First, we need to make a distinction between “animal rights” and “animal welfare”. “Animal welfare” allows humans to use animals to satisfy certain needs, such as: food, clothing, medical research, even entertainment. The animals should, however, live in good conditions and be treated in a humane way. “Animal rights”, on the other hand, imply that humans do not have the right to use an animal for human purposes. Animal rights organizations include: PETA, Sea Shepherd Conservation Society, Animal Liberation Front and HSUS. Animal welfare organizations include: the World Organisation for Animal Health and the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA).

Most controversy arises around animal rights groups, because of the extreme position they occupy, the methods they sometimes use, and their tendency to impose their ideas upon others. In doing so, they seem to attach little importance to factual data, and the truth often only appears to be relevant insofar it proves their point. Anything that is contradicting their views or arguments is carefully ignored, or dismissed as a lie. This modus operandi appears to be a constant throughout the communication of many groups, and the mere fact that such kind of propaganda methods are felt necesary, puts a dark shadow on the “good intentions” of these groups.

If a killer whale throws up a seal in the air, breaking every bone in the poor animal’s body,causing internal bleeding that will lead to a certain death, I don’t hear anybody denounce this as an act of sheer cruelty. When the killling (for food, or for research) of an animal is done by a human predator, however, it becomes an act of barbarism.
Some actually claim that animals should have the same rights as humans: the School of Helsinki even listed a number of basic rights for Cetaecans, comparable to the Declaration of Human Rights by the UN: the right to live, the right of habitat, etc… But I wonder how much the orca cared about those “rights” when he first spotted that seal? The only right I can think of was for the seal to serve as dinner.

In 2002, AnimalScam.com was put online, a project of the “Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF)”. The idea behind this project is that every consumer should have the right to decide what to eat, to wear and to do in his/her freetime, and it’s goal is to expose any lies or twisted truths, that are sometimes part of the activists’ propaganda. CCF argues that many of the things that we take for granted, are likely to dissapear if the animal rights groups get it their way: no more meat products, no more dairy products, no more eggs, no more fish, no more leather, no more visiting the circus,…

So, should attributing “human rights” to animals not imply that humans get “animal rights”?

Many people make their ethical standing grounds based on their religion, for example many Christians use scriptures from the bible to distinguish whether animal experimentation is ethical or not. Some interpretations of the bible support the use of animal experimentation for the benefit of humankind. Genesis 1:26 reads:

 “Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”(New International Version)

This verse from the bible reads literally that humankind has the right over all other animals on earth, and thus experimenting on animals at their expense for our benefit is acceptable and ethical. However another verse; Matthew 6:26 reads

“Look at the birds of the air; they do not sow or reap or store away in barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not much more valuable than they?”(New International Version)

From this verse it can be deduced that, humans – god’s creations – have no more value than that of animals which are also one of god’s creations. This verse suggests that though we may have ‘right’ over animals, their life is worth no less than our own, thus it is unethical to experiment at the expense of animals lives for the benefit of humankind. Conclusively there are countless standing grounds that can be made in regards to religion, both supporting and opposing animal experimentation

Another commonly argued value is humanity, ‘Dictionary.com’ (2012) defines humane as:

“Characterised by tenderness, compassion, and sympathy for people and animals, especially for the suffering or distressed.”

Humane practises are directly related to ethics in regards to experimentation on animals, as the controversial aspect of animal experimentation is the humanity of the act. Most people would agree that if the treatment of animals in animal experimentation were completely humane, then it is ethical, however views on humanity can vary from individual to individual.

Some may argue that if animals do not endure pain and suffering then the treatment is humane and animal testing can be carried out this way. On the other hand it is also argued that many tests involve qualities such as irritation which can be painful and these are not prohibited from practice. Others may argue further opposing animal experimentation that an animal kept in a cage for its whole lifetime is inhumane in itself, and thus unethical.

Another commonly argued point in regards to animal experimentation is the necessity for it, which in itself is very controversial. New chemical compounds are being produced everyday for varying purposes, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics and everyday health-care products. All of these chemicals have to be sold in a way so that it is consumer friendly, for example mixed into petroleum jelly and other mediums and “fillers” these products are then sold at supermarkets or chemists, however if a new product was found to be poisonous and highly toxic to children months after it was released the damage could be catastrophic. This is where animal experimentation’s necessity can be argued.

However this is a broad statement, in many specific cases for example, irritation tests for pesticides, detergents and shampoos are carried out by exposing the eyes of conscious rabbits (Animal experimentation: cruel and unnecessary 1997), can definitely be argued and unethical, as new shampoo (cosmetic) has an insignificant impact on the health of future generations, however the testing is obviously inhumane. Once again different concepts of what are more important and what is humane continues to cloud the ethics surrounding animal experimentation.

Many activists wish to ban Animal experimentation or at least protest it, due to the fact that there is inadequate “policing” of humane and inhumane acts, which have been and most likely are still being committed, however companies have been able to sell products confidently because of animal testing and there has been nil to minimal cases of products causing illnesses or having effects unknown prior to the dispatch of the products to the shelf.

There is however a way to reduce the cruelty in the practice of animal experimentation by further increasing efficiency of experiment design and altering experiment design to prevent the need for inhumane acts on animals and reduce the required number of subjects, this is a new and popular idea when it comes to animal experimentation, and many believe that reform be needed to settle ethical issues surrounding animal experimentation.

It may also be argues that there is no substitute for accuracy and validity by direct logical testing; disregarding and humane treatment must be disregarded for a guarantee of confidence in products sold to the public.

Finally, as discussed there are many ethical issues surrounding animal experimentation, the humanity of it, the necessity of it, how animal experimentation is being practiced and how it could be practiced.

Some of advantages on animal testing is that its helps scientists in finding drugs and treatments to improve health and medicine (Murnaghan, 2011). By animal testing, scientists are able to create new drugs and antibiotics to improve human’s health. As a result, they are able to heal diseases such as polio and diabetics that do not have a way to cure it before. According to Murnaghan (2011), animal testing is considered essential for improving human health because the development of new drugs and medicine has increased drastically and simultaneously as the number of disease been cured. In fact, animal testing allows scientists to test the effects of certain drugs to improve human health. It helps scientists to understand more about human biology and behaviour so that the drugs and medicines are really benefited for human life (Curtis, 1980).

Apart from that, another advantage on animal testing is to ensure that the new created drugs and medicines are effective for human to use. This is because, the new created drugs and medicines have been testing first on animal to ensure and prove its safety, efficiency and harmless to human body (Murnaghan, 2011). Hence, the drugs that have been proved are safe for human use. But, according to The Advantages Of Animal Testing For Medicine (2010), if a drug produces adverse effects in animals its means that probability of using it are also not suitable for human to use.

Nevertheless there are several of advantages on animal testing but there are also a number of disadvantages on animal testing. Murnaghan (2011) states that one of the disadvantages of animal testing is animals are experimented on and they are left injured or even killed after they have been used for experiment. He added that most of animals that have been used in animal testing died in vain because of no direct benefit to humans occurred from the animal testing. Furthermore, many of these animals received tests for substances that are harmful for them and sometimes the drugs or substance that are tested might not be used by public (Murnaghan, 2011). In fact, statistics showed that “at least 33 animals die in laboratories each second worldwide” (33 Reasons Animal Testing Pointless, 1998). This proves that there is large number of animals died because of animal testing. Another disadvantage of animal testing is its generally high cost because animal that is going to be used for experimental need to be fed, housed and treated with drugs (Murnaghan, 2011). He also indicates that experimental activity may occur more than once and over the month which means that the additional costs are incurred and the price of special breed animals for experimental is also expensive.

Based on the advantages and disadvantages, there are also few alternatives that we can implement in animal testing. One of them is the 3R’s concept formulated by Russel and Burch in their book in the year 1959, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique. The first R is Replacement which include the use of statistical data that already obtained from previous research and studies of isolated cells and tissues is used to reduce the number of animal used for experimental process (Animal Welfare And The Three Rs: Replacement, Refinement and Reduction, 2010). Another R is Refinement which is about improving animal welfare and reducing any potential stress or pain of animal that been experimented. This technique is to ensure that the animal that been used for research will have a better live with less stress and at the same time it will give positive impact to the research findings. The last R is Reduction means obtained the same number of information about animal testing or more research information by using fewest numbers of animals used for experimental in laboratory. To apply this technique, scientist must ensure the experiment that they are going to do must be well conducted, so that they can achieve a good experiment result and reduce the repetition of same experiment again and again which can lead to less number of animal testing used.

In a nutshell, it is a reality that animal testing has contributed a lot to human life but, it also has bad consequences towards animals itself. It is important to note that the animals also have the rights to defend themselves from being used in experiment. “Since animal cannot talk for themselves, their rights must be defended by people who speak for them” (Curtis, 1980). Nowadays, animal rights can be protected since there are other alternatives that scientists can use for animal testing to make experiment in finding new drugs and medicine. Thus, the numbers of animals die in pain and cruelty can be reduced.

REFERENCE

33 Reasons Animal Testing Pointless. (1998). Retrieved from Animal Liberation Front.com: www.animalliberationfront.com/philosophy/Animal%20Testing/33ReasonsATestingisPointless.htm

Animal Welfare And The Three Rs: Replacement, Refinement and Reduction. (2010, January). Retrieved June 2011, from Understanding Animal Research: www.UnderstandingAnimalResearch.org.uk

Curtis, P. (1980). Animal Rights : Stories of People Who Defend the Rights of Animals. New York: Four Winds Press.

Harding, L. R. (2009, August). Animal Experimentation – History, Current trends. Retrieved June 2011, from Net Industries.com: http://psychology.jrank.org/pages/34/Animal-Experimentation.html

Murnaghan, I. (2011). Using Animals for Testing: Pros Versus Cons. Retrieved June 2011, from AboutAnimalTesting: http://www.aboutanimaltesting.co.uk/using-animals-testing-pros-versus-cons.html

The Advantages Of Animal Testing For Medicine. (2010). Retrieved July 2011, from AllFreeEssays: http://www.allfreeessays.com/essays/The-Advantages-Of-Animal-Testing-For/123811.html

The second reason that McGinn’s argument is not valid is because (M7) claims that the only permissible option is to become a vegetarian. This conclusion does not have to be true even if the premises are all true. If (M1) through (M6) are true it follows that factory farming is impermissible because it treats animals poorly. Therefore any permissible option would be one in which the animals are not treated poorly. The practice of free-range farming, a way of farming in which animals are raised for food and killed for their flesh, but treated well during their lifetime, would be a viable alternative to factory farming because it treats the animals well during their lifetime. Therefore even if all the premises are true the conclusion that you should be a free-range farmer is also a possible conclusion, which means that the argument is invalid.

The third reason that McGinn’s argument is invalid is because all the premises are referring to the practice of raising and killing animals in a manner that does not treat them well, while the conclusion is referring to the manner in which you eat. Even if it is wrong to factory farm animals because it treats them poorly, eating factory farmed meat is not the same as factory farming the meat yourself. Even if all the premises of McGinn’s argument are true, there is nothing in his argument that claims eating factory farmed meat is wrong. McGinn would need to add a premise stating that the wrongness of factory farming makes eating meat wrong in order to validate his argument

The group released it on Monday (local time), a joint statement with the U.S. animal protection organization The Humane Society. Accordingly, the company intends to require its suppliers to develop plans for how they want to forgo future cages. “McDonald is the view that pig cages are not a sustainable system for the future. There are alternatives, which in our opinion, are better for the welfare of pigs. “

The animal welfare organization could, said millions of pigs were spending their lives in cages that are so small that they can not move freely and behave normally. The agreement reached now will not only improve the situation of these animals, but may also move other companies to follow the example of McDonald

Caused a wave of bitter cold experienced by Ukraine, which dropped temperatures to below thirty below zero, especially during the night, in forcing wild animals to leave their places of natural populations in the woods and go to cities to seek the relative warmth, food and assistance rights.

The student scientists and interested in animal welfare, according to local press reports the need to help wild animals in overcoming these difficult circumstances to provide food which has become rare due to the accumulation of snow and water, which freezes just like everything but the lakes are few and found a migratory bird refuge, noting that he observed the flow of large groups of animals ground on some of the villages with low population density in search of food.

The reports pointed out that the animals that live in gardens specially allotted to them in many different European cities had not been delivered from the cold wave current not seen in Europe for decades, which have so far for the deaths of 500 people, forcing supervisors zoos to depart from the program fed the usual to provide hot meals such as, carrots, potatoes, and also hot drinks including tea, wine and even powers in order to warm it up.

Even the fish in the sea had not been delivered from the cold wave is unprecedented sweeping Europe and is expected to continue until the end of Feb., In Croatia gave strong winds fish from the Adriatic Sea to the island of Pag, making the population go to the beaches to collect them in shopping bags instead of hunting or buy them.

Source: Seventh Day

Killer Whale Fin (Photo credit: Ndecam)

A U.S. judge has been asked to rule on whether animals should be protected from slavery in the same way as human beings. This case is being heard in San Diego and has been brought by PETA, who named five orcas as plaintiffs in the case. The US District Judge Jeffrey Miller called the hearing.

 The orcas reside in San Diego and Orlando, and are forced to live in tanks.  PETA lawyer Jeffrey Kerr says ‘This case is on the next frontier of civil rights’, despite the fact that these orcas are not expected to respect the civil rights of their audience.  Theodore Shaw, Sea World’s lawyer, says the lawsuit is a waste of the courts time and money. He added that a court does not have the authority to answer the ethical question of whether animals should be treated as humans.

The Judge has now heard the evidence from both sides, before deciding to take the case under advisement and to issue his ruling at a later date.  The implications of a ruling in favour of PETA could be significant, allowing animals to be plaintiffs in a law suit. It would also raise questions concerning how scientific data is gathered, and in the use of animals in the military.

Defence lawyers say the issue at the heart of this case is not whether the animals have been abused. The case aims to give animals the same rights as humans, so keep them captive would clearly be wrong if PETA was to win the case. PETA say any ruling would only apply to the entertainment industry, but the ruling could have repercussions in many subsequent animal rights cases.

Some people were once considered property, and animals also should be thought of as humans and have their rights protected in the same way. This is an interesting ethical question; these animals did not choose the life they lead. But at what point do equal rights become impractical? Will a decision ultimately lead to the life of animal being equal to that of a human? The judge in this case has not set a date when he will announce a verdict.

Badgers in Britain can carry TB (Tubtuberculosis) which can be passed on to cattle. No wonder the farmers don’t like them and fully welcome the move. Among those who welcomed this news are veterinary leaders who say that killing badgers has been proven to be effective in the fight against  TB, although controlled shooting has yet to be tested.

Although leading vets approve of the cull, a number of animal welfare groups oppose it. One group in particular, the Humane Society International is threatening to go to 1979 Bern Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats and put in a complaint saying that the cull was “lacking legitimate purpose” and that badger numbers would be under threat. They also say that the ministers who passed the legislation didn’t look at alternative ways of controlling the badger population. Another animal group who are appaled by the gorvernments choice saying that “the government is more interested in killing badgers than vaccinating them”.

So why not vaccinate the badgers? Well the minister ruled that finding a vaccine would take to long to develop whereas culling was quick and easy. But why not use the culling in the meantime whilst trying to find an effective vaccine? Seems logical doesn’t it.

Are there any other alternatives? Well why not give farmers shooting permits? That way they can kill badgers on their land. So badger numbers, in theory wouldn’t be in as much danger as they would be in a cull. Obviously there would have to be evidence that the badger had TB or was a threat to the cattle.

I personally think that the farmers should have shooting permits to kill badgers on their land. I would obviously perfer it if animal blood was not spilt but at the moment that doesn’t seem to be an option. I think a cull is more humane than setting traps or hunting but if it endangers the species number then is there much point to it?

Can we ever stop neglect and stamp it out completely,as there are numerous “Animal Welfare” Charities around the world,all promoting,and wanting the same thing,to stop animal neglect and cruelty. But are they all representing “Animal Welfare”for the good of animals,or for a reason to protest and get heard.Are they all true animal lovers in every sense of the word,and are they all experienced animal people with an in depth knowledge of animals,with caring and looking after animals.To be fair all these factors need consideration when pursuing these types of matters,do they have the sufficient animal experience needed to properly,and fairly stamp out animal neglect and cruelty,once and for all! I have seen the unfair and fair side of these various charities when pursuing individuals with animals.People being persecuted when there was no neglect,or especially no cruelty being done,and the family in question suffered for no reason at all,fearing the worse that they would lose their animals.And on the other hand people getting away with blatant neglect and cruelty,horses out in mud knee deep with no water,and no food at all.The grass was so scarce you could virtually see the flees and mites,every insect walking along the ground.This is what makes my blood boil the inconsistency that’s going on in this industry,especially all the who you know that can go on,this is wrong and we need to stop it,and stop it now.Looking at the image below this to me is cruelty, although to some extent, maybe,this Capuchin Monkey is properly fed and well looked after but it doesn’t seem comfortable on a lead and it’s a bit degrading to be honest.

Image via Wikipedia

Animals! a lot of us can’t live without one,whatever sort,big or small,rough or smooth,but however hard we work we will never stamp out Neglect or Cruelty,not completely anyway.!We need to educate people,or better still educate children when in school,get them looking after one or two animals in school.This would give them an idea of the dedication that’s needed to feed,clean and entertain an animal,so they know what sort of commitment an animal is,that it is for life,and not for Birthday or Christmas.

An animal of any size,breed,colour,warm blood or cold blood,if it walks slithers whatever,it needs constant attention every day 24/7.They are not like a set of golf clubs a tennis racket a bike or a set of weights and a bench,these you can lock away in a cupboard,a shed or garage when you have no need for them.But animals need constant attention,even an animal that lives out grazing on grass require some human contact,if it’s only on the odd day.Any animal needs careful consideration before you take it on,think long and hard have you got the time in between work commitments,have you got the room or garden space,and just as important can you afford to keep the animal,all these factors needs very careful consideration before taking on the commitment of owning an animal.If many of us would not let our hearts rule our heads then animal neglect and cruelty would be cut down a lot,and a huge amount of misery and heartache would be avoided,not just for people,but more important the animals themselves.

The Animal Welfare Act is a federal law which regulates the treatment of animals.  Specifically, it is the only law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport, and by dealers.  While other federal, state, and local laws can add additional requirements on top of the Animal Welfare Act, the Act is considered to be the minimum acceptable standards for the care of any animal. 

It should be noted that the Animal Welfare Act only regulates the care and treatment of

warm blooded animals.  Cold blooded animals, such as reptiles and amphibians are not covered.  Additionally, farm animals and other animals used for food, fiber, or other agricultural purposes are not covered.  It should also be noted that retail pet shops are generally not covered under the Animal Welfare Act.  The exception to this is if the shop sells exotic or zoo animals or sells any animals to regulated businesses. Animal shelters are only covered under the Act if they sell dogs or cats to

dealers. Pets owned by private citizens are not regulated.

The Act requires all regulated businesses covered by the Act to keep accurate records of acquisition and disposition as well as a description of the animals that come into their possession.  Animal dealers are also required to hold animals that they have acquired for at least five days to in order to verify their

origin and allow private pet owners the opportunity to locate a missing pet.

The Animal Welfare Act is the law which prohibits staged dogfights, bear or raccoon baiting, and other animal fighting ventures.  This is probably the portion of the Act which receives the most attention and is the one cited most often in various media reports.

The second most publicized parts of this law are the portions dealing with animals kept in research facilities.  The law requires these labs provide veterinary care and basic care. Additionally, research facilities must provide dogs with the opportunity for exercise and they must promote the psychological

well-being of primates.  Research facilities are also required to give their animals pain-relieving medication in order to minimize the distress caused their research, but this is only required if the

experiment allows. To minimize the number of “exempt” experiments, the Act bans the unnecessary

duplication of a specific experiment using regulated

animals.