I guess I am not sure whether to take this as an insult or a compliment?!:confused:

I guess that is what I hope for because the mistreatment of any animal just makes me angry and sick to my stomach.

I am the kind of person that would probably end up in a ditch rather than run over a cat, squirrel, or even a frog.....

I understand that there are some things that may NEED to be done for the betterment of others but that video I watched just made me sick and if that is the way those tests are done then there has to be a better way....

If these dogs were treated humanely it would be one thing but if there is unnecessary mistreatment going on then I would like that to stop!

I do understand what you are saying but I guess what I am trying to get across is that if testing is NECESSARY then it should be done in a very humane way and it should NEVER be used just because it is easier or it costs less than another way.
I hate it and the thought of anyone inflicting harm on an animal just makes me so angry....things I believe strongly in gets me emotional and makes it hard for me to get across what I really mean.
I wasn't saying that you thought it was okay but I guess to me I just can't be casual about this subject...maybe someday I will look at it on the level you are but it's hard.

Just had to add: The same thing can be said of the human police partner.

Well, don't take it as an insult; I think it's wonderful that you have such strong protective nature, regarding animals. I took some experimental classes in college, and we did study ethics and the treatment of animals. I don't know if every professor held animals in such high regard as mine, but I'm thankful I had a professor like that. What I'm saying, is that we need to have people in the scientific fields that have compassion for animals. There are times when computer models can be used, and a live animal isn't needed, not all the time, of course, but some of the time. I also think by understanding the scientific model, you become more aware of the problems and the why and wherefores, it's just that science isn't a big attraction to most women, but we are needed there.

Oh I totally agree that dogs are very selfless creatures... that is what I love so much about them.

Animal testing isn't always the cheapest route either. We can do nutrient analysis on food for way less money and it's a bit less effective. That's fine if I want my dog to be the first to try a food (esp. from a company with zero medical professionals that I'd trust with my dogs on staff), but I'm not one that agrees. It's not fine to me. And if my pups get sick from it - guess who gets the vet bills.. Maybe if Nutro would continuously be tested in a lab setting they would realize there are issues with it so the general population of dogs would stop getting hurt by the food. I just don't think they are doing that.

It's cheaper to take care of rats than dogs in an experient, but the animal chosen is the one that is needed at the time.

I don't think anybody here agrees with cruel treatment of animals (although sometimes it's unavoidable). Some companies even employ compassion animal workers to ensure their well being (SD being one such company).

There is just such a huge difference between no animal testing and trying to eliminate it when we don't absolutely need it. Even the use of cadavers from animals that shouldn't have died.. I have to learn from cadavers at times and in vet school that will be absolutely necessary. However, right now I don't think it's relevant to bother with (and I would skip it if I could). That is sometimes I think we could eliminate - needless dissections when you'll just have to do it all over in grad school anyway. Or one of my favs - bio satisfying a science requirement for a business major and now they have to dissect a fetal pig --- for what I do not know. I'm sure a picture would go more than far enough. That is the type of thing I can see being avoided. Testing drugs, foods, and procedures - in most cases there aren't going to be more effective ways anytime soon and probably never.

I guess we know different vegans. The ones I know are horrified by ALL mistreatment of animals. They also don't wear leather.

I applaud your enthusiasm against animal abuse. I just think we need to see all sides of the issue. Do you eat meat? Do you wear leather? These animals in all likelihood were not treated well and did not die a painless death for the products you use. I'm not throwing stones. Just trying to look at the whole picture from all angles.

Unfortunately, we do "use" animals for our benefit. I'm not saying we are right to do it either.

As for science, we still cannot kill a virus that has infected a body. Unfortunately, there are many things modern science cannot fix or cure, let alone figure out how to try to cure diseases without using animals. I have friends in biomedical research who are trying to develop treatments and cures to problems. We often fall short.

:thumbup::thumbup:
I agree with this. I love animals, in fact when my Dad had to get rid of animals in our yards that were destroying our crops/plants, or had to get rid of pests in the lumber yard, I would literally cry.
However, was it necessary? Yes. They would have destroyed alot of things. Like Gidget said, I may hate cruel treatment but I still eat meat, I don't wear fur or leather, however I do not shun those that do. It's their choice if they want to wear dead animal skin.

So, in order to prevent thise thread from going down a long slippery, and mean slope, I'll just conclude with saying there's a spectrum with reagrds to most things. Where you are on that is completely based on your own beliefs. If you don't want animal testing, that's fine, but remember its your baby that's the actual test subject. And on the other end, if you're compeltely for animal testing, then you'll have to live with the knowledege of what some animals go thru...

If I had the money I would go back to school and I haven't been in school for over 20 years so it would be kind of hard to go back.

You are right though we do need more people that are compassionate and have a protective nature that would stand up when harm is being done to the animals-more women!!! :)

No, I am not a vegan nor a vegetarian. I don't wear leather coats/clothes but I am sure I have a few pair of shoes that are leather.

I do not shun anyone that eats meat nor do I shun anyone that is a vegan I applaud them for their compassion and dedication.
I thought in another thread someone said they were a vegan but they think animal testing is completely necessary because they don't want their dog to suffer from eating an untested food, etc......I could be wrong and I haven't looked back yet to find it.

As I said earlier I grew up on a farm and I have eaten beef, pork, and chicken all of my life. I do not like the mistreatment of those animals any more than dogs but IMO I get a little more upset when it's a dog probably because of the love of my own.

I don't have nor do I claim to have all of the answers and I don't want to "go down a slippery slope" with anyone and I think this thread went in a different direction than where I meant it to go.

If P&G in fact still has a testing facility how do we know that now they (and all other big companies) are treating the testing subjects with more respect and dignity than they were previously-that video haunts me! I just wanted to make sure that anyone who feeds Blue Buffalo is aware that they MAY in the future be sold to P&G because it sounded like it was in the works..but I hope not.
I know some have said BB has caused gastro upset but I have not heard anything like that...I will have to research it more.

I am tempted to put my labmix back on Iams because he never had any issues with it but I am not going to do that...I am going to continue the quest for just the right food for him.

My yorkie Lucy is on L/D and that is for her health so I have no choice on that one and will continue to give her that as long as I am advised to do so.

Your Lucy is on L/D (that is probably the exact thing my dog would be on in the same situation). So if you found out today that Science Diet and all other companies that made a liver diet were doing cruel and unnecessary testing would you take her off of it and let her suffer? Would you not give the drugs/supplements she is supposed to get just bc an animal was treated cruelly when developing them? Or would you give them and just be forever grateful to the animals that were hurt when developing this for her?

If anybody told me they would stop giving a drug and let their own animal suffer if the test animals were treated cruelly (and this dog really needed the drug/food), I'd say I'll believe it when I see it.

I don't see anybody on YT willing to sign their dogs up for drug trials. I see many posts about reactions and how angry the owner is over it. People are going to be upset when it is their baby.

I'm an ovo-lacto-vegetarian. Never said I completely disagree with consuming animals though.. Put in a position of possible starvation, I would eat them. With the exception of dairy and eggs (because I don't have much will power and love to eat) and leather on shoes, etc., I try to avoid supporting factory farming. I avoid things like Minksheen because it is completely unnecessary and clearly cruel for no good reason. But put in a position of health and safety for myself and my family (including my dogs), then I do accept that animals have to suffer. That does not mean that I want other dogs to suffer. I'm still not boycotting a company for treating animals cruelly "IF" I "HAVE" to use the product for the health or safety of one of us here.

I think it's fine if people want to use Blue. Not my dogs... However, for us I don't believe in holistic vets and that is who they employ. Just not interested... And I think that it's absolutely fine to avoid P&G if one thinks what they do is cruel (I try to avoid Iams too). But put in a position of needing one of their foods, my dogs will get it (and in fact - right now one of my dogs is on one of their foods because of a medical issue - my vet wanted me to try something - so we are).

You brought up an interesting point to me, and I agree. I think we are all at different points on the line of continuum when it comes to what we view as "necessary animal "use". I will not use Mink Sheen or products w mink oil. I do not think a little mink needs to suffer to make leather more pliable or a dog's coat shinier. I do feel bad for the dogs that were used to develop open heart surgery, and I try to channel that bad feeling into a thankfulness that their deaths have saved many lives.

I only eat meat occasionally. For years, I did not eat it at all. I don't see the necessity for animals to be treated the way they are for me to have protein in my diet. Yet I can see how at times science has no other way to get answers of how to save lives. I'm not sure my views are any better than anyone else's. I think an open discussion of this topic between we animal lovers can help us all think a little and examine our beliefs.

Are we back here again?

I don't think there is a black and white answer. I see everything in terms of shades of gray.

I am not totally opposed to some - absolutely necessary - animal testing. But not for some BS perfume or make-up.

HOWEVER, it should abosolutely be done in the most humane way. This casual disregard of pain and suffering that we see in so many of these labratory videos - is just disgusting and I can find no excuse for it. Not even in shades of gray.

And let's not go back to the heartworm example. That's one out of thousands of experimental tests. There is NO justification for inhumane treatment. Not for cosmetics, leather shoes, food on my plate, my dogs plate or drugs in my body.

And, yes, dogs are selfless - but I don't think anyone is really asking them if they would like to volunteer for some torture. It's not like they have a choice in the matter.

Ugh, it's too early on a Saturday morning for this debate. Aproctor, I admire your passion. Keep speaking up on behalf of animals; the drug companies have more than their fair share of apologists making excuses. (And I am not talking about the YT message board)!

I'm not sure who said what you are saying they said? :confused: I don't think the post above yours said anything about ok inhumane use for cosmetics, food on my plate or heartworm meds.

I'm not even sure I know what this thread is about anymore. What started out as one side saying there has been enough animal testing and we should do no more (or maybe it was just a couple people) now agrees that it is unavoidable in some cases. As long as it's done as humanely as possible, then it's ok (while we try to find ways to avoid it in the future..).. That has been my thought all along, so now I'm really confused.:confused:

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Like, my moms salon has those popular feather extensions for peoples hair. They were placing a new order every week they were so popular. I found out roosters actually die when they are plucking these feathers. I find that appalling... no need to have some silly decoration in my hair that caused a rooster to die. It just seems so useless to me.

Oh, and I will probably always eat meat. I'm a meat lover, I can't help it. Humans probably wouldn't have been developed to what we are today had we never found meat to eat. I guess I just look at it as part of natural selection. Other animals eat other animals and so on. I am sure it's not a pleasant experience when a snake swallows a mouse whole. Humans just happen to be at the top of the food chain. I don't really like to think about where my food is coming from, to be perfectly honest. I think most of food available to us is pretty disgusting in where it comes from, lol.

Btw, I'm not really even involved in this animal testing vs. not argument, just adding my thoughts every now and then to some posts, lol. Just as an FYI, I'm not really on a side because I can't decide.

Well actually this thread was intially about Blue Buffalo selling out to P&G . . . and then I think it just took off from there!

Oh, I wanted to add, that I do find it hard to eat pig though. Pigs are actually often known to be smarter than dogs and great pets so it kind of disturbs me. So I do try my greatest to avoid pig. I do eat ham at Thanksgiving and Christmas time, admittedly. But usually skip bacon, etc, the rest of the year.

I'm totally not going to lie and say that I feel as bad eating a chicken as I do a pig. I think all animals have a right to die painlessly and in the most humane way possible, but you can't tell me you feel the same way about squashing a bug over killing a pig for example. I do think there are differences. Chickens aren't really smart creatures.... and not that being stupid gives them, like, a lesser value, but in a sense, sometimes it does. I live on a farm where the hunters are always shooting deer. It's something I could NEVER do but I guess it's not my right to judge them. I couldn't even kill a bird. Basically, if I was living out in the wild, I'd probably starve to death because I probably couldn't kill any living thing, except maybe a fish. I mean, if we're talking about fairness of animals here... I can bet that most of here have squashed a bug, or caught a rodent, etc? What makes that so different?

Just like others in other countries eat dogs. I find it absolutely disgusting. Dogs are basically my life... my dog is my best friend. It makes me want to throw up thinking about someone eating them. But different cultures value different animals... well, differently. It sucks but it's a fact of life.

I think cruelty in general is a huge problem in this country, unfortunately. So I think everyone can just do their best to avoid products they don't believe in. The sad part it's kind of hard to know or believe what all these companies are preaching.

Is it true that the companies can change a formula and not inform of the change for 6 months? This really scares me! I'm afraid I am going to be in home made dog food business in the end and I really used to believe that the nutrients in the dog food were probably the best -- not sure now:confused:

Please don't take it personally. My post was not speaking directly to your post; this debate has been ongoing for some time.

And I'm not sure what you mean by the part I bolded.

I learn something from each and every post - whether I agree with it or not.

That's the beauty of YT.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:
I also admire yours!! Thank you - you said exactly what I have been trying to say all along. There is no black and white and there is no justification for cruelty to ANY animal and we should continue to strive for other means of testing!!

Not taking it personally at all. Just trying to figure out if you were addressing a post in particular, talking about other posts a while back, etc. You said we were "back here again", then posted things that I hadn't read on recent posts (mine or others). I was confused.

That was said half in jest. I'm sorry I confused you.