# Animal rights activists planning new war on test labs



## testmg80 (Jul 28, 2008)

BRITAINS animal rights movement is planning a new war against vivisection laboratories after securing a significant victory in its fight to ban testing on live creatures.

Activists are plotting to step up their campaign after being emboldened by a Government decision to end tests of bleach and other household products on live rabbits and guinea pigsexperiments relatively few people realised still existed.

Home Office minister Lynne Featherstone has told MPs that the Lib-Dem/Tory coalition was committed to ending the testing of household products on animals and that work had already started defining which goods would be affected.

I am not yet in a position to confirm when such testing will be finally brought to an end, but hope to be able to do so shortly, she the Commons.

Although animal testing for cosmetic products was banned in Britain in 2002, similar experiments, which are not required by law, continued for polishes, fabric conditioners and washing powders.

The experiments, which take place at commercial testing centres, often involve pouring chemicals into the eyes of rabbits, or painting chemicals solutions onto the backs of guinea pigs and other rodents to gauge their toxicity.

Michelle Thew, chief executive of the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, welcomed the Governments decision, adding: We hope that hope that this will lead to a truly informed debate on animal experiments."

However, the decision has also heartened more militants groups within the animal rights world whose morale was smashed by the arrest five years ago of several of the movements leaders for arson and blackmail.

Their new targets include a laboratory currently being built at Leicester University where demonstrators have chained themselves to railings and gone on hunger strike amid police warnings to the sites construction workers to increase security.

Activists have already broken into the premises of Willmott Dixon, the construction company leading the work, where they unfurled a banner from the roof saying the company was building hell for animals.

They have also sent threatening emails to smaller sub-contractors warning action will be taken against them unless they pulled out.

A spokeswoman for construction safety specialist Easi Edge, which no longer works on the project, said: Thats when the police got involved. Working there caused us a lot of problems that we just dont need.

Most of the countrys animal rights groups are due to converge on farmland Northamptonshire next month where they will discuss new tactics and learn techniques to evade police surveillance.

I AM WITH THEM. POURING CHEMICALS INTO THE EYES OF RABBITS IS A MERE NOTHING COMPARED TO WHAT GOES ON IN THESE HELL HOLES
04.07.10, 4:31am

Before anyone condemns the animal rights movement, they should take a look at the videos on PETA's website (People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals). It has to be viewed to be believed. What human beings do to animals is beyond imagination and comprehension.

The vivisection labs are a product from the depths of hell.

Good luck activists and all those courageous people who speak up against animal cruelty.







Animal rights activists are
planning a new war on Britain's testing labs


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

It has always been a puzzling thought of mine as to whether or not these vivisectionists, or any advocate of animal experimentations for that matter, actually keep pets themselves? :confused1:
It would be interesting to know how they can willingly inflict the most cruel of ideas upon an animal and yet go home to lovingly pet their dog or cat as if nothing had ever happened.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Zaros said:


> It has always been a puzzling thought of mine as to whether or not these vivisectionists, or any advocate of animal experimentations for that matter, actually keep pets themselves? :confused1:
> It would be interesting to know how they can willingly inflict the most cruel of ideas upon an animal and yet go home to lovingly pet their dog or cat as if nothing had ever happened.


I thin you'll find they do; they are 'normal' people not monsters. I hate the idea of anmial testing but then again I wouldn't complain at all if people I loved were saved due to medical advances that were only possible through animal experimentation.


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

Cleo38 said:


> I thin you'll find they do; they are 'normal' people not monsters. I hate the idea of anmial testing but then again I wouldn't complain at all if people I loved were saved due to medical advances that were only possible through animal experimentation.


So the means justifies the end does it? :frown: It might be worth pointing out that Aspirin will kill a cat Penicillin will kill a Guinea pig and rabbits don't have tears ducts.
No one in their right minds would pour bleach into their own eyes and anyone not in their right mind would overdose on Aspirin. 
All beauty products are tested on animals before release onto the market and anyone who claims the contrary to this should amend their slogans with Our products are *no longer * tested on animals. 
Perhaps you might like to tell me how sleep deprivation and electronic metal caps and electrodes crudely inserted into the skull furthers humanity. :confused1:


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Here we go again...

As usual every person in the room jumps up and down with rage about the "torture" and "abuse" of lab animals by those evil, sadistic psychopaths - the "vivisectors". How could any pet owner possibly abuse animals all day then go home as if nothing happened?

Seriously - the vast majority of the public, inc the vast majority of the animal rights lot, know NOTHING about the realities of animal research. Everything they think they know has come directly from the animl rights brigade, and a huge amount of it is either exaggerated, misrepresented or nothing more than outright lies

Do you believe everything PETA tell you? Do you believe everything you read in the Sun? Wiki?

I was there myself. I was 101% against all animal research, and yes I believed certain acts against those involved could be justified. I did think I knew all about it, and of course I believed everything I was told.

Not any more.

So let us correct a few misunderstandings before we go any further:

1) In the UK we have not tested cigarettes, alcohol, or cosmetics on animals since the 80s. Around the same time we brought in the ban on the use of apes.

2) According to law, animals may only be used in research where there is no viable alternative. This could mean that the non-animal tests for bleach etc have not yet been validated, or it could mean that some labs are slow to change.

3) The vast majority of animal research is nothing like people imagine. For many animals it is nothing more than an injection followed by a blood test. Where surgery is required, the animals are under a general anaesthetic, and will usually be given pain relief (unless the procedure is terminal). Pain relief and humane end opints are used to prevent unnecessary suffering.

4) Certainly the housing and care of lab animals may cause suffering - but this is totally dependant on the lab. Some still use "shoebox" cages and minim,al enrichment but others keep their animals better than some people keep their pets. 
And trying to prevent the building of new, improved labs - where the animals would get better accomdoation is simply stupid! (Oxford for example)

5) Contrary to popular belief, the use of animals in medical research is still a necessary evil if we want medical research to continue.
All the talk about alternatives is misleading - alternatives are already in use - they must be used by law.
But so far there is nothing that compares to using a complete living organism.
Research into improving non-animal methods and creating new ones is ongoing. Eventually animal use should become unnecessary but we are not there yet.

6) The "vivisectionists" themselves...

Firstly this is an inaccurate description. Vivisection translalts as "to cut up live animals". The AR brigade use it to imply cutting up conscious animals.

The majority of animal research does not involve surgery, and where it does it is certainly not carried out on conscious animals.

The people that work with lab animals are usually animal lovers - that is why they are there. Of course, in order to do the job they are generally of the opinion that animal use is still currently necessary - but their job is to make sure the animals suffer as little as possible. The people who spend their lives caring for lab animals - and yes even experimenting on them - have done far more good for those animals than all the protesters at the gates.

Look at it this way....

Working with lab animals is a physically demanding job, and often emotionally distressing. It often involves long hours, and antisocial hours. The pay isn't great. Then of course there is the knowledge that they and their families are potentially at risk from the AR extremists, and that plenty of people hate them. Less popular than farmers, BYBs, corrupt MPs, etc. They deal every day with not being able to discuss their work for fear of reprisals.
They get covered in pee and poo, do a job most people would never consider and for what?

Abuse and threats.

Do you seriously think they would do this if they didn't care about the animals?

Any more questions be my guest.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Colette said:


> Here we go again...
> 
> As usual every person in the room jumps up and down with rage about the "torture" and "abuse" of lab animals by those evil, sadistic psychopaths - the "vivisectors". How could any pet owner possibly abuse animals all day then go home as if nothing happened?
> 
> ...


I agree, I used to be quite a militant animal rights supporter but as I read more & more the arguements regarding the scientific facts (from an AR point of view) regarding experiementation/research involving animals just didn't make sense.
I find the idea of experimentation very upsetting but there is no viable alternative. I would like to see more regulations/stricter guidleines, etc to ensure that the animals involved have minimal suffering but unfortunately due to the very nature they will experience a certain amount of suffering even just by being confined within a lab but unfotunately there is no viable alternative as yet.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

> I agree, I used to be quite a militant animal rights supporter but as I read more & more the arguements regarding the scientific facts (from an AR point of view) regarding experiementation/research involving animals just didn't make sense.


That's exactly how I was. I fell for it all hook, line and sinker. Until I went to uni.... Then, having been told we must have references for every single thing we stated in our assignments, and having to do one particular assignment on the controversial issue of our choice.... well my research made me rethink everything I thought I knew. I have spent time comparing all the arguements, and the accusations etc. I still visit the AR sites to see what muck they are still spreading.



> I find the idea of experimentation very upsetting but there is no viable alternative. I would like to see more regulations/stricter guidleines, etc to ensure that the animals involved have minimal suffering but unfortunately due to the very nature they will experience a certain amount of suffering even just by being confined within a lab but unfotunately there is no viable alternative as yet.


Funnily enough I think almost every single lab animal worker feels exactly the same way.

Incidentally, it is the scientists involved who are trying to bring in alternatives or at least improved (less suffering) tests.
It is the carers involved trying to get better caging, better enrichment, better diets etc.
And many would agree that the regulations are pitiful; fortunately most labs go well over and above the required minimums.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I can understand that it is a very emotive subject but as you point out it's really only when you start looking at scientific evidence that alot of the AR arguments fall apart.
Years ago there was a debate of TV between a doctor (I think he was a neurologist) & an AR supporter discussing medical advances made using animal experimentation & alternatives. It was the final nail in the coffin for me. The AR man was way pout of his depth & his arguements appeared very amateur & flawed.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2010)

Colette said:


> Here we go again...
> 
> As usual every person in the room jumps up and down with rage about the "torture" and "abuse" of lab animals by those evil, sadistic psychopaths - the "vivisectors". How could any pet owner possibly abuse animals all day then go home as if nothing happened?
> 
> ...


BUAV arnt an extremist organisation why dont you check out their website...Home, BUAV

and this makes a very interesting read..http://www.apgaw.org/userimages/Minutes Mar 06.pdf

well said Zaros im with you on this one:thumbup:


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

I will check out the links Shamen, I like to keep informed, but please don't think I'm clueless. As I said before, until I was about 20 I was very anti-viv myself, having read all the leaflets they hand out in town, and pouring over internet sites.

I know BUAV are peaceful and I have no objection to their methods (only their bullsh*t propoganda). What concerns me is this:



> However, the decision has also heartened more militants groups within the animal rights world....


In the interests of fairness and open mindedness perhaps people could also look at these links?

Understanding Animal Research
NC3Rs - National Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in Research
Pro-Test: standing up for science

I am also curious.... virtually every single person who is against animal research - inc most of the violoent extremists are happy to take whatever medications they want or need, from lifesaving treatments to pain killers for hangovers. Despite knowing that every one is tested on animals. I personally dislike the hypocrisy of those that would take the drugs with one hand but firebomb the scientists homes with the other.

And of course - they claim it is not acceptable to harm animals to cure humans - but they think its ok to harm people to "save" those lab animals?

Logical? Reasonable? Not in my book.


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I was also very involved with local animal rights groups & those who took more direct action so have read alot on the suject (although i will still read the links supplied) but I simply cannot see a viable alternative as yet.
I've seen many distressing & disturbing videos but unfortunately after reading evidence from both sides I cannot see how animal testing can be avoided. It's a very difficult thing to admit after years being 'on the other side' but I would not support anti vivisection now, although as I said in a previous post I would welcome more stringent checks & more regulation regarding vivisection.
I sort of lost faith with the group I was with when several members made threatening phone calls to a representative of Glaxo (who were opening a research lab in a town nearby). The woman was pregnant at the time (this was known to these people) & obviously upset by the incident. Some people said she milked it for press coverage but even if she did I couldn't be comfortable with knowing that people were prepared to threaten pregnant women for doing their job. 
This wasn't an isolated incident either, there were a couple of others that made me realise that I couldn't become more involved with people who were prepared to go to those extremes.
Despite my change in views regarding medical research I still try not buy make up, toiletries, etc that have been tested on animals.

PS - I know all the arguements about animals reacting differently to certain drugs but surely that is just an arguement to test drugs on many different types of animals rather than just one species.
And yes, sometimes the end does justify the means.
As for sleep deprivation this is quite an important study (I don't know what particular experiment you are referring to) but is does help iunderstand brain activity, how sleep affects us physically/psychologically, how it can be used as torture for POW).


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2010)

Colette said:


> I will check out the links Shamen, I like to keep informed, but please don't think I'm clueless. As I said before, until I was about 20 I was very anti-viv myself, having read all the leaflets they hand out in town, and pouring over internet sites.
> 
> I know BUAV are peaceful and I have no objection to their methods (only their bullsh*t propoganda). What concerns me is this:
> 
> ...


i chose the apgaw.org link because it contains the account of Dr Jarrod Bailey scientific director for EMP, i think its particulary interesting as he has no interest in animal rights whatsoever.

i dont need medication but should i ever believe me i certainly wouldnt be 'happy' taking it, we really should be using alternatives too many innocents have paid the ultimate price for us.

and i find the use of primates particularly Abhorrant!



Cleo38 said:


> I was also very involved with local animal rights groups & those who took more direct action so have read alot on the suject (although i will still read the links supplied) but I simply cannot see a viable alternative as yet.
> I've seen many distressing & disturbing videos but unfortunately after reading evidence from both sides I cannot see how animal testing can be avoided. It's a very difficult thing to admit after years being 'on the other side' but I would not support anti vivisection now, although as I said in a previous post I would welcome more stringent checks & more regulation regarding vivisection.
> I sort of lost faith with the group I was with when several members made threatening phone calls to a representative of Glaxo (who were opening a research lab in a town nearby). The woman was pregnant at the time (this was known to these people) & obviously upset by the incident. Some people said she milked it for press coverage but even if she did I couldn't be comfortable with knowing that people were prepared to threaten pregnant women for doing their job.
> This wasn't an isolated incident either, there were a couple of others that made me realise that I couldn't become more involved with people who were prepared to go to those extremes.
> Despite my change in views regarding medical research I still try not buy make up, toiletries, etc that have been tested on animals.


ive never done anything more than educate myself and not accept what the pro vivisectionist would like us to believe

i only buy BUAV approved products, even those which say they are not tested on animals will have been, companies are very sly although the end product wont have been tested the ingredients will!


----------



## simplysardonic (Sep 1, 2009)

What about when our pets get ill? A lot of, if not all veterinary medicine has been tested on animals I would have thought, so would anyone leave their pet untreated in the name of holding onto your moral stance?
I personally think the world is full of unpleasant choices, sometimes it isn't possible to find a middle ground, as I always take my pets to the vet when they need it, regardless of how I feel about animal testing (I find the testing of rats particularly upsetting but I think they get less coverage than the 'cute' animals like bunnies & I love rats to bits)
I didn't realise BUAV had an approved list, I will have to go & check it out


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2010)

simplysardonic said:


> What about when our pets get ill? A lot of, if not all veterinary medicine has been tested on animals I would have thought, so would anyone leave their pet untreated in the name of holding onto your moral stance?
> I personally think the world is full of unpleasant choices, sometimes it isn't possible to find a middle ground, as I always take my pets to the vet when they need it, regardless of how I feel about animal testing (I find the testing of rats particularly upsetting but I think they get less coverage than the 'cute' animals like bunnies & I love rats to bits)
> I didn't realise BUAV had an approved list, I will have to go & check it out


of course i would never let any pet of mine suffer so i have no choice but to use drugs tested on animals:frown:, does that make me a hypocrite?

have you checked out the apgaw link aswell?


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

Shamen said:


> i chose the apgaw.org link because it contains the account of Dr Jarrod Bailey scientific director for EMP, i think its particulary interesting as he has no interest in animal rights whatsoever.
> 
> i dont need medication but should i ever believe me i certainly wouldnt be 'happy' taking it, we really should be using alternatives too many innocents have paid the ultimate price for us.
> 
> ...


The problems (for me) was that the AR movement seemed to be doing just that - accept our arguement or you're against us. The more science based articles I read more I found flaws with what I had previously believed, the more I questioned this within my group the more I experienced negativity & arrogance.
I do feel very uncomfortable with the idea still but find the medical break throughs made & improvements in quality of life for many people do justify most work carried out.
Some of the articles I have just read about the uni lab seem to resort to arguements & pictures that I remember from my involvement with the AR groups.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2010)

Cleo38 said:


> The problems (for me) was that the AR movement seemed to be doing just that - accept our arguement or you're against us. The more science based articles I read more I found flaws with what I had previously believed, the more I questioned this within my group the more I experienced negativity & arrogance.
> I do feel very uncomfortable with the idea still but find the medical break throughs made & improvements in quality of life for many people do justify most work carried out


ive not based my opinions on anything the AR movement has stated, but on research which is non bias like the apaw link and this for example taken from the British Medical Journal...

Moving away from animal research for clinical benefit 29 January 2007

Kathy A Archibald, 
Director, Europeans for Medical Progress 
London W13 0YR 
Send response to journal: 
Re: Moving away from animal research for clinical benefit

Congratulations, BMJ, on three excellent articles on the thorny issue of the clinical value of animal testing. Pablo Perel et al conclude that "discordance between animal and human studies may be due to bias or to the failure of animal models to mimic clinical disease adequately" (1), while Daniel Hackam concludes that "it seems prudent to be critical and cautious about the applicability of animal data to the clinical domain" (2). Geoff Watts' article (3) on the other hand comes from an animal welfare perspective, though he highlights the view of drug companies and contract research organisations that the value of the animal data they collected was limited, or even of no practical use.

It is becoming increasingly clear that addressing the failings of animal models in the clinical domain entails shifting the emphasis away from animal studies, to more promising methods such as microdosing. Simon Festing of the Research Defence Society effectively says as much, with his comment that such methods have been developed for scientific reasons (3). But there is no evidence to support the contention that "You could phase out the use of animals if you were prepared to put more risk on to humans". The evidence suggests that employing a battery of human-based tests, including microdosing, for assessing the safety of new drugs would decrease the risk to humans currently posed by our reliance on 'proof of safety in animals.' Think of TGN1412, or this example from the Perel study (1): corticosteroids were administered to head injury victims for decades, based on evidence of benefit from animal tests. This misguided practice is estimated to have killed 10,000 patients.

This study provides some valuable insights into why animal research seldom applies to humans.

Like so many other studies trying to ascertain why animal research so often fails, this study fails to identify the real reason: namely that there are so many differences between species on so many levels that results obtained one species apply to another only in cases of random coincidence.

Instead of tackling the Herculean task of trying to sort out these differences, it would be a lot simpler and more practical to dump archaic animal experimentation in favor of the multiple non-invasive nethods that are already available.

Besides inertia, I suggest the reason we are stuck in the rut of trying to ascertain human reactions from other species is that too many people and institutions are making money from it.

Competing interests: Director of Civitas: Citizens for Planetary Health


----------



## Cleo38 (Jan 22, 2010)

I will try & have more of a read tomorrow - am shattered tonight! It's been interesting reads on here lately, not eveyone will agree but there's been alot of good discussions.


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Morning all,

Shamen I will read your links later today - I didn't get chance yesterday. However I will address some of the points made.



> of course i would never let any pet of mine suffer so i have no choice but to use drugs tested on animals, does that make me a hypocrite?





> i dont need medication but should i ever believe me i certainly wouldnt be 'happy' taking it, we really should be using alternatives too many innocents have paid the ultimate price for us.


Now herein lies the problem. ALL medications available to either people or to animals have been tested on animals, and most will have used animal research in their development.

Claiming that it is wrong to test on animals because they have equal rights to us - but then taking those drugs or using them on your pets - suggests that when it comes to the crunch you will put your life and the lives of those you love above those in the lab. You're no different to the vast majority who really feel / act the same way - only not every one slags off the scientists who provide these drugs for you.

Don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't encourage anyone to refuse medication for themselves, their families or their pets - just don't "bite the hand that feeds".



> Instead of tackling the Herculean task of trying to sort out these differences, it would be a lot simpler and more practical to dump archaic animal experimentation in favor of the multiple non-invasive nethods that are already available.


This is a favourite argument of the anti-viv movement; and it is totally, completely flawed.

These multiple non-invasive methods *ARE ALREADY IN USE!!!!*
I can't make that any clearer. Animal use makes up only 10% of drug research and development. The other 90% is using all the alternatives - in vitro, in silico, tissue culture, etc.

The anti vivs would have people believe that scientists just pick a new drug, jab it into some animals, and release it for sale if those animals don't die.
Nothing could be further from the truth. New drugs go under a battery of tests, using a wide variety of different methods. Why? Why would so much time and money be spent using all these methods?

Because no single method is 100% complete and accurate - not animals, not in vitro, not in silico.
So all appropriate tests are used to get the most accurate all round picture of how the drug will react in a human being.
The final stage of this is of course clinical trials in humans.

The same problem applies to all the accusations about animal testing not working.
When drugs make it to clinical trials, or even onto the market, and things then go wrong, it is always the animal work that "failed" to identifiy the problem. What about all those other "alternative" tests that were used alongside the animals? You know - those tests that made up 90% of the research? They also failed - but of course the anti-vivs don't want you to realise that because that would negate their argument about how the alternatives are so much better.

I should also point out that seeing as the EMP is specifically an anti-viv group I don't think we can really call them unbiased.

I am also curious as to one other point - how many of ther anti-vivs are strict vegans?
Personally I've met vey few vegans, very few vegetarians in fact, but a great many anti-vivs.

Is it not hypocritical to sit down to a luch of roasted, slaughtered animal, that died for no reason other than because it tastes good - and bemoan the use of animals in life saving medical research?


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2010)

well maybe i am a hypocrite but had i have no choice in the matter where my pets are concerned iwish the medicines hadnt been tested on animals because i believe its unessecary and totally inhumane!, i am an ovo vegetarian myself i cant speak for other people i have no idea what they are, i also feed my cat meat because i know he needs it but i do the very best i can to try not to contribute to the suffering of animals, this is because i have a conscience and hate the way we use and abuse other species.

if other scientists in the medical profession believe animal testing is outdated and potentially dangerous then thats good enough for me

How do you feel about HLF's treatment of primates? are you sure its really worth all this suffering?

Press releases and events ADI: Shocking tests exposed inside Huntingdon life sciences UK lab, as E

Today a groundbreaking new documentary revealing the all too visible distress that lab primates face on a daily basis is revealed by Animal Defenders International (ADI). The 'Save The Primates' investigation exposes every aspect of the global primate trade across three continents, including one of Europe's largest testing facilities - Huntingdon Life Sciences in Cambridgeshire. 

The international campaign launch comes as MEPs have an unprecedented opportunity to phase out primate experiments altogether for the first time in over two decades. 

The ADI video 'Save The Primates' reveals: 

In South America owl monkeys scream as they are torn from the trees of the rainforest and from their families to be taken for malaria experiments in Colombia. 

In Asia, monkeys in rusting, collapsing cages desperately shake their tiny prisons at a monkey supplier in Vietnam that has been approved by the UK Home Office, and in one year, supplied almost 500 monkeys to HLS. 

In the UK, the most vivid insight ever of primates in commercial testing has been caught on film at Huntingdon Life Sciences in Cambridgeshire, with struggling monkeys strapped into chairs and forced to inhale products. Many are housed in 1 cubic metre cages and then taken out to be held down by workers as tubes are forced down their throats. 

HLS in Cambridgeshire is a major contract testing operation for multi-national product brands which can hold up to 550 monkeys at a time. During the one-year ADI undercover investigation, 217 monkeys were killed in just five studies. 

The new 'Save the Primates' report and investigation are part of a never-before-attempted comprehensive study linking primate research and the international primate trade to the alternatives that are now available. 

MEPs will be first to see the video, which will be introduced by MEP Jens Holm together with ADI. The screening coincides with consideration in the European Parliament of new rules for the use of animals in experiments - the revision of Directive 86/609. This s seen as the


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

Shamen, I can not comment on any individual study, or lab. I have never been inside HLS, nor spoken in person to any of their employess, so I have no way of knowing how much of these investigations is true.

I did see the "Its a dogs life" expose and of course I was horrified - there is never an excuse to abuse animals like that. Those involved should have faced time for their appaling behaviour.
But that particular case was over a decade ago - carried out by people hno longer involved - yet HLS is still the anti-vivs favourite victim. 

Perhaps I should clarify my own views while I'm here, so people don't think me totally heartless....

I WAS against all animal testing - until I found out that most of what I knew was bull.
I am still against the testing of any unnecessary products on animals - inc cosmetics, tobacco, alcohol, and household products. 
I was as disgusted with the implications of "REACH" legislation as everyone else.

What I am not against however, is the use of animals in medical and veterinary research, where there is no viable alternative.

I am still against poor housing and husbandry, and mistreatment, and I fully support the 3Rs. As soon as animal testing is no longer necessary I will no longer support it.

Have you ever been inside a monkey lab yourself? I have not been in HLS but I have been inside a number of others and I think even you would be pleasently surprised at how the animals are kept.

I should also point out that wild caught animals may not be used without express permission from the Home Office, which is not granted without good reason. The import of monkeys from abroad has lessened considerably as there are a number of breeders within the UK.

Incidentally, I do know of one licenced breeder in Israel - but they sure as hell do not keep wild caught monkeys in tiny barren wire cages as suggested. The animals are group housed (in breeding colonies) in large enclosures, with a variety of environemtal enrichment, inc various climbing structures and opportunities to forage.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2010)

Colette said:


> Shamen, I can not comment on any individual study, or lab. I have never been inside HLS, nor spoken in person to any of their employess, so I have no way of knowing how much of these investigations is true.
> 
> I did see the "Its a dogs life" expose and of course I was horrified - there is never an excuse to abuse animals like that. Those involved should have faced time for their appaling behaviour.
> But that particular case was over a decade ago - carried out by people hno longer involved - yet HLS is still the anti-vivs favourite victim.
> ...


 of course the HLS footage is genuine dont you think if it wasnt they'd have had something to say it was shown to MEP's after all, HLS is despicable some of their staff have been convicted for animal cruelty and the authorities threatened to withdraw its licence, sadly they have wealthy backers like the MOD.

20 yrs ago there was a directive to phase out primate experiments....primate experiments are Rising!

the Home Office are useless they dont even regularly inspect overseas primate breeding facilities, and because of loopholes wild caught primates are still being captured, a 3rd of primate species are now in threat of extinction because of human exploitation and research demands the right to take these animals. How will you feel when they disappear? will it all have been worth it:frown2:

following intense lobbying by primate suppliers and primate experimentation facilities, the European Parliament seriously weakened European Commission proposals to end the wild capture of monkeys by dealers and to restrict primate use.

The House of Lords, who received submissions from laboratories, including Huntingdon Life Sciences, and monkey suppliers involved in wild capture, have backed restricting experiments on monkeys to life-threatening and debilitating human diseases and supported a phase out of the use of monkeys born of wild caught parents, albeit monitored closely.

Tim Phillips, ADI Campaigns Director who gave evidence to the Lords Committee, said: 10,000 monkeys are used in experiments in Europe every year, most of these are born of parents snatched from the wild. Europe is therefore continuing to fuel the capture of thousands of wild macaque monkeys to stock breeding farms in Asia  a region where the species is now in widespread and rapid decline. We have filmed undercover with the monkey trappers, exposed conditions inside the factory farms that feed the labs, and revealed how monkeys live and die inside British laboratories. This is an industry of almost unparalleled animal suffering. We would have liked the Lords to have gone further, but this is clear recognition of the problem.

Tim Phillips: With the Commission, European Parliament and Council currently in trialogue discussions on the revision of the Directive this is a timely and welcome development. This represents very basic protection: That all animal experiments must be justified before they start; that monkeys should not be torn form the wild; that animal laboratories must be regularly inspected; that severe suffering of animals must not be prolonged. What is shocking is that such minimal protection has met with such fierce opposition from the animal experimentation industry.

if i ever went in a monkey lab i'd never be able to sleep at night just the videos and still's gives me nightmares:frown: i can asure you i wouldnt be pleasently surprised half the zoo's dont keep them properly so i find it very hard to believe labs are even on par with the worst british zoo's:frown: maybe you have some pics to prove me wrong?

imo using primates is just about as inhumane as we humans can be....its totally immoral!


----------



## Colette (Jan 2, 2010)

> of course the HLS footage is genuine dont you think if it wasnt they'd have had something to say it was shown to MEP's after all, HLS is despicable some of their staff have been convicted for animal cruelty and the authorities threatened to withdraw its licence, sadly they have wealthy backers like the MOD.


The reason I do not take it for granted is that it is very easy for people to make things look worse than they are. For example, in at least one case the undercover photographer had deliberately removed all the enrichment from the animal cages before filming. It is also easy to wind the animals up to get a particular facial expression, or to film only part of a holding cage rather than the animals full enclosure, etc. What you see is not always what you get. Every video and still you have ever seen is biased - and many are inaccurate.

Of course, where people commit acts of cruelty this should be taken very seriously - the people involved should face criminal charges and automatically lose their licence (and be fired for that matter). I do not condone wanton cruelty in any case.
But please remember not to tar everyone with the same brush - there are plenty of abusive pet owners out there - doesn't mean people like you and I abuse our pets too!



> 10,000 monkeys are used in experiments in Europe every year, most of these are born of parents snatched from the wild.


I don't know about the rest of Europe, but I would be extremely surprised if this were true. I would like to see where they get this info?

Certainly in the UK the vast majority of primates used in research are purchased from long established captive breeding colonies that have not used wild caught animals for many years. There are at least 4 major breeding colonies in England that I am aware of, none of which have any involvement with wild caught primates, and these supply almost all the primates used in the UK.



> if i ever went in a monkey lab i'd never be able to sleep at night just the videos and still's gives me nightmares


Believe me I felt the same way not so long ago. And if I went into a lab where the monkeys were being singly housed in 1m barren cages, then yes I too would find it heartbreaking.
To my knowledge not one UK lab houses primates like this - I can't state that as fact, but I have seen the housing situation in a number of labs and so far not seen one like this.

Many labs now group house compatible animals in large, open plan rooms or "gang cages". These tend to be at least normal room height, although some have two floors and others taller outdoor access. They will generally contain appropriate enrichment items - from substrate for foraging, hanging toys for climbing and swinging, disposable toys like cardboard boxes or paper bags stuffed wioth treats, etc. A number of labs provide TVs (and yes many monkeys do take an interest) or water baths for swimming in. The housing is smaller than you see in zoos - but it is a far cry from the tiny steel boxes the anti-vivs insist on showing you.

Before you point to the photos you have seen, I want to explain one more thing. Many labs still have caging in use - either within the large enclosures or adjoined to them - for restraining the monkeys. It is very easy to take a photo of a monkey in a holding cage like this and present it as the normal living environment.

For some photos, check out:
NC3Rs - Non-human primates
http://www.nc3rs.org.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=418


----------



## Guest (Jul 8, 2010)

Colette said:


> The reason I do not take it for granted is that it is very easy for people to make things look worse than they are. For example, in at least one case the undercover photographer had deliberately removed all the enrichment from the animal cages before filming. It is also easy to wind the animals up to get a particular facial expression, or to film only part of a holding cage rather than the animals full enclosure, etc. What you see is not always what you get. Every video and still you have ever seen is biased - and many are inaccurate.
> 
> Of course, where people commit acts of cruelty this should be taken very seriously - the people involved should face criminal charges and automatically lose their licence (and be fired for that matter). I do not condone wanton cruelty in any case.
> But please remember not to tar everyone with the same brush - there are plenty of abusive pet owners out there - doesn't mean people like you and I abuse our pets too!
> ...


although the holding enclosures are better than i imagined im sorry but you'll never convince me that keeping them like that or testing on primates is right(the tattoo'd maquac looks so sad), studies show that reasearch on primates is adding to the pressures on dwindling wild stocks, there needs to be a worldwide ban on the use of them just as there needs to be a worldwide ban on the ivory trade if not how will you police it?.

please check this out and HLS stock enclosure is on page 16 or 17 i think...http://www.savetheprimates.org/files/stpreporten.pdf

we are the largest user of primates in europe we use over 4,000 each year:nonod:

HLS killed 217 monkeys for just 5 studies do you think thats acceptable? and how do you feel that experiment results arnt shared so tests are dupicated?.....more innocent lives discarded!


----------

