Europe bans Canadian seal products

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by moon

You think that they are smart, yet they are going to risk throwing away their dream because of some silly stance that most likely don't care about at all?

Just because you have moronic views doesn't mean that majority are stupid enough to have them as well.

And who cares what some idiot in Washington thinks about the seal hunt.

Do you ever make a point without being a total dick? That idiot up in Washington has a lot of political pull, his opinion matters to millions of people unlike yours.

[moon]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

Do you ever make a point without being a total dick? That idiot up in Washington has a lot of political pull, his opinion matters to millions of people unlike yours.

I am sure he has a lot more pressing issues to worry about than the Canadian seal hunt. Considering what a small roll it plays in Canada, I can't imagine that Obama is making foreign policy decisions with Canada based on whether or not the athletes wear seal skin, so whether or not people care about his opinion or not it really doesn't matter in this case.

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by Burninator

Well that sure is a poor argument, I suggest more words next time.

So your argument is that Thalidomide was apparently tested on animals and caused birth defects in humans, therefore animal testing is useless because birth defects weren't detected in animals. Without touching the points about Thalidomide not being tested on pregnant animals and it probably being a poor test to begin with and it being done over 50 years ago, what is the alternative that you are purposing? Seriously. How were we suppose to test this drug? How? If animal testing was out of the picture how would you know that this drug caused birth defects? Wait for a pregnant inmate to show up on death row?

How do you propose we test drugs like this?

It is the whole pointlessness of this drug. It was prescribed to women who had morning sickness. Well, that is all part of pregnancy. Women also know that what they take will affect the foetus. Pregnant women shouldn't take any drugs. In tests on animals done since the Thalidomide tragedy they have continued to test this drug trying to reproduce the mutant effects - and they have been unable to. What would be the point of subjecting animals to more testing when the result is already known? Just abusing animals for the sake of it. This has already been covered in this thread so rather than repeat it all ......there are so many websites out there about animal testing. I suggest, if you really are interested, do a bit of research. Wikipedia is as good a place to start as any. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing

[ikaris]

Originally Posted by Burninator

How do you propose we test drugs like this?

Test it on prisoners that have been convicted of rape or murder (proven with DNA evidence).

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by ikaris

Test it on prisoners that have been convicted of rape or murder (proven with DNA evidence).

Yeah, still not a lot of pregnant chicks in the clink for rape or murder.

[Suzles]

Interesting article. Particularly towards the end it explains about new non human and non animal testing methods that have been developed. Europe is leading the way.

http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress....lood%E2%80%A6/

Originally Posted by Suzles

Interesting article. Particularly towards the end it explains about new non human and non animal testing methods that have been developed. Europe is leading the way.

http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress....lood%E2%80%A6/

That's a great article. I stopped reading right at the beginning when it say's the article is dedicated to all the animal defenders.... but I really enjoyed the pictures... PETA called, they claim copyright infringement.

I don't want to rehash this, but this argument regarding animal testing vs. testing on prisoners, I can't come to terms with. Just to confirm, animal testing is cruel - it causes pain, discomfort, permanent injury, etc, etc. But testing on humans, who are subjected to pain, discomfort, permanent injury, etc, etc. is a-ok because you see them as burdens on society?

How can you reconcile the fact there is a human rights norm in the treatment of prisoners, namely, the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Would that not fall under that category? Animal rights are more important that human rights? Look at the big picture not just the fact that they are prisoners.

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by Bent Wookie

That's a great article. I stopped reading right at the beginning when it say's the article is dedicated to all the animal defenders.... but I really enjoyed the pictures... PETA called, they claim copyright infringement.

I don't want to rehash this, but this argument regarding animal testing vs. testing on prisoners, I can't come to terms with. Just to confirm, animal testing is cruel - it causes pain, discomfort, permanent injury, etc, etc. But testing on humans, who are subjected to pain, discomfort, permanent injury, etc, etc. is a-ok because you see them as burdens on society?

How can you reconcile the fact there is a human rights norm in the treatment of prisoners, namely, the prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. Would that not fall under that category? Animal rights are more important that human rights? Look at the big picture not just the fact that they are prisoners.

I have said this a few times - but why wouldn't they allow life term prisoners to volunteer for the testing? A big benefit from testing on people is that they can vocalise any side effects. On animals a lot of it is guesswork. I did a drug trial back in England. My father had drugs tested on him when he was dying of cancer and then donated his body to science. Because of this experience I think I do have a different viewpoint and I don't think it is wrong.

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by Suzles

I have said this a few times - but why wouldn't they allow life term prisoners to volunteer for the testing? A big benefit from testing on people is that they can vocalise any side effects. On animals a lot of it is guesswork. I did a drug trial back in England. My father had drugs tested on him when he was dying of cancer and then donated his body to science. Because of this experience I think I do have a different viewpoint and I don't think it is wrong.

There are human drug trials with volunteers, my dad is in one now. This is all done AFTER the initial animal drug trials. You keep saying it like it is one or the other when really they do animal testing first then do human trials, its both. There are very few human volunteers that qualify for each specific drug.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Suzles

Interesting article. Particularly towards the end it explains about new non human and non animal testing methods that have been developed. Europe is leading the way.

http://thomaspainescorner.wordpress....lood%E2%80%A6/

Larf, I stopped here.

I'm dedicating this piece to the courageous animal defenders and rescuers comprising the ALF...

You as a Brit must be fully aware that these idiots are directly responsible for the decline and possible extinction in years to come of one of Britain's most threatened small mammals?

Need I explain?

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Larf, I stopped here.

I'm dedicating this piece to the courageous animal defenders and rescuers comprising the ALF...

You as a Brit must be fully aware that these idiots are directly responsible for the decline and possible extinction in years to come of one of Britain's most threatened small mammals?

Need I explain?

Such a shame you couldn't read past that point. It was the information on new drug testing methods that was what was so interesting. I am still learning - I hoped others would have enough of an open mind to want to learn too. PS I am ENGLISH!

[Suzles]

I also know all about the water vole. I worked as a senior supervisor for 12 years in the UK's premier wildlife hospital and rehabilitation centre. 25% of mammals in the world are facing extinction and most as a result of direct hunting by man or destruction or encroachment of habitat.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by Suzles

I also know all about the water vole. I worked as a senior supervisor for 12 years in the UK's premier wildlife hospital and rehabilitation centre. 25% of mammals in the world are facing extinction and most as a result of direct hunting by man or destruction or encroachment of habitat.

But not from being used as test-animals?

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Larf, I stopped here.

I'm dedicating this piece to the courageous animal defenders and rescuers comprising the ALF...

You as a Brit must be fully aware that these idiots are directly responsible for the decline and possible extinction in years to come of one of Britain's most threatened small mammals?

Need I explain?

Please do, what is the story here?

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Suzles

25% of mammals in the world are facing extinction and most as a result of direct hunting by man or destruction or encroachment of habitat.

Strangely (or conveniently) enough you've left out the introduction of alien species as one of the main threats to species conservation.

Care to discuss that and the role of ALF, and their role in releasing large numbers of American mink into the wild and the subsequent effect on the water vole?

[Suzles]

I agree that it was a shame that the mink were released from fur farms. Even more of a shame being that the mink were brought into England in the first place to be harvested for their pelts (see a connection to the seals here). The loss of habitat has still hit the water rat (or vole) just as hard. The otter, which was hunted by man to near extinction, in England is now having something of a resurgence. This mammal being the minks only predator - apart from man. Man is the instigator and the solution. It is the animals that suffer.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by Bagor

Strangely (or conveniently) enough you've left out the introduction of alien species as one of the main threats to species conservation.

Care to discuss that and the role of ALF, and their role in releasing large numbers of American mink into the wild and the subsequent effect on the water vole?

ALF makes mistakes like everyone else. There are many examples of people releasing non native species all over the world and it most certainly a problem. I am pretty sure ALF did not introduce camels to Australia or Bullfrogs to B.C.

[Suzles]

Originally Posted by driveway

But not from being used as test-animals?

Very little wildlife is used in animal testing - the test animals are often bred to be genetically disposed to the illness the scientists are trying to cure. How many - up to one hundred million animals every year.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by Suzles

I agree that it was a shame that the mink were released from fur farms. Even more of a shame being that the mink were brought into England in the first place to be harvested for their pelts (see a connection to the seals here).

Connection? What connection? Do you get a connection between hunting moose in their natural habitat and farming cows for beef? There's no connection at all. One is an exotic species being farmed, the other is an animal being hunted in the wild.

Originally Posted by Suzles

The loss of habitat has still hit the water rat (or vole) just as hard.

So, that's ok then. That makes everything ok.

Loss of habitat had been identified as a problem and a recovery plan was in action. Then the geniuses at ALF decided they'd introduce a predator to mess things up. Fact is there would be significantly more individuals and populations of water voles if it wasn't for those dimwits.

Originally Posted by Suzles

The otter, which was hunted by man to near extinction, in England is now having something of a resurgence.

Seriously, where exactly is it that you get your information that you throw out as fact?

The Otters decline was due to bioaccumulation of endocrine disrupting chemicals, being ingested by fish and then the otters.

A range of evidence suggests that these declines were related to the use of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) including organochlorine pesticides (OCs) and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (e.g. Jefferies and Hanson 2000, Roos et al 2001, Simpson et al 2000 ). Many EDCs biomagnify and bioaccumulate in the aquatic food chain. Fish-eating aquatic mammals such as otters may therefore be particularly vulnerable to the impact of EDCs, due to their position at the top of the food chain, their dependence on aquatic food sources, and their habitat being located in areas influenced by industry and agriculture. EDCs have been shown to impair reproductive function of mustelids, and this has been suggested as the major reason behind the Eurasian otter’s decline (Fossi and Marsili 2003).

http://www.otterproject.cf.ac.uk/#Background

How about instead of throwing out random statements you provide a link where it suggests that hunting was the main reason for the otter's decline. In other words .... refute my link.

[Bagor]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

ALF makes mistakes like everyone else. There are many examples of people releasing non native species all over the world and it most certainly a problem. I am pretty sure ALF did not introduce camels to Australia or Bullfrogs to B.C.

Agreed. No argument from me there. Cane toad in Oz is the obvious one that comes to mind to me.

What is different though is that these idiots despite being aware of the impact of their actions continue to do it.