he couldn't get up onto the bed himself. Even a healthy rat would have struggled, though.
I was laying in bed, knew he wasn't behaving like himself, and he suddenly went mad trying to leap up the side of the bed, obsessed with trying to scrabble up there, completely in vain, of course.
It was so unlike him that I picked him up and put him on my chest, and he passed away about 30 seconds later, cuddled up to me.
He just wanted to be with me, with someone. So yes, being with your ill rat can be a masive comfort to them. And as they tend to get ill at night, they come up to bed with me in my room so I can monitor them. 
I enjoy it, they enjoy it, my OH has no issues, so why 'yuk'?

With the wildies, its important not to stress them as much as possible, so the shed is less 'human' to them with no TV sounds and such, so they tend not to come into the house, they remain in the shed.



Blitz said:


> Would it not be the kind thing to knock it over the head.


This has to be done on occasion when a vet cannot be accessed to euthanise them humanely. Fortunately, I've never had to do it myself, but I have had to advise a member of the public to do so when he called up, as he was too far away for me to go get the rat. It had been poisoned and he didn't know what to do. He couldn't get it to a vet, so I had to tell him to give it a whack over the head and kill it. Tore me up to have to do it; its my job to save these animals, not advise people to kill them!



Blitz said:


> And how do you end up with it in the first place. Are there farmers who collect up the dying rats every morning and bring them to you to nurse till they die.


No, farmers do not, why would they? They poisoned them in the first place, they don't give a damn about them, they're heartless when it comes to rats. 
The wildies I get called about are from good hearted members of the public who have found the rats in pain and distress from poisoning on their property, or out on a walk, and are not callous enough to walk past and leave them there. There are some decent people out there, you know. After all, would you walk on by a poisoned dog or cat, or would you seek to get them help?
I didn't used to get any calls about wildies when I first started, but the number has steadily risen. People call me, tell me they don't know what to do about the rat on their property as it is obviously in pain, and if they won't take it to a vet to be euthanised, I'll go get it myself and do so.



Blitz said:


> though some people find it a good sport to have a dog around when the final oat sheaves are moved from a stook and the rats run around in panic as they are exposed.


Some people find it fun to molest children too, or murder old people, or torch houses; there are lots of sick morons out there.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2012)

Blitz said:


> Maybe I live in an odd area but there are no pest control services here, *there is no terrier men, or rat shooters.* Everyone uses poison. I think it is amazing that this thread has gone to pest control!
> 
> Interesting point too, *is it kinder to put a dog among them and chase them around and terrify them - I am not sure why*. My dog will get one in passing but I have never hunted huge amounts of rats though some people find it a good sport to have a dog around when the final oat sheaves are moved from a stook and the rats run around in panic as they are exposed.


Bolded point one: I bet there are some shooters or terrier men, you just need to know where to look.

Bolded point two: No that is not correct, you can't just get any old dog and stick them into a bunch of rats and hope for the best  A properly trained ratter will kill within seconds, so yes compared to at least 5 days of agony it is kinder.


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

B3rnie said:


> Bolded point one: I bet there are some shooters or terrier men, you just need to know where to look.
> 
> Bolded point two: No that is not correct, you can't just get any old dog and stick them into a bunch of rats and hope for the best  A properly trained ratter will kill within seconds, so yes compared to at least 5 days of agony it is kinder.


Point one, no , everyone poisons. 
Point two, of course you do not just stick any old dog in a bunch of rats. Where on earth did I say that. But a good dog can kill a lot of rats in a very short time while the rats run around in panic. My dog kills individual rats but would not manage a whole bunch of them.

Shadowrat - nowhere did I say yuk to you having your pet rats in your bed. I said yuk to you having wild rats in your bed.
I am surprised that anyone picks up poisoned wild rats as they seldom stray far away so would be on the farm where they had been poisoned. We never find them more than a few yards away. We do sometimes find old bodies in the straw bales in their nests but more often they have wandered out into the yard and died. There is nothing you can do for them so why would you 'rescue' them and stress them out while they die in an unfamiliar place.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2012)

Blitz said:


> Point one, no , everyone poisons.
> Point two, of course you do not just stick any old dog in a bunch of rats. Where on earth did I say that. But a good dog can kill a lot of rats in a very short time while the rats run around in panic. My dog kills individual rats but would not manage a whole bunch of them.
> 
> Shadowrat - nowhere did I say yuk to you having your pet rats in your bed. I said yuk to you having wild rats in your bed.
> I am surprised that anyone picks up poisoned wild rats as they seldom stray far away so would be on the farm where they had been poisoned. We never find them more than a few yards away. We do sometimes find old bodies in the straw bales in their nests but more often they have wandered out into the yard and died. There is nothing you can do for them so why would you 'rescue' them and stress them out while they die in an unfamiliar place.


As I said a few minutes of panic and a few seconds of pain is much, much kinder than a minimum of 5 days in agony. I have seen a terrier at work and tbh the panic is minimal once the dag is working.
And not sure why you are repeating that everyone poisons because that is irrelevant to finding a terrier man or shooter, if you wanted to find one, you could. Maybe not 5 mins down the road but in the UK there are plenty that are willing to travel. But then why should you look, it's much easier to throw a bit of poison down cos that's what everyone does


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Blitz said:


> .
> 
> There is nothing you can do for them so why would you 'rescue' them and stress them out while they die in an unfamiliar place.


There is something I can do for them: I can take them to be humanely euthanised rather than allow them to suffer in agony for up to 7 days. 
If poison killed in an hour, sure, I'd agree that its better to leave them than to take them out of their environment. 
But we're talking 7 days here.......which would you prefer? To be taken to an unfamiliar place and go to sleep painlessly, or be left to die in agony for 7 days, vulnerable to predators and the elements?
Poisoned rats become disorientated, thats why they're often found wandering aimlessly where they don't usually go.

Would you walk on by a poisoned dog and just leave it, thinking 'oh, well, we can't do anything for it, lets leave it to die where it is familiar'.....honestly, would you?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Wild rats carry a lot more diseases then domesticated dogs though.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Wild rats carry a lot more diseases then domesticated dogs though.


The amount of disease spread by wild rats is grossly over exaggerated in the media.
Depending on country, you could get rabies from a dog, not a rat.
Street pigeons carry more disease than wild rats.

I've never caught anything off a rat. I have off a dog.


----------



## hayleyth (May 9, 2012)

Have to admit, rats is the one thing around my area that i dont mind.. they stay out my way and i do quite like them :s the only issue i have is when they get in my house, but they never have and considering i live in the middle of knowhere it is quite odd. 

I do have a mouse trap in my horse barn though.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Ive seen diseases around my area from rats.

I live near water and they had somehow found a way into my roof.

I dont mind all sorts of animals i like spiders and snakes etc but wild rats i cannot stand.

Dogs do not have ranies in the uk, wild rats have diseases.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> Wild rats carry a lot more diseases then domesticated dogs though.


No they don't, that is something the media harp on about. As Shodowrat said pigeons carry far more disease than rats do.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Its a myth they dont carry disease. They do.

Can anyone remember the plauge????


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Its a myth they dont carry disease. They do.
> 
> Can anyone remember the plauge????


I think they are actually saying that rats didnt cause the plague, i may be lying though


----------



## hazyreality (Jan 11, 2009)

I have kept pet rats and love them, but having dealt with wild rats that moved into my rabbit shed and attacked a rabbit of mine (they damn near killed him and left him blind!) and they actually *ate* an old guinea (I hope he died first, I found fur and bones one morning) and 2 babies, which were totally gone. I will use any method nessesary to keep my fur babies safe, and if that means (as I have) leaving some poison down in a bait box, then thats what I do. The rat man came and got rid of them, and I just keep them out of my shed. Not to mention the damage they did to the shed!

*Heidi*


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

Anyone who says rats don'y carry diseases needs to go down the sewers!

Or specsavers at the very least!


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

emmaviolet said:


> Its a myth they dont carry disease. They do.
> 
> Can anyone remember the plauge????


it wasnt brown rats...it was fleas on the black rat that carried the bubonic plague, black rats are an endangered species.

brown rats can carry leptospirosis.


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

noushka05 said:


> it wasnt brown rats...it was fleas on the black rat that carried the bubonic plague, black rats are an endangered species.
> 
> brown rats can carry leptospirosis.


So fleas caused the plague then Noush


----------



## 1290423 (Aug 11, 2011)

I thought that all rats urine had the bug that causes lepto in it. is this true of not?
anyone


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

DT said:


> So fleas caused the plague then Noush


Exactly!!!!:thumbsup:


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

DT said:


> I thought that all rats urine had the bug that causes lepto in it. is this true of not?
> anyone


Yes this is true.


----------



## hazyreality (Jan 11, 2009)

Around here, rats are also considered to carry Lyme disease? My brother was site manager for persimmon and they had to have health and safety briefings on how to be safe if one of their sites was near a river or ditch.

*Heidi*


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Its a myth they dont carry disease. They do.
> 
> Can anyone remember the plauge????


This just shows your utter ignorance on this topic.

Firstly, read:

Black Death study lets rats off the hook | World news | The Guardian

Secondly, even _if_ you choose not to believe this, the rats around at the time of plague were black rats, rattus rattus.
These are a completely different species to the wild rats we have in the UK now. The rats you see in fields and in the wild here are rattus norvegicus, the brown rat.
Chalk and cheese, they are. Different behaviours, different anatomy, different environment, different living areas etc
The black rat is so scarce in the UK that it is considered one of the rarest british mammals, and you will likely never ever see one.
If you do, you're _very_ lucky.

Brown rats are the rats you're seeing, the ones we keep as pets, and they did NOT have anything to do with plague.
Its best to research before making statements. Im sick of this BS, Im sick of ignorant, ill informed people making plague comments toward a species that had nothing to do with it.
You know there are over 60 species of rat, right?

But hey, if people are determined to believe that rats are devil spawn, then I guess I should start discriminating against staffies, after all, the media tells me daily how evil and dangerous they are! And we know how reliable the media is!
The BS about wild rats is as exaggerated as the BS about bully breeds. Just remember this the next time you're discriminating against a species based on heresay, stereotype and scaremongering.

As for weils, only 14% of wild rats carry weils, not even half. 
ALL wild animals carry disease. And feral dogs and cats certainly do. 
In fact, guess which species you are most likely to catch something dangerous off? The species you interact with daily; humans.

But hey, if working in rat welfare has taught me anything, its that ignorance about this species is still extremely common, people don't want to educate themselves, and people will dish out tortures on this species that they would never tolerate on a different species.

Im off to lay poison for the staffies on my road. After all, they have been known to attack, and have caused human deaths, they're dangerous to have around and therefore, its ok for me to lay poison and watch them die slowly and painfully, because they might harm me! The media told me so.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Ticks carry Lymes disease, rats and cattle are associated with Weils disease, something completely different, also known as leptospirosis, one of the contentious yearly vaccinations for dogs because it doesn't provide complete cover.

A balanced read regarding wildlife management and the reasons why it is important to maintain viable populations:

http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.o..._Need_to_Manage_Some_Wildlife_Populations.pdf


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Well this seems to have gone way off topic as some threads do in a convoluted way but try to keep the arguments as objective as possible please


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Its worth remembering, too, that 'pest' control is a huge industry, worth millions of pounds. There is no money to be made in humanity.
They are good at convincing people that the wildlife around them is lethal and needs wiping out, and that you have to pay them large sums of money to do it, because you are totally incapable of solving the problem yourself using common sense. 
Its sad that there are people out there so paranoid that they feel their only course of action is to kill everything in their vicinity.
With enough advertising and media support, they could turn the public against _any_ British wild animal and convince you you need to murder them, lest you will become diseased and die.
Give them a few weeks to spread rubbish about how dangerous hedgehogs are you your health, and you'll find people having anxiety attacks about those, too. It doesn't take long for the ignorant to be easily brain washed by the media, and those with a financial incentive to brain wash.

I urge the above kinds of people to visit this site, and learn the humane, ethical alternatives to killing:

Humane Rat Traps

Look, I understand that not everyone wants rats in their home. Fine.
But what I don't understand is the willingness to subject these animals to such horrendous pain and torture just because they're trying to survive. You wouldn't treat a dog like this, you wouldn't treat a cat like this, you wouldn't treat a sparrow like this. 
If you must get rid of them, do it humanely, and educate yourself on just what is true about these animals and what is media scaremongering and brainwashing from pest control companies who want your money.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2012)

DT said:


> I thought that all rats urine had the bug that causes lepto in it. is this true of not?
> anyone


No not all rats, only effected rats. Which in the grand scheme of things is a very, very small percentage.



emmaviolet said:


> Its a myth they dont carry disease. They do.
> 
> Can anyone remember the plauge????


Wild rats do not carry the plague. When rats catch the plague, they die from it. Other wild rodents who are resistant to the plague carry it in their bloodstream, and the plague is transmitted from animal to animal by fleas. Plague epidemics were caused by the plague jumping (by flea) from these wild rodents to rats, and from rats (before or as they died) to humans.

I never said they don't carry ANY disease, but then ALL wild animals carry one thing or another


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

B3rnie said:


> I never said they don't carry ANY disease, but then ALL wild animals carry one thing or another


Exactly my point, too.
Im not saying wild rats are angels, and I certainly wouldn't go around drinking water they'd peed in, or kissing their bellys. They can spread some disease.
But.....it is no worse than many other wild animals that people happily co-habit with and even enjoy. Thats my problem: hypocrisy. 
That, and people's inability to use their supposedly superior human brains to remove these animals _humanely_. We are supposed to be the smartest animal on the planet, and the ones capable of caring for those who can do nothing for us, so why aren't we showing it?

You think rats spread disease? Fine, they can do. So can _every other wild animal._ Some, moreso than rats, they just have a better PR man working for them.

You want them gone from your property? Fine. Do it humanely.

You want to use poison? Fine, but don't expect people to consider you a decent person when humane alternatives are available, I'll do nothing but consider you lazy, barbaric and inhumane.

You want to complain about wild rats on your property? Fine. But accept and admit that it is YOUR fault they are there, and you are the one inviting them in by giving them an easy food source and shelter. It is your fault.

You want to take the route of bloodshed, pain, death and cruelty? Fine. But don't try to kid yourself that laying poison is humane and painless.

I ask people who aren't 'rat lovers' here to apply the way these animals are treated to how stray dogs are treated in some countries.
We get up in arms when we see stray dogs being poisoned, abused, treated like scum. We hate the thought of these poor animals, which are only in this situation because of humans, being treated so poorly and suffering so much. 
And yet we turn around and do the exact same thing in our own homes to another species. 
Its ok to poison a rat, despite there being humane alternatives, but poisoning a dog when there are humane alternatives is just horrendous?
How does that work, exactly?
If someone can tell me why its wrong to poison a stray, disease carrying street dog and leave it to die in pain, but perfectly ok to poison a wild rat and leave it dying in pain.....I'd love to hear it.
If the humane option is there, why not take it, for all 'pest' animals that need controlling, whether they be rats, foxes, street dogs, feral cats, or whatever.

Causing the route of most suffering when there is an option is reprehensible, to me.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> http://www.vet-wildlifemanagement.o..._Need_to_Manage_Some_Wildlife_Populations.pdf





Shadowrat said:


> Its worth remembering, too, that 'pest' control is a huge industry, worth millions of pounds. There is no money to be made in humanity.
> They are good at convincing people that the wildlife around them is lethal and needs wiping out, and that you have to pay them large sums of money to do it, because you are totally incapable of solving the problem yourself using common sense.
> Its sad that there are people out there so paranoid that they feel their only course of action is to kill everything in their vicinity.
> With enough advertising and media support, they could turn the public against _any_ British wild animal and convince you you need to murder them, lest you will become diseased and die.
> ...


i very much agree Shadowrat!..

.you only have check out the link posted by SL with information from pro-hunting organisations to see how certain sectors scape goat and scaremonger to make kiiling wildlife seem acceptable, note how they are all for killing our badgers!..even when its been shown independently and scientifically that culling them actually increases the transmission of bovine tb....& take the Brown Hare now a threatened species!!... without any data whatsoever, here they are ready to scape goat Red kite and Buzzard stating that their increase could have a serious detrimental impact on hare numbers...when Hare conservation organisations state that its shooting, illegal coursing, and snaring that are taking there toll !! not raptors!....if they were seriously concerned about hare numbers why dont they call for a closed season?????? & a ban on snares??? better still why hunt them at all?..at least until the population increases!!...I wonder


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> i very much agree Shadowrat!..
> 
> .you only have check out the link posted by SL with information from pro-hunting organisations to see how certain sectors scape goat and scaremonger to make kiiling wildlife seem acceptable, note how they are all for killing our badgers!..even when its been shown independently and scientifically that culling them actually increases the transmission of bovine tb....& take the Brown Hare now a threatened species!!... without any data whatsoever, here they are ready to scape goat Red kite and Buzzard stating that their increase could have a serious detrimental impact on hare numbers...when Hare conservation organisations state that its shooting, illegal coursing, and snaring that are taking there toll !! not raptors!....if they were seriously concerned about hare numbers why dont they call for a closed season?????? & a ban on snares??? better still why hunt them at all?..at least until the population increases!!...I wonder


I think you've got coursing and poaching mixed up with hares my dear, coursing is about a competition between two dogs, the hare is incidental, and in coursing areas hare numbers thrive. Why? Because you can't course the dogs without the hare being there, unfortunately, poachers don't course their dogs, they kill hares, which is why many farmers shoot hares to keep numbers low on their land, and discourage poachers.

I like how when I post a link it's from an unreliable source, just because the authors may not agree with your ethics. Yet when you post a link, it's from a reliable source and unbiased source 

http://jncc.defra.gov.uk/pdf/pub96_brownhare_ch5.pdf

I could post pages of evidence and you'd still take not the blindest bit of notice or concede that yes indeed, wildlife populations do require some form of management in this country to ensure that all of them maintain viable populations. Your theories would simply conclude that to avoid a single instance of a fluffy animal being killed for the greater good of all fluffy animals, that we simply move them around, or introduce an alien species in a mild attempt to alleviate our consciences and give ourselves a pat on the back because we didn't do the killing. Unfortunately however, that sort of approach would lead to the demise of many species of birds and animals, you only have to look as far as a grouse moor to see that the control of predatory species has a marked impact on the number of successful clutches of vulnerable/rare species of birds:

The RSPB's vanity project - Countryside Alliance

I'll leave the badger argument to the vets:

Veterinary Association for Wildlife Management - Badgers and bovine tuberculosis


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Your theories would simply conclude that to avoid a single instance of a fluffy animal being killed for the greater good of all fluffy animals,


Because everyone who is involved in animal welfare, and protecting animals from human blood-lust, has the mental age of 5, and things being 'fluffy' is enough to sway them


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

RE the humane rat traps - how humane is it to trap a rat & leave it for hours in a stressful condition? 

We have a couple of rat traps in the floor boards at the moment (non humane). Aswell as the mice we caught a rat 6mths ago (nothing since which I am glad of)

I don't want to kill them but I don't want them in my house. Also what would I do when it comes to releasing them?


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> RE the humane rat traps - how humane is it to trap a rat & leave it for hours in a stressful condition?


Less stressful than poisoning it and letting it die slowly over the course of a week. A few hours in a trap (and thats all it should be, traps should be checked regularly) is more humane than the alternative of filling their body with poison and letting them bleed to death slowly.
When we have a humane trap set for a wildie around here, I checked it every 2 hours at least, even through the night. 
It was my responsibility to do so.

Read the link I gave on humane rat control, it will give you all the information you need there on the best way to use humane traps.

As for releasing, I choose a location that I know already has a rat population, as I know then that the environment is rat-appropriate and there is a food supply.
I will not release too close to human dwellings or anywhere where they are visible bait stations.

For me, I have a park nearby with a good amount of woodland, and a river running through it (rats like to be near water). There are already rats there (used to sit and watch the babies playing), no bait stations, no human houses too near, lots of places to hide and make homes, the only people are those passing through on dog walks or just relaxing there. Perfect rat place.
I release them with some food, so they have a supply to return to until they find their feet.

Rats are social, so it is best to release where there are other rats; lone rats don't do as well.
Release at least 2 miles away.

I also ensure the rat I've caught isn't a lactating mother who might have kittens somewhere. If I suspect it is a doe with a litter, I would re-release and catch another time.

Does it sound like more work than dropping some poison pellets and sitting back on my arse, only needing to get up when I have to remove the body?
Yep. It probably is.
But since the rats are there because of me to begin with, and Im a human being and capable of compassion, I don't mind.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2012)

Cleo38 said:


> RE the humane rat traps - how humane is it to trap a rat & leave it for hours in a stressful condition?
> 
> We have a couple of rat traps in the floor boards at the moment (non humane). Aswell as the mice we caught a rat 6mths ago (nothing since which I am glad of)
> 
> I don't want to kill them but I don't want them in my house. Also what would I do when it comes to releasing them?


Far more humane than allowing an animal to suffer immense pain for a minimum of 5 days before they die.

You would release them the same way you would release any other wild animal, make sure it is a safe place. And then spend some time finding out how they are getting in then stop them, make sure all food is kept in rat proof containers and there is nothing left out for them.

I have a friend that had a rat problem around her hutches (she had cctv directed into one of her runs and I remember counting them as they passed), with a bit of time and effort she no longer has a rat problem and not one bit of poison was used


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Some of us cant get cctv and some cant afford it.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> Some of us cant get cctv and some cant afford it.


I never said you had to 
It was just something she had, and one night after counting the rats she realised she had a serious rat problem. The cctv had nothing to do with sorting the problem.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Some of us cant get cctv and some cant afford it.


Stop making excuses. 
CCTV isn't a necessity. A bit of time, patience and dedication is.
I know a lot of people who have gotten rid of their rat 'problem' without CCTV. Its handy, sure, but definitely not necessary. 
Keeping food in secure, rat proof containers is not expensive. Nor is cleaning up.

If you want to use poison because its cheap and easy, and letting an intelligent, social animal die in agony over several days is preferable to spending money, just say so. I'll judge you, many won't.
In fact, given that poison is ultimately not any good for controlling rat populations long term, you probably end up spending more on these methods over time than if you went the humane route to begin with.
Poison will never kill every single rat in an 'infestation'. It will only kill some. Then you have 3 weeks to wait while the remaining rats breed again, and you're back where you started from. Rats can have 20 in a litter, and they have a gestation of 3 weeks-ish.

This is why even people with no compassion or particular love of rats are looking for poison alternatives: it isn't really very effective.
The ONLY way to stop rats getting to your property and staying there is to remove what attracts them. Thats the bottom line. 
They won't stay where there isn't food and shelter. They'll move on to somewhere else. 
You can maim, kill, poison, snap trap, glue trap til you're blue in the face, but while you have food laying about which, in a rat's eyes says 'hey, this is for you! Come and get it!' you'll get rats again.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Shadowrat said:


> Less stressful than poisoning it and letting it die slowly over the course of a week. A few hours in a trap (and thats all it should be, traps should be checked regularly) is more humane than the alternative of filling their body with poison and letting them bleed to death slowly.
> When we have a humane trap set for a wildie around here, I checked it every 2 hours at least, even through the night.
> It was my responsibility to do so.
> 
> ...


But I don't use poison as I don't belive it to be humane & I have other animals to consider so, as I said I use a trap. As I work I am unable to check a trap every few hours so the trapped rodent could spend up to 10hrs in there - not very humane imo. A trap though has (so far) killed them all instantly. It is quick, effiecent & cheap - yes, money is a consideration as I am not loaded.

I also do not have time to drive round & find 'rat friendly' locations. It's not about 'sitting back on my arse' I have limited time, limited funds so I choose what I feel is best for me but I do consider how the rat/mouse to a degree as I don not want to cause any more suffering than I feel is necessary.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I think you've got coursing and poaching mixed up with hares my dear, coursing is about a competition between two dogs, the hare is incidental, and in coursing areas hare numbers thrive. Why? Because you can't course the dogs without the hare being there, unfortunately, poachers don't course their dogs, they kill hares, which is why many farmers shoot hares to keep numbers low on their land, and discourage poachers.
> 
> I like how when I post a link it's from an unreliable source, just because the authors may not agree with your ethics. Yet when you post a link, it's from a reliable source and unbiased source
> 
> ...


 im all for managing wildlife if its done with wildlife in mind, or in the case of farmer if a fox say, is caught in the act of killing livestock then i understand him shooting it, what i am against is the unstructured, random way most of its done, the majority of foxes never come into conflict with man, but that wont save them from persecution!!...yes! i think farmers should do all they can to protect livestock before reaching for their gun, or setting snares or laying poison!!...and im totally against persecuting predators to protect the vested interests of the wealthy landowners....the grouse moors you mention are a prime example of this, so where have all the raptors disappeared to?? 

the Hare Preservation Trust monitor and care about the hare...Hare Preservation Trust doubt many pro hunters would ever back their campaigns mind!

Wales have back tracked on culling their badgers, they have listened to the scientific evidence and are going down the humane route... with vaccinations!!

IMO Killing should always be a last resort...never the 1st

Standing Stone's Blog: The Badger Cull - The Facts, Alternatives and How to Help Stop It

save the badger petition here if anyone cares to sign it

38 Degrees | Stop The Badger Cull


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

We never so much as leave fruit out actually.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

Cleo38 said:


> I also do not have time to drive round & find 'rat friendly' locations. It's not about 'sitting back on my arse' I have limited time, limited funds so I choose what I feel is best for me but I do consider how the rat/mouse to a degree as I don not want to cause any more suffering than I feel is necessary.


I also have limited time and funds, but animal welfare is paramount, I feel.
Im happy you don't use poison, and traps are better IF they work properly first time and don't fail so they simply maim the rat and leave it to suffer. 
If you absolutely must kill these animals, and traps work instantly and kill the rat outright, that is far more humane than poison.
In my ideal world, no one would kill rats at all and we'd choose the humane route each time. But I accept that people feel they have to, and so they should choose the quickest, and most painless way, which poison certainly isn't.

EmmaViolet, what are your rats eating, then?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Shadowrat i find your tone very rude tbh.

I clean up all the time and food is never out. You imply i do not clean my home.

You are wrong btw poison does infact kill a whole infestation and has in my loft.

And before you judge me i have a bad immune system and cannot afford the risks involved in having rats and trying to release them into the wild.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

It was thought they were eating from the neighbours place actually.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> *I clean up all the time and food is never out. You imply i do not clean my home.*


No, Im simply stating the fact that rats do not thrive where there is no food source. Thats not a judgement, thats a fact. If they're in your house and they're surviving and breeding, then they're eating something.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> No, Im simply stating the fact that rats do not thrive where there is no food source. Thats not a judgement, thats a fact. If they're in your house and they're surviving and breeding, then they're eating something.


Well they are no longer here, no longer thriving.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> It was thought they were eating from the neighbours place actually.


Find out where they are coming in and block the access, if they have no way to get in and you have no food left out you won't have the problem again


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Well they are no longer here, no longer thriving.


Good. You should be very proud.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> Good. You should be very proud.


Well im alive. If you read my previous post you will see i have a weak immune system. I cannot afford to catch anything.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Well im alive. If you read my previous post you will see i have a weak immune system. I cannot afford to catch anything.


Best to avoid all animals, including dogs, then.....


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> Best to avoid all animals, including dogs, then.....


Lived with them 26 years no problems.

If i was to catch weils disease i could die.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Lived with them 26 years no problems.


And I have worked with rats for 16 years, no problems either.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> And I have worked with rats for 16 years, no problems either.


Do you have a compromised immune system?


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> Do you have a compromised immune system?


My point is, you talk about rats as if they would automatically kill you because they're so disease riddled, and that your compromised immune system means they absolutely _had_ to be slaughtered painfully to save your life, but you live with dogs.
Dogs are hardly the most sanitary animals on the planet. They harbour bacteria, they can spread disease, you have to pick up their poo, they lick their rear ends, they eat what the find on the ground, they then lick you. 
Not a problem to most, but for someone with a compromised immune system, Im guess they could be as much a potential threat as a rat.

Im assuming you also poisoned the seagulls, pigeons, starlings, foxes, squirrels and any other wild animal that passed by your house?
Otherwise you'd just be picking on the rats, y'know?


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

Shadowrat said:


> My point is, you talk about rats as if they would automatically kill you because they're so disease riddled, and that your compromised immune system means they absolutely _had_ to be slaughtered painfully to save your life, but you live with dogs.
> Dogs are hardly the most sanitary animals on the planet. They harbour bacteria, they can spread disease, you have to pick up their poo, they lick their rear ends, they eat what the find on the ground, they then lick you.
> Not a problem to most, but for someone with a compromised immune system, Im guess they could be as much a potential threat as a rat.
> 
> ...


They didnt pass my house they were in it. In the kitchen running about. I had to do something then.

Had i caught weils disease i would have died.

I never touch dogs toilet with my bare hands and then i sanitise them.


----------



## Guest (Aug 5, 2012)

emmaviolet said:


> Do you have a compromised immune system?


I do, I have to be very, very careful about where I go just in case I catch something. I can't even have friends over if their children have an illness just in case  (I feel for you, it sucks)
But I have lived with rats for many, many years and I've even helped with some wildies and not once have I caught anything from them.

So long as you are careful and wash your hands after handling them there is little to no risk, the only time the risk is anything to worry about is if you actually drink their pee and I can't see anyone putting themselves into that situation lol


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

Can this back and forth sniping please stop. Any more and these posts will be removed. They are totally unnecessary and unconstructive.


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

emmaviolet said:


> They didnt pass my house they were in it. In the kitchen running about. I had to do something then.
> 
> Had i caught weils disease i would have died.


Of course. If you'd have died from catching weils disease, then despite how slim the chances of that are, you are within your rights to want the rats, or any wild animal, out of your home.
But this once again goes round in circles: there are more humane ways than poison. The 'getting rid' of rats isn't what I oppose, its the methods used.

Im sure you would make the extra effort to remove a dog that was a threat to your health, or a cat, or any other animal, humanely. You wouldn't just poison them, would you? Presumably, you'd get help to remove the animal humanely if you couldn't deal with it yourself.
Thats my point.
I understand not wanting wild animals in your home. I get it.
I just don't get leaping to the cruellest method of removal (poison), when you wouldn't do this to any other species. You know what I mean?


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

lymorelynn said:


> Can this back and forth sniping please stop. Any more and these posts will be removed. They are totally unnecessary and unconstructive.


Didn't see this before my last post.


----------



## lymorelynn (Oct 4, 2008)

OK but you and Emmaviolet have both made your points. leave it at that.


----------



## emmaviolet (Oct 24, 2011)

B3rnie said:


> I do, I have to be very, very careful about where I go just in case I catch something. I can't even have friends over if their children have an illness just in case  (I feel for you, it sucks)
> But I have lived with rats for many, many years and I've even helped with some wildies and not once have I caught anything from them.
> 
> So long as you are careful and wash your hands after handling them there is little to no risk, the only time the risk is anything to worry about is if you actually drink their pee and I can't see anyone putting themselves into that situation lol


Yes the urine is the problem, had they gone on my work surfaces or something then it would have been costly had i eaten from them.

Shaowrat, had you, like me, nearly died of something like the norovirus, im sure you would go for the quickest possible method and followed what was told for you to do by many sources.


----------



## tashax (Jun 25, 2011)

I was pegging my washing out a good few months ago and a rat ran out of my house. We did some investigating and discovered it had been living in my cupbored under the stairs, it was living off my dog food. It ran next door into an old sofa they had in their back garden. Once the sofa was removed they disappeared, but were around for about a month. Not once did i think of killing them, i blocked up the whole that i used for my tumble dryer and stopped leaving my doors open, they didnt come in again.

Regretfully my old terrier did kill a rat once, said rat was actually attacking my cat at the time  and when i ran out to try and stop it the dog got out and got to it first. It was very quick, over in a matter of seconds, i did check after to make sure it was dead and not suffering. 

I understand wildlife control and yes certain populations do need controlling. What makes me pretty mad is people like my nanas next door neighbour. They throw raw meat out on the street to feed seagulls and crows. There is sometimes hundreds of them out side my nanas house. Then they feed the pigeons, the pigeons have now ruined my nanas roof. The food the pigeons dont eat, the rats do. Then they rats live in my nanas garden. They also throw meat out for the foxes at night. These type of people are the reason why these animals get such a bad name because they have learnt to rely on us for food. If they werent fed by people then in theory they wouldnt be so many, as they wouldnt breed without a reliable food source.


----------



## susieborder (Jul 23, 2010)

Shaowrat, i am very interested on your passion AND extensive knowledge do you have any papers your have written and had published eg, PhD dissertation, a thesis, or a doctoral research proposal about "Rodents"? 
It would help me understand your points much clearer, thanks


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

susieborder said:


> Shaowrat, i am very interested on your passion AND extensive knowledge do you have any papers your have written and had published eg, PhD dissertation, a thesis, or a doctoral research proposal about "Rodents"?
> It would help me understand your points much clearer, thanks


I don't do rodents. I do rats, only rats. My knowledge on other rodent species is pretty average at best.

No, I do not have any of the above published. Does that make my opinion invalid? I suspect you only ask so you can imply this is the case.....
What I do have is 16 years experience working all day, every day, with rats. Knowing over 300 individuals, treating each any every one for ailments and constantly discovering something new, rescuing both pet and wild rats for 8 years, running an advice line for rats for 8 years, talking to people from all over the country, on a daily basis, about rats both wild and tame, owning half wild rats, and so on and so forth. 
When you work in rat rescue, you come up against ignorance and prejudice and hysteria all the time. So it pays to know the truth and the realities about the species.
And the fact is that poison is painful and inhumane, rats don't spread half as much disease as people think, rats don't stay long term where there isn't readily available food, and people DO commit acts of cruelty to rats they would never commit to other species causing the same 'issues'. 
This is all I have ever stated on this thread, and I do not need a PhD dissertation, or thesis to know this. 
Neither do the many people here who have owned dogs for many years and know their stuff when talking about training.

Experience is the best teacher.


----------



## susieborder (Jul 23, 2010)

Shadowrat said:


> *I don't do rodents. I do rats, only rats.* My knowledge on other rodent species is pretty average at best.
> Sorry my mistake
> 
> No, I do not have any of the above published. Does that make my opinion invalid?Why would you think your opinion would not be a valid one:confused1:
> ...


Sorry i even asked


----------



## Shadowrat (Jan 30, 2011)

susieborder said:


> Sorry i even asked


Don't be sorry, simply felt the way you worded it was a bit......snarky? You said that if I'd had any of these documents published, it'd help you understand my point a bit more which kinda suggested only these things make an opinion valid.

Either way, nah, never have. Maybe one day. I've had radio interviews, written online articles about rats, am on the phone 24/7 to assist others with rats, but nothing 'official' published. Its hard to get support for that kind of thing too, as rats aren't really in the public's affection.

Though I was considering writing a rat care book, but as most people now get their info from the internet, I just stick to running a rat website


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

Shadowrat said:


> Because everyone who is involved in animal welfare, and protecting animals from human blood-lust, has the mental age of 5, and things being 'fluffy' is enough to sway them


So please point me to a post where I mentioned anything like that? I think you may need to take a step back and look at the whole picture, perhaps this has become too personal for you?



noushka05 said:


> im all for managing wildlife if its done with wildlife in mind, or in the case of farmer if a fox say, is caught in the act of killing livestock then i understand him shooting it, what i am against is the unstructured, random way most of its done, the majority of foxes never come into conflict with man, but that wont save them from persecution!!...yes! i think farmers should do all they can to protect livestock before reaching for their gun, or setting snares or laying poison!!...and im totally against persecuting predators to protect the vested interests of the wealthy landowners....the grouse moors you mention are a prime example of this, so where have all the raptors disappeared to??
> 
> the Hare Preservation Trust monitor and care about the hare...Hare Preservation Trust doubt many pro hunters would ever back their campaigns mind!
> 
> ...


The only posts I've seen from you Noushka have been ones of contention about culling, you were against the Exmoor emperor being shot, which turned out to be a huge red herring, and you showed your ignorance of the tag system in the US with your post stating that 9000 odd folks would be paying to shoot wolves, which was completely unfounded. Not only was the Exmoor Emperor not the largest stag in the UK, he was a prime target to be culled, as proven by the following evidence from numerous professional deer stalkers, the only negative comment was that a couple of them may have left him a year or two longer, however, his own fame pushed by the public, made his earlier than necessary demise an unfortunate consequence.

Wales haven't back tracked on anything, a singer from a popular band has stuck a spanner in the works, is that their place, probably not, but then a slightly demented ex-comedian seems to have a lot of sway with *conservation* as well.

Where have all the raptors disappeared to? EU agricultural policies would acount for a lot of that, or are you still banging the drum about all those involved with hunting and shooting going out and killing raptors for the heck of it? Old news, past way of life, and not what people involved in countryside pursuits today want to be involved with, perhaps you need to read up a bit more


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

noushka05 said:


> its not an excuse its based on a study by DEFRA.
> 
> But if farmers are suffering from fox related losses they should invest in an alpaca or two imo. They are getting very popular as flock guardians In Australia....Many sheep breeders have reported their best-ever lambing
> percentages following the introduction of guardian alpacas. Alpaca wethers are readily available at very low cost in comparison to their benefits and feeding and husbandry costs are also very low. These quiet and friendly animals are rapidly becoming accepted as essential complements to all sheep and goat breeding enterprises where predators cause lambing and kidding losses.


Interesting. Here and in they are increasingly using Anatolian shepherd dogs who actually live with the flock without human accompaniment. Anatolian Guarding Dog Project In our case, I do not think alpacas would work as some of our larger predators like cheetah would see them as prey. Those farmers using the dogs have reported 95-100% reduction in stock loss.


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

Shadowrat said:


> The amount of disease spread by wild rats is grossly over exaggerated in the media.
> Depending on country, you could get rabies from a dog, not a rat.
> Street pigeons carry more disease than wild rats.
> 
> I've never caught anything off a rat. I have off a dog.


True, in Southern Africa, rabies is endemic. Rats, mice and cats are very rarely the vectors. The common carriers are dogs, foxes/jackals, mongoose and yes, very commonly, the "cute" meerkat!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

koekemakranka said:


> Interesting. Here and in they are increasingly using Anatolian shepherd dogs who actually live with the flock without human accompaniment. Anatolian Guarding Dog Project In our case, I do not think alpacas would work as some of our larger predators like cheetah would see them as prey. Those farmers using the dogs have reported 95-100% reduction in stock loss.


I've heard of similar projects in the US & I believe they have been very successful


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> So please point me to a post where I mentioned anything like that? I think you may need to take a step back and look at the whole picture, perhaps this has become too personal for you?
> 
> The only posts I've seen from you Noushka have been ones of contention about culling, you were against the Exmoor emperor being shot, which turned out to be a huge red herring, and you showed your ignorance of the tag system in the US with your post stating that 9000 odd folks would be paying to shoot wolves, which was completely unfounded. Not only was the Exmoor Emperor not the largest stag in the UK, he was a prime target to be culled, as proven by the following evidence from numerous professional deer stalkers, the only negative comment was that a couple of them may have left him a year or two longer, however, his own fame pushed by the public, made his earlier than necessary demise an unfortunate consequence.
> 
> ...


lol no i may not be very clear with words sometimes...but to clarify 30,000 tags were sold to sickos who wanted to hunt Idaho's small population of wolves! my point was, whether they got a tag or not, thats an awful lot of ignorant wolf haters out there!...and wasnt it you who showed your ignorance when you said they only wanted to 'manage; the wolf population! well if you think THIS is management then i honestly dont know how you can say you care about wildlife, and i dont think theres anything else i want to say to you on the subject.


May marked a year since Congress made the unprecedented political move of stripping Endangered Species Act protections from wolves in the Northern Rockiesleaving Idaho and Montana in charge of managing wolves in their states. The result: Hundreds of wolves have been hunted, trapped and aerial-gunned in an aggressive attempt to undo one of conservations greatest success stories.

In just a year, Idaho cut its wolf population by about 40 percent, to 600 or fewer. Under the states plan, which was approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Idaho has permission to lower the number of wolves to fewer than 200.Its as though Idaho has been transported back to the 1890sto a time when wolves were aggressively targeted for eradication, says Suzanne Stone, Defenders Rocky Mountain representative. These extreme wolf-killing policies have no place in modern-day wildlife management. Idaho is now planning to more than double the number of wolvesto 12that a single hunter can take in the upcoming 2012-2013 hunting season.

Meanwhile, Montana lost more than a third of its wolf population since May, with Reuters reporting about 260 wolves killed. State officials are now moving toward an aggressive anti-wolf policy similar to Idahos. At press time, the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission approved a fall hunt that would eliminate quotas in nearly all hunting districts, extend the hunting season by two months into the breeding season, allow wolf trapping for the first time and permit the use of electronic callssomething that is generally not allowed for other game species.

Caving to political pressure, Montana is basing its decision on anti-wolf rhetoric rather than science, says Stone. There is no justification for state officials to abandon what was once a more measured approach to wolf management. Livestock losses are at a five-year low and elk populations are above population objectives in the majority of the state.

In Wyoming, home to about 328 wolves, federal protections have not yet been removed. But assuming they will be by fall, Wyoming officials have proposed allowing hunters to kill up to 52 wolves in a trophy game area adjacent to Yellowstone National Park. More than 30 wolves are in a zone where they can be shot on sight without a hunting license. That means about 30 percent of the wolves outside of Yellowstone are likely to be killed later this year if federal delisting of wolves in Wyoming moves forward. Their fate now rests in the hands of the Obama administration.

Officials in these states are pursuing some of the same short-sighted, predator-control strategies that put wolves on the endangered species list in the first place, says Jamie Rappaport Clark, Defenders president. Theyre treating wolves like vermin instead of managing them like valuable native wildlife. Thats not how these states manage other species like black bears and mountain lions, and its not a responsible way to manage wolves either.

The wolf-kill mentality comes mostly from anti-predator residents who care more about protecting livestock and having easy hunting opportunities than safeguarding native species. But conservationists and biologists credit wolves, along with grizzlies, for helping to restore balance to an ecosystem that had been out of whack for decades because of artificially inflated elk herds, which overgrazed native vegetation.

In fact, the loss of major predators in forest ecosystems and the resulting explosion of large herbivores cripples the growth of young trees, causing stream bank erosion and reducing biodiversity by harming fisheries and other wildlife, according to a recently published Oregon State University report reviewing 42 scientific studies done over the last 50 years[/COLOR]

in the Emporer debates i was upset that he was killed yes but i said all along that i understand that without Wolves deer need to be managed!...what i find sickening is the type of hunter that pay to kill the biggest and the best specimen..trophy hunters..i said that all along!

the grouse moors are prime habitat and supported goshawks and peregine for years..all but gone now!

The Northern England Raptor Forum (NERF) was founded in 2006 to give a more unified and effective voice to Raptor workers and study groups in upland England. Membership currently comprises of the Bowland Raptor Study Group, Calderdale Raptor Study Group, Durham Upland Bird Study Group, Manchester Raptor Group, Northumbrian Ringing Group, North York Moors Upland Bird (Merlin) Study Group, Peak District Raptor Monitoring Group, South Ryedale and East Yorkshire Raptor Group, South Peak Raptor Study Group and Yorkshire Dales Upland Bird Study Group. Our membership is at the forefront of monitoring a range of raptor species such as Peregrine, Merlin and Hen Harrier and providing that data in various forms to Natural England, British Trust for Ornithology, Rare Breeding Birds Panel and RSPB.

Published peer-reviewed scientific data clearly shows that in many areas, illegal persecution of a number of species of birds of prey is still widespread, and there is a clear link between this persecution and grouse moor management. This includes the recently published paper by Amar et al [1] that shows the especially poor productivity and occupation of Peregrine nest sites on grouse moors. This apparent illegality is also driving the breeding population of the Hen Harrier to extinction in England

Wildlife Crime (23rd May 2012)


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

koekemakranka said:


> Interesting. Here and in they are increasingly using Anatolian shepherd dogs who actually live with the flock without human accompaniment. Anatolian Guarding Dog Project In our case, I do not think alpacas would work as some of our larger predators like cheetah would see them as prey. Those farmers using the dogs have reported 95-100% reduction in stock loss.


thats wonderful that the dogs are doing such a great job...if only more farmers would step into the 21st century and turn to humane ways of defending their flock and livestock rather than just killing everything.


----------



## ceretrea (Jan 24, 2011)

Came across this searching for 'wildlife sanctuary'. Interesting topic title to post on a pet forum lol I wonder if the poster fancied how many people's backs she could get up in one fell swoop.

I'd never work at an animal testing facility, I find animal testing to be defunct, outdated, unnecessary and generally useless for gleaning reliable info for use on humans. Therefore, I find it just a good excuse to torture creatures. If you wouldn't do it to a human, why do it to an animal?

For some reason there are pages and page about wildlife management and wild rats carrying plague. lepto, wells, probably leprosy...typhoid? Flu? measles? anything else lol?

Any creature who walks around any area outside is at risk of picking up lepto. Deer, dogs, cats, rats, mice, rabbits...cows...whatever. If you snog your dog regurlarly you can contract lepto from him assuming he goes outside. I recommend no one snogs their cat as they don't seem to like it and you run the risk of catching four sets of claws to the face.

Lepto kills easily using soap and water on surfaces. My advice is to stop licking the floor and mop it instead. Lime disease is more of a worry as it passes via ticks...ticks tend to attach to dogs...so you find your family pet is again the most likely way of contracting this. Treat your dogs and cats for ticks, its easier to get them off at the vets instead of with your teeth.

So yes, wild rats can carry lepto. When we get any rat in here thats been outside (wild/ half wild or stray) we'd expect to treat for lepto and quarantine carefully. 

Wildlife does require management, although blood sports are terribly inefficient at this, farmers have every right to keep wildlife off their land as they wish to because they pay for it. They cannot come onto my land and kill my wildlife...but its been a long time since rogue farmers roamed free about the countryside toting shotguns and dogs.

Ideally humans and animals should live side by side, realistically this doesn't happen all that well. And to be honest, there are greater issues in life. If you lived in parts of India you might share your back yard with a Leopard...be thankful you do not.

xx


----------



## Blitz (Feb 12, 2009)

noushka05 said:


> thats wonderful that the dogs are doing such a great job...if only more farmers would step into the 21st century and turn to humane ways of defending their flock and livestock rather than just killing everything.


surely it is stepping back in time rather than into the 21st century. Many breeds of dogs have traditionally been used for protection of flocks of sheep and goats in many countries. It is not very practical in this country though as lowland sheep are at risk of predators such as foxes and I am not sure it would go down very well well if there were semi feral dogs roaming around the home counties!


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Blitz said:


> surely it is stepping back in time rather than into the 21st century. Many breeds of dogs have traditionally been used for protection of flocks of sheep and goats in many countries. It is not very practical in this country though as lowland sheep are at risk of predators such as foxes and I am not sure it would go down very well well if there were semi feral dogs roaming around the home counties!


I also wonder the cost implication would be. Whether we like it or not everything has a cost attached to it & most choices are based on this.


----------



## Megan345 (Aug 8, 2012)

I read up to page 6 and then skipped to the end, this thread has changed somewhat! Anyway, as the OP said, my view on animal testing. Please note when I make statements I'm not necessarily referring to people on this thread, as there are far too many posts for me remember every single nuance of everything that has been said 

I think far too many people, when faced with pictures or descriptions of animals being tested on, will immediately react emotionally with cries of outrage and disgust. That is fine, that is how they feel, and their opinion, but the whole situation is one that really can't be ruled just by the heart. There are so many people I know who say they disagree with animal testing, but haven't a clue about any of the companies that test on animals, or the enormous number of everyday household products and foodstuffs that these parent companies produce.

I have even met a vegan who says she is totally against eating anything from an animal, or using anything from an animal, yet she wears a leather jacket for motorcycling because (arguments change, here) she can't afford a good textile one, or textile ones don't provide the same protection (good ones can do, I'm told). She also accepted medicine when she had glandular fever.

Again, there are numerous people who haven't the foggiest about how farm animals are kept or killed to provide meat, particularly overseas ones (e.g. Danish bacon), and don't really know what battery hens are, but buy the eggs because they're cheap. 

What annoys me is people who spout off about all of this, animal testing, animal welfare when they're kept for food and what have you, making moral judgements on other people, when they don't actually know what they're talking about. I think it is very difficult to know the true facts unless you do work in this industry. It is all very well for someone to say, 'Well, computer modelling does the same job,' and for someone else to say, 'No, it doesn't,' but how do you know who is right? From talking to people about this, I notice they tend to pick the statement which best correlates with their emotional view of it. And again, that is their right, please remember this is about how *I* feel about animal testing. 

I do not buy cosmetics which have been tested on animals, but I do use medicine. I eat meat, but I buy free range and British. Now, this is not to say that I could watch my medicine being tested on an animal, or kill a pig for bacon and pork chops, but I don't think a lot of people would. I just think that this is a very complex issue, and simple yes or no answers don't do the question justice.

As for testing on murderers, child molesters and other criminals, in an ideal world, lovely, but this question brings up a lot of the same arguments as the death penalty. What if they were innocent? Where is the line drawn? Not to mention the fact that this would never happen as prisoners have human rights. To be honest, it isn't even worth discussing. If they're talking about giving prisoners the right to vote (I don't know if they have done yet), there is absolutely no way cosmetics and medicines will be tested on them.


----------



## MeganRose (Apr 13, 2008)

L/C said:


> And if they die during testing? If they turn out to be innocent? What level of sexual assault gets you put in the programme? Flasher? Groping? Rape without overt violence? Stranger rape? What type of murder? Bar fight gone wrong? Dangerous driving? Who gets to decide who gets put in these trials? Judges at sentencing? Does the home secretary? Are they responsible if the person turns out to be innocent?


This!
(Also slightly errelevant, but it bugs me; but people keep saying 'test on paedophiles'.. Do you not mean convicted child molesters? There's a difference, you can be a paedophile and not act upon it... but that's another thread)

I'm definitely not _for_ animal testing, but I do buy certain makeup brands that test. I know I shouldn't, but I just don't feel the incentive(?) to buy ones that don't. I don't feel like me not buying a Rimmel eyeliner will make any difference to the animal testing industry... But I am aware that's not a good way to think! It's how I think about the meat industry aswell - me not buying one thing won't make a difference, but then if I do meat, it's always free range...
So many things test or use ingredients tested on animals, I imagine it would be very hard to avoid everything, and I just don't have the desire. :/
Also I smoke more than I buy makeup, I'd feel a bit of a hypocrite being against animal testing for one thing, but then going out and buying tobacco. Where do you draw the line? I've tried to eat vegan/freegan but I always end up failing to see the bigger picture and buying some cheese or something haha. 
I know I should be thinking more 'think globally, act locally', but I am rubbish at it!

I would love to be fully convinced to avoid animal testing as best I could though!
I also could _never_ work in a lab, or even go into one, I think it would break my heart.


----------



## noushka05 (Mar 28, 2008)

Blitz said:


> surely it is stepping back in time rather than into the 21st century. Many breeds of dogs have traditionally been used for protection of flocks of sheep and goats in many countries. It is not very practical in this country though as lowland sheep are at risk of predators such as foxes and I am not sure it would go down very well well if there were semi feral dogs roaming around the home counties!


True lol, & perhaps even here in Britain the Pagans, who embraced the natural world, used livestock guardians?, but sadly as we distanced ourselves more & more from the natural world, farmers turned to more radical methods of dealing with predators, so maybe i should have said 'turning back the clock' rather than stepping into the 21st century. I never suggested using dogs in the country lol...Alpaca fit the bill over here.



Cleo38 said:


> I also wonder the cost implication would be. Whether we like it or not everything has a cost attached to it & most choices are based on this.


they must be economically viable if farmers are suffering enough losses, even Prince Charles, whos not exactly adverse to killing foxes has Alpaca, the results speak for themselves.....

Since the hunting of foxes with hounds has been banned in the UK the fox population has blossomed and become something of a threat to sheep and lambs in particular including those belonging to HRH the Prince of Wales. So the Prince is now using alpacas to protect his 450 head of organically farmed sheep and so far hasn't lost a lamb all year.

off the same link... Westwind Alpacas - Foxes

Richard Kempsey, production manager at Clarence Court, a company producing speciality eggs from birds including ostriches, geese, ducks and rare breeds of hens, suffered years of predation at his farm near Truro, in Cornwall, until he bought two alpacas.He said: We have 2,000 birds on site and the foxes are desperate to get at them but the alpaca keep them away.


----------

