Eco terrorists.

[Jeremy Browning]

Well for anyone who thinks the ALF is not a terrorist organization or for anyone who thinks they dont do illegal things watch these links. These are just a few of the any links i found.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5CQh...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AllOAJcF6y4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SirW...feature=fvwrel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bu2Gp...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18rwM...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TorB2..._order&list=UL
http://www.youtube.com/user/VeganTruthist1

[RichsBallPythons]

What they are doing may be illegal but they are also saving animals from unnecessary testing.

[Raptor]

Yeeeah..Releasing captive raised animals into the wild. Great way to save them from suffering. I have little issue with animal testing. Most of the medical procedures we have today came from animal testing. That surgery and those drugs that just saved your beloved pet? Animal testing.

[Jeremy Browning]

The testing is very necessary when we test on them and they die its no big deal when they test on us and we die it is important.
Plus captive raised animals aren’t meant to survive in the wild.

[RichsBallPythons]

I'd rather a captive animal live its life in the wild, whether it belongs there or not, than become the next fashion statement.

Some animal testing can be warranted, but suffering of the animal is not acceptable.

[Raptor]

So an animal starving to death because it doesn't know how to fend for itself isn't suffering? What about it catching an illness from the wild population and suffering? Or worst yet, introducing an illness into the wild population?

I really love this type of hypocrisy. It's horrible to release reptiles, especially if they're non-native. However, it's perfectly acceptable to release test animals, who are probably also non-native.

[RichsBallPythons]

So an animal starving to death because it doesn't know how to fend for itself isn't suffering? What about it catching an illness from the wild population and suffering? Or worst yet, introducing an illness into the wild population?

I really love this type of hypocrisy. It's horrible to release reptiles, especially if they're non-native. However, it's perfectly acceptable to release test animals, who are probably also non-native.

Most if not all the test animals are suffering is due to our selfishness to right things the human race has messed up.

So your all in favor to continue to test on animals, make them suffer, and or see their new coat in the closet.

Sorry but allowing animals to be let loose from farms that will be skinned and turned in to clothing does not make us reptile people hypocrites.

News Flash a bout 90% of all animals in our country in the pet trade or in labs are non native. Just cause their not from this country, doesnt mean they get to be subjected to testings and suffering.

[bsavage]

My school just recently built an animal testing facility on its campus and there was a massive debate here in the Okanagan over its existence. Personally, I believe sanitary and humane testing of these animals to better our understanding of disease and other ailments is perfectly ethical. Testing for cosmetics, however, is not something I believe to be ethical .

There is a very thin line of what is acceptable when it comes to testing on animals and it is undoubtedly crossed frequently, however, you can't forget that many labs, including the one on the campus of my school, provide as comfortable an environment as possible for these animals. I have seen them, they are clean and well fed, and in the end, they could help learn more about debilitating diseases like Parkinson's or cancer.

I know some people who would gladly give their own life for another glimpse of a loved one who has passed on from an ailment that has the potential to be cured through ethical testing on animals. I just couldn't look at these people and tell them I don't think the life of their loved one was worth 10, 25, 100, 1000 mice. I'm not denying some of the inhumane conditions that exist, or that some animals will inevitably suffer through testing, but their is a line, and I believe one side of it to be very just.

[Raptor]

Most if not all the test animals are suffering is due to our selfishness to right things the human race has messed up.

Can't see how most forms of cancer is something we've "messed up".

So your all in favor to continue to test on animals, make them suffer, and or see their new coat in the closet.

Pretty much.

Sorry but allowing animals to be let loose from farms that will be skinned and turned in to clothing does not make us reptile people hypocrites.

Yes, it does. The released animals could easily cause issues with the ecosystem, just like reptiles. Everyone complains about the economic significance and jobs lost if snakes get banned. What about the people who work at the farms or in the labs? As a side note, fur animals are dead when they're skinned. A still live animal is going to thrash around which makes skinning dangerous. It also risks damaging the hide.

News Flash a bout 90% of all animals in our country in the pet trade or in labs are non native. Just cause their not from this country, doesnt mean they get to be subjected to testings and suffering.

Then don't go to the doctor or take your animals to vets if your so against animal testing. Most of the techniques used to save Fluffykin's life came from animal testing.

[Jeremy Browning]

I do have to say that animal testing is very necessary and that releasing animals into the wild is very wrong. Bye the way you said you would rather see animals in the wild then in captivity and if that is the case then why do you own snakes?