Blue Buffalo~Not good news!

[aproctor]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

The more people we have like you in science the better!

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

[aproctor]

Originally Posted by Maximo

Adding to my post...

In other words, if there were a magic solution to avoid the use of animals, someone would invent it, patent it, sell it and promote to make lots of $$$.

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!

[aproctor]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

I don't see where anybody said they thought it was okay to torture dogs. I think I speak for everyone here - we HATE it. That doesn't make it any less necessary. Good researchers try to minimize pain and suffering. In the case of heartworm testing, it probably isn't anymore painful than an injection. It's still incredibly sad and stirs up emotion. But I see no other way. Yes, my dogs come before all other animals on the face of this earth in my mind.

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.

[aproctor]

Originally Posted by gidget529

Police dogs often give their lives for their partners. I'm sure taking a bullet for their partner is not a pleasant experience or something they love. They just love their partner more than themselves.
I personally do not like to diminish these selfless acts of dogs and simply say "it is what they were bred to do."

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

[Nancy1999]

Originally Posted by aproctor

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

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.

[Britster]

Originally Posted by gidget529

Police dogs often give their lives for their partners. I'm sure taking a bullet for their partner is not a pleasant experience or something they love. They just love their partner more than themselves. Rescue dogs often are injured walking on glass, construction debris, suffer respiratory illnesses after searching in 911 rubble. Again, there is physical pain that they endure. Dog were trained to sniff out the ebola virus in Africa to save human lives in infected areas. Herding dogs give their lives and become injured protecting flocks. I'm sure they do not enjoy this aspect of the job. Let's not forget our famous yorkie, Smokey, who parachuted out of planes w her owner and crawled through pipelines to carry communication wire into enemy territory. I'm sure she did not enjoy some of the things asked of her, but her courage was much larger than her stature.

I personally do not like to diminish these selfless acts of dogs and simply say "it is what they were bred to do."

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

[Ellie May]

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.

[gidget529]

Originally Posted by aproctor

As I said I wasn't really addressing my whole statement on your quote--It was for all of the previous statements as well.

I am not sure what I said that was inflammatory I was just stating that I don't understand how one could become vegan because they deplore the treatment of animals yet they are casual about how dogs are tortured for the "betterment" of society.

The "I am not ignorant" was really for others who repeatedly said things earlier about how dogs NEED to be tested so that drugs and food would be okay to give to their animals.

I personally LOVE ALL animals, I think cows, horses, pigs, chickens, dogs, cats, etc are God's BEAUTIFUL creations and should ALL be treated humanely!

I was in no way saying it's okay to mistreat a cow, pig, horse, chicken, etc. I again think ALL animals should be treated humanely.....the point I was trying to make was that I was flabbergasted that there are people out there that are Vegans because of the mistreatment of animals but are not as horrified by a beagle going insane because they are put in a kennel all their life, or have pieces of their backside chopped out, or given shots that make them sick or ill and they are just left on a floor to die.......all for the benefit of their own pet.
Yet, they refuse to eat meat because of the horrendous treatment of those animals.....you see to me that is sort of an oxymoron.....

I deplore ALL mistreatment of animals not just one type or kind.

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.

[Taryn0405]

Originally Posted by gidget529

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.

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...

[aproctor]

Originally Posted by Nancy1999

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.

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!!!

[aproctor]

Originally Posted by Taryn0405

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...

Originally Posted by gidget529

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.

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.

[Ellie May]

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).

[gidget529]

Originally Posted by Ellie May

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.

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.

[Ringo1]

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)!

[gidget529]

Originally Posted by Ringo1

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? I don't think the post above yours said anything about ok inhumane use for cosmetics, food on my plate or heartworm meds.