Raid Sees 1,000 Mice And 18 Primates Go Free In Italy

2156 Views 36 Replies 13 Participants Last post by Sevenseas, Dec 6, 2006

Play

Discussion Starter · Dec 3, 2006

http://www.shac.net/ARCHIVES/2006/Dec/1.html

21 - 37 of 37 Posts

Sevenseas

· #21 · Dec 3, 2006

The number of animals released is irrelevant. According to what hunters and mink liberation critics say, minks are very efficient predators and will destroy native bird populations quite easily. A meaningful liberation criticism will then arise e.g. from their effect on ecosystems and not some imaginary idea propagated by fur ranchers that they are domesticated animals. I wonder what the exact instincts are that the animals have forgotten when their hunting skills clearly are not among them.

Scythe

· #22 · Dec 3, 2006

Quote:

The number of animals released is irrelevant.

Not really. The more you release, the greater the chances that some will survive long term.

Quote:

According to what hunters and mink liberation critics say, minks are very efficient predators and will destroy native bird populations quite easily.

It's not very hard to hunt eggs or baby birds. Or if mink hunt at night, they could find many birds sleeping easily enough.

But then that all depends what lives there.

Dirty Martini

· #23 · Dec 3, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Irizary

I don't know. They're not wild animals, so they would not be set free. When you hear about mink being set free, that's different - they are wild animals.

But even if they were humanely euthanized, that's a far better ending for them than being a research tool in a lab.

Yes, that's a good point. And I don't suppose animal liberationists will tout on a website that they're just going to euthanize the animals.

However, that brings me to another question -- these 1000 mice were just removed from the facility. Won't the company just order 1000 more mice? So doesn't "freeing" the mice actually increase production & demand for laboratory animals?

gas4

· #24 · Dec 3, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by OregonAmy

However, that brings me to another question -- these 1000 mice were just removed from the facility. Won't the company just order 1000 more mice? So doesn't "freeing" the mice actually increase production & demand for laboratory animals?

That's a good point. Now 2000 mice will have to suffer (assuming that those freed have already been through some stuff), and the company that breeds the mice will get paid twice.

In order for this to be effective the animals would have to be freed again and again and again. As many times as it took for the company to give up. And I think before that happened they would be likely to beef up security to the point that it was impossible to do anymore freeing.

gas4

· #25 · Dec 3, 2006

Although, if the idea was to bring attention to the plight of lab animals then they've suceeded

Irizary

· #26 · Dec 3, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by OregonAmy

However, that brings me to another question -- these 1000 mice were just removed from the facility. Won't the company just order 1000 more mice? So doesn't "freeing" the mice actually increase production & demand for laboratory animals?

That would be why any destruction of lab equipment occurs - economic damage. They also have to spend more money on security, and they get some press (pictures of animals) that probably isn't wanted. It all adds up to making it less desirable to do vivisection. Some breeders and farmers that have had liberations simply close, because it isn't worth it to deal with security, and the cost of repairing facilities and replacing animals. Insurance costs go up. A monkey lab at Cambridge was not built because of these concerns - they knew they wouldn't be able to protect the lab all the time. Maybe any one action would not spell the end for a facility, but one can see that it adds up as part of a protracted struggle, for those who choose this method.

GhostUser

· #27 · Dec 4, 2006

How annoying. The same things always get said after every new thread is created about animal liberation. And the same answers are always given. And then it starts over again.

/rant.

isowish

· #28 · Dec 4, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by OregonAmy

So... what's going to happen to the 1000 mice?

that was my first thought, too

See less See more

troub

· #29 · Dec 5, 2006

2

Quote:

Originally Posted by veggiejanie

How annoying..

Be careful; With a title declaring you an ALF supporter, you might get labeled a TERRORIST!!!!111.

If you keep that up someone might speak of you in the same sentence as them crazy extremists floating around here.

~trouble

See less See more

troub

· #30 · Dec 5, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scythe

Why do you think they have to teach wild animals to live in the wild before re-introduction into it?

Ever seen a house cat catch a mouse in someones backyard? I wonder which humans taught her how to stalk and pounce prey . . .

They don't so much teach animals how to live in the wild in reintroduction programs as much as wean them from dependence on humans. Sure it's helpful, but I don't really think that every animal reintroduced into the wild with no "training" will ultimately die because no one is feeding them.

troub

· #31 · Dec 5, 2006

Although with the liberation of certain species, I do hope that plans are made to not upset local ecosystems. Sort of like when European ****-sapiens were introduced into North America and the bison were wiped out

See less See more

GhostUser

· #32 · Dec 5, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by troub

Be careful; With a title declaring you an ALF supporter, you might get labeled a TERRORIST!!!!111.

If you keep that up someone might speak of you in the same sentence as them crazy extremists floating around here.

~trouble

See less See more

Scythe

· #33 · Dec 6, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by troub

Ever seen a house cat catch a mouse in someones backyard? I wonder which humans taught her how to stalk and pounce prey . . .

They don't so much teach animals how to live in the wild in reintroduction programs as much as wean them from dependence on humans. Sure it's helpful, but I don't really think that every animal reintroduced into the wild with no "training" will ultimately die because no one is feeding them.

Our cat catches and kills mice and frogs all the time, but that doesn't mean he could survive alone. Hell, he was a few inches off starved when we found him, and he could do it then too.

kpickell

· #34 · Dec 6, 2006

This is very depressing. It's absolutely disgusting and inexcusable that anyone would set out to intentionally cause a lab start over experiments causing more animal suffering. For what? What research did they destroy? These people are "liberating" animals just so they can feel like a hero when the ONLY thing they are doing is causing more suffering for countless animals and humans.

See less See more

Sevenseas

· #35 · Dec 6, 2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by kpickell

This is very depressing. It's absolutely disgusting and inexcusable that anyone would set out to intentionally cause a lab start over experiments causing more animal suffering. For what? What research did they destroy? These people are "liberating" animals just so they can feel like a hero when the ONLY thing they are doing is causing more suffering for countless animals and humans.

Given that you support the horrors going on in labs in the first place, I don't think you have a leg to stand on criticizing people for causing suffering.

kpickell

· #36 · Dec 6, 2006

Touché. But hey I read "Free The Animals" and got teary eyed with the best of 'em. It's just that there are better ways of helping animals in labs, that don't involve ruining research and causing twice as much suffering as was originally necessitated. But now that we're enemies of the law, I guess working to change laws and finding viable alternatives and going through things the right away won't be so easy anymore.

Some analogy about burning down the forest to save a squirrel is appropriate here.

Sevenseas

· #37 · Dec 6, 2006

I think vivisection is an area of exploitation where illegal direct action is the most appropriate. That's because I don't think consumers have so much influence on what is going on, aside from choosing what products they buy.

Maybe one can try to change the law, but the problem in changing the law is that the law reflects moral values and so no big changes are possible unless the values themselves change. That's why the main way to affect vivisection may be the advocacy of general anti-exploitation views and veganism (which may amount to roughly the same thing - if I'm not mistaken, Erik Marcus argues that focusing on veganism would be the way to solve the other forms of exploitation too). But you probably don't want that kind of advocacy because you want there to be exploitation, and people starting to think that we shouldn't make dogs and other animals suffer horribly would go against your values.

But anyway, I doubt that illegal attacks have much of an effect on the search for alternatives. If one believes what some of the pro-experimentation (and other folks) say, finding alternatives is in the economic interests of the vivisectors themselves, so why would they go against their own interests as a result of the ALF? Another thing that vivisectors say is that caring for animal welfare is a crucial obligation for them and something that is also in their interests. If that is so, then surely they will support any laws improving animal welfare that they would have supported without the attacks. (Personally though, I don't believe the latter claim.)

See less See more

21 - 37 of 37 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.