Animal rights groups- friend or foe of pet owners?

[Dennis Hultman]

Here is some info on the difference between animal rights and animal welfare- for those who don't know. If you don't know, please read before voting.

The difference between the animal rights and animal welfare movements.

"Could be both- it really depends on which organization we're speaking of. "
Votes 6

Obviously some didn't bother to look at the differences.

 

[Hypancistrus]

"Could be both- it really depends on which organization we're speaking of. "
Votes 6

Obviously some didn't bother to look at the differences.

I am running the same poll on corn snakes, and over there significantly more people selected the middle than foe. No one yet has selected friend.

Now I am stuck wondering what the difference is between corn snakes and here...???

 

[Seamus Haley]

Now I am stuck wondering what the difference is between corn snakes and here...???

Experience, education and cynicism.

 

[Clay Davenport]

I am running the same poll on corn snakes, and over there significantly more people selected the middle than foe. No one yet has selected friend.

For someone to honestly think that "it really depends on which organization we're speaking of" suggests that to them some of the AR groups would fit in the friend category and others would be foes, so they are unable to lump them together.
Even this mindset demonstrates a sad lack of knowledge on the subject matter and is a dangerous way of looking at the issue.
As Dennis said, they obviously haven't bothered to learn exactly what an AR group is. The simple truth is a friend of herp keepers cannot be an AR activist group, the two are mutually exclusive by definition.

It's been a nice little trick by the AR camp to condition the general public to consider Animal Rights and Animal Welfare to be interchangeable. If they can make people think they are one large movement, then the AR people begin to look a little less fanatical.
For those who apparently do not know, the basic tenet of the Animal Rights movement is to completely abolish the use of animals by people for ANY purpose. This means food, clothing, work animals (such as guide dogs, or police dogs), medical research, and yes PETS TOO. They believe that humans are little more than a parasite on this planet and we should attempt to exist without interaction with animals whether it be for necessity or pleasure.

Animal Welfare groups on the other hand want to see animals treated humanely in whatever means that humans use them. This means humane treatment of your pets, and livestock. Often they are against sport hunting, but not necessarily hunting for food. Similarly with medical research, they desire for the animals to be treated as humanely as possible, but they are not against the much needed animal testing that is normally required in the process of finding new cures for human illnesses.
There is of course some variance between groups on the animal welfare side, but the AR viewpoint is pretty much set in stone, that is to say NO using animals for ANY purpose whatsoever.

I have talked to people who did keep reptiles as pets who also proudly admitted the fact they were a contributor to Peta. This is one of the worst forms of ignorance on the whole animal rights subject. To actually donate money to a group of people whose stated goal is to eliminate your ability to participate in the hobby you enjoy. To not only not fight against them to stop their agenda, but to actually pay them to take away your ability to engage in an enjoyable hobby.
It's just this sort of ignorant mindset, just as with the people who voted that even some of the AR groups might be our friends, that must be eliminated from our ranks. People have to become educated enough to know who is their enemy, and you can paint with a wide brush when talking about Animal Rights groups, they are ALL our enemies, without exception.

 

[fuscusking13]

This is an interesting subject here. I have some mixed opinions on things here. While I agree that these groups are certainly not the friends of pet owners in any way, shape or form, some of their goals are reasonable. Animal testing in any form is despicable in my opinion. I do not support it for any cause, we can be our own guinea pigs, and if your not willing to take the risk, you should not be able to reap the benefits. To take an animal against its will and subject it to cruel testing for the benefit of someone else is wrong. It's like me saying I want to know what it feels like to have my face bashed in with a bat, can I try it on you first? Would you want to do it? Of course not, but because we feel we are "Superior" which is a question in itself, we feel we have the right to subject our will on others, be it other races or animals. Some may say well thats crazy, but 200 years ago slaves were treated as beast, sometimes worse, and now we have decided thats wrong(which it is), so whos to say what the future holds. 200 Years from now people could look back on animal testing thinking I cant believe people did that, much the way we look at slavery now.

We have a big problem, once again in my opinion, with the way people to animal relations work on all ends. The animal rights Nazis say that "Animals are people too" which is an asinine statement, because it is in no way shape or form true, but then you get the people on the other end of the spectrum that will deny that people are animals, which is true....its in the taxonomy. Then are those who make opinions based on limited facts, or upon hearing one side of an argument and then take on a biased view themselves. What we need is education from a middle of the road source with no interest in the subjects at hand. That is much easier said than done, to many people are easily swayed or corrupted by politics, money and other agendas. It's virtually impossible to find a person who truly can give an unbiased opinion, as the way you were brought up/raised, experiences in life and things will usually cause you to lean one way or another, often subconsciously. I understand some people like animal testing because someone in their family, or even themselves may have been saved by a drug that was tested on animals, and I can understand that, but what I don't understand is how this day in age we don't know enough to run these test via computers to see how chemicals and such would react with the human body, or an animals. Also I don't see whats wrong with people volunteering to be guinea pigs for such test, hell I'd do it if it saved a few animals. There is actually some debate on this subject currently underway in the courts involving terminally ill patients who want to try experimental drugs and there are some who want to stop them. Heck, these people are dying and they want to do it, let them already!!! If your going to die anyways and are willing, that should be your choice, and no one else's, provided you are mentally capable of making such a decision. All in all I do think that these groups are foes to all who own pets, but they do do some good as well, be it limited. My vote will definitely be cast as foe though. Now what I would like to see is these groups focus on more responsible pet ownership as opposed to abolishing it, as that needs a major tune up. Also the stop eating animals thing is a crazy argument....look at our teeth! We are clearly designed to be omnivores not herbivores, but try telling them that lol. Anyways thats my two cents for what its worth. Dan M.

 

[Hypancistrus]

but then you get the people on the other end of the spectrum that will deny that people are animals, which is true....its in the taxonomy.

Is this a typo????

 

[Griz]

Dan, I am just going to come out and say this. Your logic is so incredibly flawed that it's simply downright pathetic.

To imply that it's not ok to test a certain medication on a rat if it means it will save the lives of a child is nothing short of asinine. You're obviously not a parent. You clearly state that testing on animals of any kind is reprehensible yet you go on to state that there's nothing wrong with eating them. If there's nothing wrong with eating the animals then there is nothing wrong with performing life saving tests on them.

I am completely against testing make-up and non-essentials on animals but when it comes down to life-saving medications then the animals will be the first in line.

I can sit here and poke holes in the rest of your arguments but dog gone it, you need to educate yourself before forming opinions. Your opinions are so completely illogical that it's getting ridiculous.

Griz

 

[Seamus Haley]

I am completely against testing make-up and non-essentials on animals but when it comes down to life-saving medications then the animals will be the first in line.

I can sit here and poke holes in the rest of your arguments but dog gone it, you need to educate yourself before forming opinions. Your opinions are so completely illogical that it's getting ridiculous.

Griz

Maybe he just really hates people with medical problems. A sort of "Screw you cancerboy!" kind of thing.

Or, my guess anyway- could be wrong- is that he's just bought into a bunch of animal rights propaganda and has lost the ability to differentiate between necessary use (like experimental advances to treat diseases, insulin and antivenin production) and less necessary use (and photos of rabbits with mascara smeared on their eyeballs).

Which is exactly how those insidious AR groups get people, they present a small number of things which a reasonable individual might find objectionable, hype the issue and then claim that all animal related topics are inherently equal and negative, which only a true idiot would believe to be the case if they thought about it for a moment. "Here's a chimpanzee smoking cigarettes with all it's hair shaved off, open sores and scars all the way around it's head- isn't animal testing bad?" they provide an extreme negative example, downplay all the advances that have been made where animal testing was part of the process.

It's *already* illegal to abuse animals, these groups aren't about protecting animals. They're about hurting people.

 

[kmurphy]

Definately Foe

Isn't HSUS the ones backing a lot of the anti-exotic pet legislation that keeps coming up in many States?

 

[Clay Davenport]

I have to agree with Griz and Seamus completely, Dan. You definitely need to spend some time learning about the realities of the biomedical field before you form poorly thought out and illogical conclusions. That is exactly what the AR people do, they look at the skim on the surface of the issue without ever attempting to understand the issue itself.

I won't try to address your entire post as there is simply too much there to be refuted. I will make a few comments on the medical research issue.
First, do you have any idea about the actual risks involved in the early stages of experimentation in the course of developing new treatments? I'm not talking about clinical trials, where some drug is basically developed and they are primarily looking for effectiveness and potential side effects, I'm talking about the point where they are not even sure what effect the treatment will have on a living organism.
If you want to step up and volunteer for that to save a few lab rats, be my guest. Unfortunately you will probably not be able to complete many tests.
To even suggest that we should be our own guinea pigs is a ridiculous and totally uninformed statement.
The consideration given to the possibility of allowing terminal patients to test experimental medication is accurate, but of only minor relevance to the issue as a whole because again in this case it is the equivalent of clinical trials of a drug which has already completed preliminary development, only the effectiveness and potential sides effects not being fully known.

The point of computer simulations, chemical tests, and cell cultures, is a popular argument in the AR propaganda. They would like you to believe that animal testing is completely unnecessary in our time and we can accomplish the same results with other methods.
The truth of the matter is these alternative methods are already widely used, and used instead of living animals when possible. If fact that is the law in some countries. However, at best they can only supplement the data gathered from testing on living animals. No computer model can possibly predict the exact effect any new synthetic substance will have on living tissue.

There is a term for the people who take the stance you are taking, it is called Anti-vivisection, and it is an arm of the AR movement specifically concerned with ending the use of animal research in all forms.
I won't go on with my comments, but if you would like some additional information on the topic of animal testing here's a couple of links to get you started.

http://tinyurl.com/2lku4p
http://tinyurl.com/2w8yn4
http://tinyurl.com/rxgj7

 

[Clay Davenport]

Isn't HSUS the ones backing a lot of the anti-exotic pet legislation that keeps coming up in many States?

Yes, by a membership vote in 1980 the HSUS officially converted from an animal welfare organization to an animal rights organization. However, they intentionally avoid the use of the term animal rights in order to distance themselves from the more radical groups like Peta and ALF. Instead they prefer the term "animal protectionists".
Regardless of the term used, the end goals are the same, it's merely the methods used to to reach those goals that differ.

 

[Stardust]

I actually went and visited a lab while I was in school. I won't say where or the name for obvious reasons but I will say that I was only allowed in as I knew someone who worked there and went to school with me. Going for vet tech she kept her work place private in fact most people that work there do as it is very dangerous to them and their families if they don't. I was asked several questions before I was even allowed to enter.
The place was spotless. Although some sights I saw was hard to see I understood the need for it. The people that I talked with there believed like most who have knowledge and agreed with some forms of experimentation and not others as in make-up, deodorant ect. For that it comes down to just do not buy the product that allows animal testing. Do your homework first.
Most animals including eels were used for not only humans but animals as well. There are many medicines and procedures that are used on humans that are also used on animals, for medical purposes it is the single most way to find out what causes what and draw backs as well.
Like I said some of these animals were hard to look at but even then they got attention daily and were very friendly and wanted human affection that the workers gave. You need to remember that those people are human too and not immune to what is happening and can not totally turn their feelings off. Like anyone trying to help you have to push certain feelings aside otherwise you are not doing your job and no one is benefiting. The workers, chemists, doctors I spoke with all had animals they were fond of, down to a little mouse.
It is a job. Not a pretty one, in fact a very thankless job to downright dangerous but a job that is necessary and helps thousands of people as well as animals and I applaud all the people that keep plugging away trying to find cures or vaccines for all living creatures and the animals who instead of doing tricks for the owner is doing a service much more valuable.
I have to say I was torn about even visiting but to not do so when the opportunity arose would be like wearing blinders and not seeing. I am glad I went and learned, it is entirely too easy to talk the talk with never walking the walk and seeing for yourself, learning for yourself what good can come of it.
I wonder if any of these activists would turn down treatment for themselves or loved ones and just let them die because it was an experiment first that included an animal.

 

[Seamus Haley]

I wonder if any of these activists would turn down treatment for themselves or loved ones and just let them die because it was an experiment first that included an animal.

Ingrid certainly won't deny herself those advances, but wants to take access to them away from everyone else.

 

[Clay Davenport]

Ingrid certainly won't deny herself those advances, but wants to take access to them away from everyone else.

That's even more ironic in light of a few of the statements she's made.....

Even if animal tests produced a cure for AIDS, "We'd be against it." (Vogue, Sept, 1989)

"If my father had a heart attack, it would give me no solace at all to know his treatment was first tried on a dog." (Washington Post, May 30, 1989)

"Even painless research is fascism, supremacism." Washington Magazine, Aug. 1986)

But she has no qualms about using the insulin, a treatment that originated from pigs.

 

[Hypancistrus]

But she has no qualms about using the insulin, a treatment that originated from pigs.

Especially when the stuff is used to keep her henchmen and women alive.

Penn & Teller BS PETA

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

....FOE....

 

[Jim O]

....FOE....

Tell us how you really feel Rick.

 

[crotalusadamanteus]

Whack jobs! Every single one of them! From the bottom of the dung heap, to the President of PETA on the top! Not a single one, IMHO, is truly for the animals. It's merely a band wagon to jump on, just like the movie stars and their so called religion, uh....what's it called again? Scientology?

People want to support something worth while, send your money to the ASPCA, or LEGIT wildlife rescue organizations. Donate to a fund for good attorneys to go and fight for us when politicians and their PETA friends get together and come up with new regulations to govern our hobby.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Someone was telling me about how much they support the community and also animal rights groups. I shook my head and decide to bump this thread.

 

[Dennis Hultman]

Please help!