BS: Animal Terrorists

Subject: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 02:59 PM

Animal rights activists in Oxford, (UK), protesting against the building of a new Biomedical Science lab have now targeted the entire University of Oxford- ie all and any of its staff, students, buildings, or anyone who has dealings with the Universty in any way have been described as 'valid targets'. Spokesmen have also threatened the entire City of Oxford.


It is time to group these people, who genuinely terrorise along with any other terrorists and criminals, and lock them up. The fact they are often female, often middle class, often middle aged should not stop us looking at what they do: Burning cars, threating workers and their families, kidnapping the body of the grandmother of a target.

All of this is bad, but they do not think what will happen if they succeed in driving this research out of Britian. Instead of as few animals as possible being used, in the best conditions in the world, this research will go abroad , and more animals will be experimented on, in poorer conditions.

These people are mad, bad and dangerous to know.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Rapparee
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 03:18 PM

I quite agree, and ditto for the US of A.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 03:26 PM

I have yet to meet an "Animal Rights Activist" that wasn't a total lunatic

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Cluin
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 03:29 PM

I have yet to meet an "Animal Rights Activist".

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,smiler
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 04:14 PM

Why is it necessarily poorer conditions abroad? An instrument of torture is an instrument of torture anywhere.

As these places are regulated by those who are professional animal torturers themselves, and no-one else is allowed in, one can only guess that all manner of brutalities take place inside.

If such groups as Speak and the ALF bring this shameful practice to public attention, I support them.

Why keep it our dirty little secret?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Peace
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 04:15 PM

Well, I would assume that first ya look amongst the vegetarian crowd. And they won't be wearing leather (suede), real fur or using any meds that were tested on animals or humans.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,smiler
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 04:26 PM

Clintonhammond was never fortunate enough to meet trained doctors and anti-vivisectionists such as Albert Schweitzer, Mahatma Gandhi, and Leonardo Da Vinci (who incidently was a world expert on anatomy).

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: number 6
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 04:29 PM

Peace .... I beleive you are referring to vegans, not vegetarians.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Raptor
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 05:03 PM

I think they should do thier experiments on people. People who think its allright to torture animals.

Am I a lunatic? I guess fuckin so!

I haven't met a folksinging actor who wasn't so full of himself that he thought that anyone gave a shit what he thought.

Not all expirments are torture. I know that.

I eat meat.

I wear leather.

I'm just against UNnessary animal testing, And loudmouths.

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 05:34 PM

One problem that environmentalists have is that much of the general public outside of the environmental and animal rights movements tend to lump the two together, and in most instances they couldn't be further apart.

Both groups have their warrior-types, but the animal rights folks can be unnecessarily destructive and vindictive in their acts of "liberation." And these bleeding-hearts seem to have no understanding that animals that are accustomed to shelter and regular feedings can't just go outside and take care of themselves. They starve, are attacked by other animals, and are hit by cars more than anything else.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 05:35 PM

Un-necessary animal testing. This is the exact point. If they are conducting experiments in the US and UK, the scientists involved have to prove that the exeriment they wish to perform is needed, there is no alternative, and it uses as few animals as possible.

So lets terrify people, to make things worse for the animals.....

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,smiler
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 05:38 PM

A moral fabric pervades this entire universe. You do good you get good back. You do evil you get evil back.

Does the vivisection lab exist alone, outside of the rest of the universe, in a moral vacuum?

Let's see some research such as the links between vaccines and auto-immune diseases for a start. Or why cancer is spiralling out of control despite more than a hundred years of animal reseach.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: akenaton
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 05:39 PM

I'm a lunatic too Raptor!!
And I agree with you and smiler big time.
Killing animals for fun and torturing animals for research is a crime in my book.
As is the intensive farming of animals, who are deprived of any quality of life and are presented, wrapped in clingfilm, on supermarket shelves...by the pound!!

New trick by the manufacturers of cosmetics and household chemicals.

Their packs of shampoo of detergent state..."This product has not been tested on animals", by in reality the active constituents of the product have been heavily tested on animals....Check this out.

If you care about animal torture, only buy products which state..."Neither this product nor any of its components have been tested on animals"

Environmental protection issues,which include the fight for animal welfare and opposition to business interests which seek to degrade our natural environment, will be the most effective means of protest for those of us who wish to see a better future for our planet...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Wolfgang
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 06:00 PM

Or why cancer is spiralling out of control despite more than a hundred years of animal reseach. (smiler)

A presuppositional question of the finest type. What you presuppose in the question is wrong, actually.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,smiler
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 06:14 PM

If cancer afflicted approximately one in hundred of the population in the Victorian era, and now afflicts one in three (and rising), that's a pretty fair pre-suppositional question, given animal based cancer research has done sweet FA to allieviate this.

This was a moral point, in the whole post Wolfgang.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Peace
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 06:37 PM

Vegans: don't they come from another star system?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 06:50 PM

I'm just against ... loudmouths.

Raptor

Then... yer against yerself ??

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Raptor
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 07:01 PM

SRS what are you saying? I'm not sure I get your point.


An activist is called a terrorist by someone who disagrees with them. Sounds Familiar eh? "If you don't see things my way your a Terrorist So lets have a war on terror!"

Wasn't that said by a Lunatic?

If you'd seen the video of mascarra testing done on animals so they could say "tearproof" and you didn't get sick, you are one sorry bastard.

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Raptor
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 07:04 PM

Greg F
Thank you for contributing such a valuable comment!
Your insight into this discussion will be taken with a lot of consideration.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Raptor
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 07:07 PM

Do you have an opinion on this topic or do you just need a little attention?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: number 6
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 07:40 PM

Peace .... yes, Vegans do originate from a different star system.

sIx

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 08:22 PM

extremists are extremists.

I'm sure most animal rights activists would not go so far as arson, threats and kidnapping.

I've only met two animal rights activists and they are both childless women. Yes, they are a bit strange. They treat pets as if they were human. I think its mothering gone astray. Reminds me of those animals that raise animals of another species. Seems a bit perverse.

I'm not the best pet owner in the world and I'm sure they think I'm cruel. I like my cat but she has to pretty much make it on her own. I feed her and give her a warm place to sleep. It beats what the SPCA had in mind for her.

On the other hand, I find it very difficult to fork out money for all of the immunizations and innoculations they think I should give her. She's an indoor/outdoor cat and they think its negligent for me to let her outside. I think she's entitled to be a cat.

Sure, I check the labels and I don't wear many cosmetics anyway. Lets face it, pets are pretty far removed from their natural state. If you want to protect animals, protect the environment. Its more important to protect an entire species than it is to protect a population of pets that are out of control.

Domestic animals are a bit wierd, anyway. What a concept! If animal rights activists want to protect animals, perhaps they should discourage the breeding of pets, period. Animals should only live in their natural habitat.

Yes, using them for experiments is disgusting but....

ya gotta pick your battles.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 08:54 PM

There are weirdos at the extreme opposite edges of any contentious issue.

Their presence obfuscates the issue itself, and sheds little light on the matter.

There are plenty of valid reasons to be very concerned over what is done to animals in this society...mostly by the meat and dairy industries...secondarily by lab testing.

I agree, Dianavan, that your cat has a right to be outside, and I'm sure the cat agrees with both of us. ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Peace
Date: 02 Feb 06 - 10:30 PM

Oh, so cats are animals now? That explains why the one I used to have didn't like being tossed in the lake. Hell, the Lab didn't mind. Who knew?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Mudlark
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 12:54 AM

Watching a program called "The Dark Side of Elephants," about rogue elephants, the comment was made: "Once an elephant kills a man, it is forever changed." And it made me wonder if the reverse is true,,,if once man kills an elephant, a human, a cow, or performs painful acts on animals to perfect cosmetics, does it change the man.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Crystal
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 05:25 AM

>>If cancer afflicted approximately one in hundred of the population in the Victorian era, and now afflicts one in three (and rising), that's a pretty fair pre-suppositional question, given animal based cancer research has done sweet FA to allieviate this.<<

I am a cancer researcher so what I am about to say is based on consensus, peer reviewed research NOT opinion.

Cancer is a disease of aging. The simple fact is that more people are surviving to get cancer thanks to modern medicine (tested on animals for the most part). Also the sudden upsurge in carcinogenic chemicals which are in our foodchain, plus increased smoking and overeating by people who are reluctant to see a doctor at the first warning signs had increased DNA damage.
When the DNA is damaged it DOES NOT automatically cause cancer, usually a transformed cell dies, but somtimes it aquires a mutation which makes it resistant to the proscess of programmed cell death (apoptosis). Usually these cells are destroyed by the body, but somtimes they survive to divide, effectivly you have a set of immortal cells (as long as you are alive at least). These immortal cells can then pick up other mutations, and if they get one which causes out of control cell division then that is cancer.
If the body is good at getting rid of mutated cells then you are less likely to get cancer, but as you age the mechanisms wear out. Also there are thousands of different combinations of mutations so there is no way to say (for example) "ah ha, this is what causes breast cancer".
If you don't like animal testing don't take any medicines, not even the Chinese ones, they have ALL been tested on animals. Animal testing is, unfortunatly, still a nesscessarry evil, unless we have an endless supply of willing voulenteers to test if this new drug is horribly toxic or not. I think you'll find there will be very few of them, we are a selfish species.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,smiler
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 06:08 AM

Speak for yourself Crystal

You can also explain while you're at it how a spontaneously occurring cancer in a human is the same as an artifically created one in an animal.

Sorry, God didn't create necessary evils.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Gervase
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 06:09 AM

God didn't create anything, smiler. We created god.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,smiler
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 06:55 AM

Thats been debated elsewhere in history and the impartial jury is still out

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Crystal
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 07:02 AM

The cancers are caused in animals in the same way they happen in humans, by giving the animal a chemical or radioactive insult and then either watching to see what happens, or giving another insult. Also human cancer cells may be injected into animals to look at the way cancers metastasise to other areas. How has this helped? we can now predict how tumours will spread and how to operate on them. We also have an arsnal or effective treatments. 100 years ago cancer was a death scentance no-one survived unless they were VERY lucky, now it accounts for 154,547 deaths per year in the whole of the UK but compare this with about 270,000 new diagnosis every year. Cancer deaths have FALLEN by 11% in the past 10 years and if I get breast cancer tomorrow I have an 83% chance of surviving for 5 years thanks to animal testing! Also thanks to knowledge gained from animal studies we know that about 135,000 of those diagnosed with cancer could have avoided it by listening to advice about changing their lifestyle.

People always forget that the first ones to benifit from new drugs etc are animals, even those drugs which have been shown not to work in humans.

What is your viable and safe alternative to animal testing Smiler? Obviously us all going back to running around naked, sleeping in trees and eating raw meat is one, but I think you'll have a hard time convincing other people.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,smiler
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 07:41 AM

You have know way of knowing if an animal tumour, caused by “a radio-active insultâ€쳌 - poison being the proper word - is going to behave the same way as a spontaneously occurring tumour in a human. The truth is poisoning animals hinders proper medical progress, as they are all tested on humans anyway.

Also what is survival? I understand its five years after diagnosis, so die five years and a day later, you'll call it cured.

Any dunce can poison animals and report on the results. Most do

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Gervase
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 07:54 AM

I fear smiler is from the unreconstructed 'anything which causes harm to an animal is bad' wing of the bunny-huggers. S/he probably won't even wipe down kitchen surfaces in case bacteria are killed, while removing slugs and snails from the veg is a definite no-no.
Because that's the trouble with animal rights. Where, logically, does one stop?
Is it OK to harm creatures that don't happen to be mammals? Surely not, otherwise there'd be nothing wrong with battery farming.
What about cold-blooded animals? No, because frogs can clearly feel pain, and it would be wrong to inflict pain on them.
And then it gets tricky.
Snails? Well, they seem to be able to feel pain, as do any number of earthworms. But they do have some sort of nervous structure.
So...Is it OK to cause harm to a creature without a central nervous system? Difficult, because even unicellular organisms appear to be threat-averse and will positively move away from sources of stress.
So, smiler, where do you stop? Do you embrace the bacterium as you embrace the bunny?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Wolfgang
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 08:14 AM

Smiler,

the numbers you quote on cancer may be correct but they are irrelevant for the argument. Crystal has said it already and I concur from another point of view. I regularly give the cancer data you have quoted to a research methodology class as a task to find out how they can be interpreted. The best of them come up with the more-cancer-because-we-get-older idea.

I then ask them at which data we should look to find out whether the age idea is correct. A good response is to look at cancer incidence separated by age groups. If you look at these data you can clearly see that for all (or nearly all, depending upon the country) age groups the incidence of cancer has decreased over the decades since Victoria was queen.

Though the age controlled cancer data have decreased, the overall data have increased. That is not easy to understand for people not trained how to read statistics. It is a variant of Simpson's paradox that has fooled you.

One more reason how you can be fooled: If you look at the data how many people have cancer at one point in time (it seems to me you quote these data the way you describe them) then each succes of medicine in prolonging life of cancer patients will increase the number of people having cancer at the same time for they will be part of the cancer statistics for a longer time.

You may argue against animal experimentation, but you should strike the cancer data argument from your arsenal. You only can fool the numerically challenged with it.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Gervase
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 08:30 AM

A moral fabric pervades this entire universe. You do good you get good back. You do evil you get evil back.
Sorry, only just picked up on that.
Is that a fact or a belief?
If it's a fact then, as far as I can see, morality plays no part in the laws which we perceive to govern the universe. The universe is magnificently amoral - natural catastrophes wipe out the devout as well as the lax, while many a wrong 'un prospers, lives to a ripe old age and dies in his bed.
If, however, it is a belief, then it's one to which you're entitled, but it means no more than the tooth fairy, Father Christmas or the divinity of Christ. It certainly has no part to play in a discussion of ethics or scientific method.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Troll
Date: 03 Feb 06 - 10:13 PM

The rain it falls upon the just
And also on the un-just fella.
But chiefly on the just, because
The un-just stole the justs umbrella.

troll

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 11:48 AM

On the other hand, I find it very difficult to fork out money for all of the immunizations and innoculations [sic] they think I should give her. She's an indoor/outdoor cat and they think its negligent for me to let her outside. I think she's entitled to be a cat.

Do you at least spay or neuter your cats? Ignoring the immunizations available allows your animal(s) to spread disease among the pet population in your neighborhood. It also allows such nasty things as rabies to enter your domain. The cat is a good vector from wildlife to humans.

Raptor, my remark that says to eschew the comparing or lumping together of animal rights folks and environmentalists means that environmentalists don't want to have anything to do with the wacko animal rights folks, because they are mostly fighting an emotional battle that isn't based on good science. People outside of these two areas don't always know any better and assume that the rights of animals are somehow tied into cleaning up the environment. Animals don't have standing in the courts*, as hard as the animal rights folks would try--they want their own version of the Endangered Species Act that limits vivisection and testing.

* This is not to say there is no protection for animals in abuse situations or general raising or management of them, but they are not other-than-human-people, they are property, so cases can't be brought on their behalf.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:48 PM

SRS - My cat has been spayed. Don't forget I got her at the SPCA.

If the other cats in the neighborhood are immunized, then they should be protected from disease.

As far as being a vector, last time I checked, she wasn't an arthropod. As far as being a carrier ??????? Who knows? If you are paranoid about my healthy, nature loving cat, keep your cat indoors.

Besides that, my cat is so mean, she won't let any other animal into her territory. I don't think you have anything to fear.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 03:49 PM

That last post was me, dianavan.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 04:05 PM

"Clintonhammond was never fortunate enough to meet..."

Ya... neither were you...

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Sorcha
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 04:19 PM

Stilly, I don't know how it is with cats, but there is some new research out on dogs that says they don't really need vacs as often as previously thought.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: gnu
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 04:42 PM

Thanks Crystal for your time and effort in sharing your expertise with us in this thread. I appreciate your educated input.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Raptor
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 05:50 PM

I guess I'm still a lunatic but I'm for cancer reasurch, and don't consider that Unnessary expirmentation.

I'm also an environmentalist which is why I asked for the clarification SRS. You make good points.

I do think one should keep house cats indoors. Feral cats kill 1000's of birds everyday.Most naturalists agree with that.

And not immunizesing you pet is very cruel. Heartworm is a slow and painfull death I wouldn't wish upon a conservative.

But what do I know I'm a lunatic.

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,smiler
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:20 PM

I'm not a bunny hugger Gervase.

I don't love animals. More importantly I don't hate them, unlike Crystal and the rest of her ilk, who are brutalised by their work in the labs. Her dishonesty in terming an act of cruelty an insult, reveals this.

The very fact they are brutalised, is the same reason, they should not be near people's health, in the same way that Dr Mengele should not have been a peadiatrician.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 06:21 PM

Raptor - Just because my cat goes outside, doesn't mean she's wild. She prefers mice and shrews to birds but she has killed the odd bird or two. I tried a bell but she always comes home without it.

My cat isn't a house cat. She's an indoor/outdoor cat and would be very unhappy if she couldn't climb trees, chase mice and sun herself in the garden. She also prefers garden soil to cat litter. I think its cruel to keep a cat indoors all its life. I suppose you also think cats should be de-clawed?

BTW - I didn't say she wasn't vaccinated at all. I said, "I find it very difficult to fork out money for all of the immunizations and innoculations they think I should give her."

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 07:20 PM

" I think its cruel to keep a cat indoors all its life."

An indoor cat lives longer... costs MUCH less at the vet... and if provided with good 'entertainment' will be JUST as 'content' (if not more so) than a cat that goes outdoors...

"cats should be de-clawed"
My indoor cats are declawed... that way my $100 cat isn't wrecking my $700 sofa.... or my $900 carpet... or... or... or...   

They also don't get yelled at for doing what comes naturally.... They also don't even know they've been declawed...   Their brain isn't much bigger than the end of my thumb...

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 07:27 PM

That's mostly true of indoor humans too, Clinton. Specially the last sentence you wrote.

Look, man, if you have to imprison an animal and make it live a totally unnatural life indoors just for your enjoyment, maybe that's not such a good thing to do in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 07:36 PM

Like you know shit about shit... I musta been thinking of you when I typed "Their brain isn't much bigger than the end of my thumb..."

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 08:07 PM

Thats me again, dianavan, at 6:21.

Time to figure out how to get my cookie back.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 08:14 PM

Yeah, Clinton, like I was thinking of you...

We're a mutual admiration society.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 08:52 PM

Now we're talking about animal terrorism!

In my mind, there is something just a little bit twisted about de-clawing an animal so that you can have complete control. The poor thing is perfectly helpless. Wait a minute. Thats not an animal, its a living, breathing, stuffed-toy.

Like I said before, I'm not much of a pet person. I prefer my animals, wild.

...and what about the procedure itself? ...and the time it takes to heal? Yuk!

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:13 PM

I've seen clawed cats and de-clawed cats. I'm in favour of the latter, given the choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:14 PM

Sorry. Typo. Exactly the other way around. I'm in favour of leaving them their claws intact.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:22 PM

To look at the qestion objectivly, are humans really superior to other animals ?
Do we have the moral right to hurt or kill orther "lesser" animals in the hope that it may make our lives in some way easier?
Would we sacrifice an innocent animal to save the life of say Hitler or a child murderer?

Many other animals have far superior pphysical powers than humans.
The human brain is more developed than most animals ,but we use it to destroy other animals including our own species, even perpetrating vile acts like the sex murder of our children.
I dont' believe we have any moral right to toture other animals who may have poweres more beneficial to the welfare of the planet than humans.
We do it because we can! The animals cannot protest!

If we would not sacrifice a pet dog or cat to save the life of a war criminal or child murderer, the moral argument is invalid.

These are simple examples of how we should look at the treatment of other living creatures.
If we want to live in a brave new world, we've got to start thinking...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:26 PM

If you've got little kids around, you should have the cat declawed.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:27 PM

You're correct Akenaton. We do it because we can. If people got to spend some time inside the commercial slaughterhouses and saw what goes on in there, they'd stop eating meat pretty fast! I knew of 2 guys who that happened to, matter of fact. They both gave up eating any commercially packed meat whatsoever after a stint working in the slaughterhouses. Not on a moral basis, exactly...more because they just could not stomach it any longer. Literally couldn't keep it down.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:35 PM

Morality is a very subjective thing.

What might be right for you may not be right for some.

A man is born. He's a man of means.
Then along come two; they got nothing but their jeans.

But they've got different strokes.

And it takes different strokes.

It takes different strokes to move the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:45 PM

LOL! Yer a goof, Cluin!

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:49 PM

Thanks LH, no one could ever accuse you of being a non-thinker.

I 'm convinced that people like Bunnahabhain, who catagorise protesters as "bad, mad and dangerous to know", are more worried about the effectiveness of the protests, than the future of research or the welfare of animals.

These folks usually have a right wing agenda going, and try their best to "dis" any movement that they see as a threat to the status quo...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,Cluin
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:53 PM

I don't have little kids around but when I did, I had cats that were not declawed. Neither of my children were ever scratched. Then again, my children never 'asked for it' either.

I'm having a tough time differentiating between using animals for research and domesticating animals to the point of keeping them indoors and having them de-clawed. I am also one of those who believe feed lots and slaughterhouses should be abolished.

I don't see much difference. Its all about human beings abusing their power over helpless animals. As far as I'm concerned, I saved a cat from a certain death at the SPCA. I took her home and I liberated her. She's almost 12 years old and very healthy.

...but like I said. There are plenty who would consider my somewhat 'indifferent' attitude towards the cat, as neglectful. I think we co-exist.

How about these people who actually dress their pets? Pretty twisted if you ask me. I'll bet Clinton replaced the claws with a suit of chain mail. Do you have any pictures?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,Bunny Rabbit
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 09:58 PM

Personally I'm all for humans who try to defend other living creatures from cruel and unnecessary suffering.

There's little difference between a vivisectionist and the President of the United States. Both some to get their kicks from torturing and killing innocent creatures.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:01 PM

Maybe we should have Clinton "dressed", they say it improves the temperament...Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:35 PM

You prefer me naked and you know it...

So does your mother for that matter

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:37 PM

Cluin - I'm so sorry! I didn't mean to sign in as guest Cluin. It was me, dianavan. I really do need to find my cookie.

I was actually replying to your suggestion about de-clawing cats around children.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:39 PM

I knew Cluin would never ask to see pics of my pussy in chainmaille......

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:42 PM

You're right Clinton..She always had a penchant for older men!!

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:47 PM

How is Metheusela these days anway?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Cluin
Date: 04 Feb 06 - 10:53 PM

This is me this time. ;)

I know a kid that was playing with his cat on his bed one day, cuddling with it. He didn't "ask for it" either, but his loving little pussy cat hooked a claw in the kid's eye, batting at the blinking eyelid. It got infected and the kid lost his eye.

How come dog owners have to obey leash laws and pick up their dogs' crap when they walk them (I'm in favour of those things by the way) but cat owners are allowed to let their pets run free, scratch and shit in my garden, piss on my laundry and fight and f__k in the tree outside my window when I'm trying to sleep?

Hey, I love both cats and dogs. I just don't understand the double standard.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Raptor
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 08:43 AM

I say we take up a collection to have Little Hawk De-clawed.

$2 each should do it.

"Look, man, if you have to imprison an animal and make it live a totally unnatural life indoors just for your enjoyment, maybe that's not such a good thing to do in the first place."-LH

Domesticated cats are not native to North America. And lead an unnatural life no mater what you do with them.

"Raptor - Just because my cat goes outside, doesn't mean she's wild"-Dianavan
"Like I said before, I'm not much of a pet person. I prefer my animals, wild."-Dianavan
what?

Raptor(Still a lunatic)

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: akenaton
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 10:19 AM

I say it would be a crime to de-claw Little Hawk.

He rarely shows them, but when he does they can be very effective...A

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Raptor
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 12:49 PM

How about neutering him then? Surely no one would object to that.

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 01:06 PM

You can't neuter what isn't there

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,Bobby
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 01:20 PM

So Little Hawk is just like George W Bush.

No balls!

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: gnu
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 01:34 PM

Cluin... cats eat rats. Now... well trained and cared for cats do no shit on other peoples' property nor piss on their laundry. Nor do they fuck in your trees.

Unfortunately, the law does not require people to be trained for ownership of cats OR dogs. Such would never eliminate all problems, but would go a long way to keeping problems to a minimum. From there, I am sure the odd problem could be managed.

Most problem cats are wild. Fact is, you ain't gonna see them... on accounta they are wild.

I did have a cat once who was crapping in my neighbours flower bed. Once I was told, it only took me three days to train it not to do so.

The cats are not the problem. Ignorant owners are the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 01:47 PM

I was all set to post this when the 'Cat went down. gnu touches on much of what I was addressing and saved to post now.

It's way too late to start pretending that if we have pets that we kick out in the yard with or without shots that we're just allowing them to experience the joy of being "wild." We know too much about the science of animal behavior. A good life for a pet doesn't require unlimited unaccompanied "wildness." If you're a pet owner, then it is your responsibility to take care of that animal, to confine them if necessary to prevent scaring or hurting people or other animals, and to keep them out of other people's yards and from freely ranging public spaces. DON'T ADOPT ANIMALS IF YOU AREN'T WILLING TO GO TO THAT EXPENSE AND TROUBLE. Neither dogs as they appear now, nor domestic house cats, were here prior to colonization, they're not native "wild" species. The North American wild dogs that were domesticated by indigenous people weren't "pets," they were as likely to end up in the soup pot as sleeping on someones pallet at night. (Before someone starts down that path--the amplification of human traits in animals in native stories was not as the result of personification but a metaphorical approach to teaching through storytelling.)

Humans make the rules, humans have the language and the standing in the courts, humans bear the responsibility for their pets. Pets may seem like other-than-human people, but it is this failure to understand the natures of cats and dogs that gets so many pet owners into trouble. If you're going to have pets then take the time to work with them and train them and understand the limitations of keeping animals in your home and on your property. In the U.S. at least there is an epidemic of pet overpopulation and a huge number of unwanted pets are euthanized every day, coming from homes that can't control their animals. Having a pet is on a par with having children--if you're going to do it, you should be ready for it. (Unfortunately, it is also on a par with having children in that there are people who are criminally incompetent who have no business being pet owners or parents who are popping out puppies and kittens and babies like clockwork).

Whether or not you declaw your cat is up to you and is based on your decisions regarding the health and comfort of the family and the pets living there. Leaving a cat's claws on so it can defend itself outside means you're going to allow that animal free reign regarding the local pet, bird, and wildlife population (and by the way, they defend themselves perfectly well with their back claws, so removing the front claws spares the furniture but leaves the animal protected). Spaying and neutering is essential to keeping pets who are more comfortable, less likely to fight, and more even-tempered. If an individual adopts a pet and chooses not to neuter, don't give me the crap that they're allowing the animal some sort of autonomy. Pets are property, they AREN'T autonomous creatures in the eyes of the law, and not getting them fixed is an act of laziness on the part of the pet owner, not an act of liberation for the pet.

Can't afford the shots and the occasional veterinary care? Then you need to explore the services in your community that subsidize these things. Your local Humane Society has low-cost programs to spay and neuter pets, and I see signs several times a year for low-cost shot clinics for cats and dogs.

Working animals are not included in this rant of mine--there is an entirely different dynamic going on in that world.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 01:49 PM

Rap - My statements may seem contradictory but they aren't. My cat is a pet. I prefer wild anmimals not pets but since I have a pet, I prefer to let her outside (except at night). The garden provides her with enough adventure that she rarely leaves my property, if at all. She doesn't bother anyone that I know of.

Cluin - I'm sorry the little boy lost his eye but surely that is a rare circumstance. Its not enough to make me declaw my cat, especially since I have no little ones at home. I wouldn't allow the cat on the bed, anyway, so its hardly a big risk.

BTW - If you declaw Little Hawk, can I have the claws for my medicine bag?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 02:06 PM

"you're going to allow that animal free reign regarding the local pet, bird, and wildlife population "

A declawed cat is JUST as capable of hunting/killing as a cat with claws...

If you're concerned about the local 'wildlife' keep yer frigg'n cat indoors...   It sure won't 'hurt' the cat

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 04:39 PM

I'm not the least bit concerned about the local wildlife that happens into my yard. The bird feeder is on a post with a metal stovepipe around it so the cat (and squirrels) can't reach the birds or the food. My cat stays well away from the raccoons and the the occasional skunk. The squirrels are much faster than the cat. I'm glad she kills the mice and shrews or I would have a rodent problem like many of my neighbors.

We're happy and I haven't heard any complaints from the neighbors. In fact, they all know the cat because she greets them at the gate.

But this is thread drift. The original post is complaining about militant animal rights activists. Listening to your concern about a pet who is happy and healthy, makes me wonder how you feel about using animals for testing purposes. Perhaps you should be directing your concerns to that practice.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 04:43 PM

Who is "you?"

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 05:30 PM

you'all.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 06:50 PM

You're not a lunatic, Raptor...you're just a little dense, that's all. ;-) Cats ARE natural creatures. The moment they step into nature they become natural. Doesn't much matter where they are. In North America we have lynxes, bobcats, and pumas. In more ancient times we had sabre-tooth tigers and other cats. Nature changes as time goes by. Our present domestic cats are possibly descendents of small wild felines that were domesticated by the Egyptians, but it may go back farther than that. Should I assume you only believe in letting them go outdoors in Egypt?

I'll tell you what kills too many birds in North America. Man's pollution and man's destruction of wild habitat kills too many birds. To blame it on domestic cats is just plain silly. The bird population is not going to be decimated by domestic cats catching birds in the back yard.

Oh...Clinton... Clinton? Hey, old buddy, got somethin' just for you here...

A big salute to a guy who has earned it many times over...

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Cluin
Date: 05 Feb 06 - 07:26 PM

I wasn't running down cat owners, gnu (though I'm dubious on the idea of "training" a cat). Just wondering about the legal dichotomy between dog owners' and cat owners' responsibilities.

And my girlfriend's little Cairn Terrier would make short work of any rat it happened upon as well. We still don't let her run free.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 12:08 AM

I have to disagree, Little Hawk. There is evidence that cats do a lot of damage to the wild bird population.

From the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Cats

In the fall of 1990, a study on the effects of cats on wildlife was reported in the scientific and mass media. Researchers estimated that house cats and feral cats are responsible for killing approximately 78 million small mammals and birds annually in the United Kingdom.

Feline predation is not "natural." Millions of backyard birds and other animals are slaughtered by cats each year. Cats are a serious threat to fledglings, birds roosting at night and birds while they're on the nest, at the feeder and using a bird bath.

If you are unwilling to eliminate free-roaming cats, do not attract birds to your yard by putting out feeders, nest boxes and baths. Eliminating free-roaming cats is the best way you can "protect" your backyard birds from cat predation.

Responsible pet owners keep their cats indoors. Most local jurisdictions have enforceable leash laws for cats and dogs. Contact your local humane society for help.

Here's a Google search on the topic.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 12:31 AM

You make a convincing argument there, Stilly.

I expect that people's opinions on this are often influenced by their childhood experiences. We always lived in the country when I was a kid, and we always had outside cats, as our ancestors had done before us, so the whole idea of the outside cat is one I simply take for granted. It doesn't seem right to me to incarcerate a cat indoors for its entire life. It's so....icky sort of control freak sounding...just to me, you understand, because of my personal background.

That basically is why I like the idea of letting cats go outside. I'm used to it. I am well aware that they kill a lot of small animals. I accept the fact that they do as a basic fact of life, and I doubt that cats are at all likely to exterminate any species of bird in North America.

I presently own no cat, however, so put your mind at rest. I am in no way imperilling the many birds that happily exist in the 10 acres or more of forest behind this house. A few of our neighbours have roaming cats, and I couldn't care less whether or not they did.

You should see Trinidad! (maybe you have...) Not many cats to be seen, only a few...but...there are literally hundreds of thousands of roaming dogs...all over the place, totally free to wander where they wish. And the amazing thing is, it doesn't seem to bother people a bit. The dogs and the people and everything else coexist just fine. I like the Trinidad dogs. They call them "pothounds". Most of them sort of live somewhere...that is, they hang around a certain house or neighborhood in a fairly predictable manner.

Smaller, less potentially dangerous dogs wandered around outside freely in the small towns I lived in in the 50's. No one cared. We kids knew those dogs by name ("King", "Baron", "Perky", "Frisky"), and sometimes the dogs tagged along with us when we played in the vacant lots, just like Spanky and the Little Rascals in those old films. God, it was great. Well, you sure as hell don't see that anymore in North America now, because EVERYTHING has a restrictive rule of law applied to it now! I love freedom, and I am not impressed by what happens when a society gets too overdeveloped and way too overlegislated.

What people think is either "okay" or "unacceptable" varies wildly from one culture to another...and it's mostly dependent on nothing more that what they are already used to and think is "normal". It's largely arbitrary, in other words.

This debate about inside and outside cats didn't exist in the world I grew up in.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Crystal
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 05:08 AM

Hi Smiler,
I DON'T work with animals. I'm a cell researcher, the institution which I work at dosn't even have a licence to do animal experiments. You call me evil, but if you wish to support the work of those who cause unnessecerry suffering to people and animals by means of bombs, threats and general nastyness fine, but I can call you evil too if I wish. Hell it is a free internet, you are free to say what you want, but don't get upset by other peoples opinions.

BTW hypothetical question; if you need life saving treatment will you refuse it because it has been tested on animals?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 12:34 PM

I'd only accept it if it HAD been tested on animals....

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 12:49 PM

"if you need life saving treatment will you refuse it because it has been tested on animals?"

Heh! Well...that's not the first thing I would have on my mind to ask the medical staff about in such a situation...

Quite apart from that...

Life will never be perfect. Those who can't accept that life is imperfect can always be relied upon to pass a few hundred more restrictive laws that limit somebody else's freedom so THEY can feel "safe". The real truth is, they will never feel safe! It isn't within their psychological grasp to feel safe. It doesn't match their paranoid outlook. We have all been mentally and culturally f*cked by lawyers and insecure, demanding people who never feel "safe". We are living in an Orwellian maze of legalisitic idiocy, and it was crafted mainly to benefit the legal profession and the big business community, who are the only people who can really afford to utilize the legal profession to their advantage.

Just wait. More laws are coming. And they will NOT make your life any safer. They will just smother it a little more.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: akenaton
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 02:31 PM

Well said little Hawk!

We Have a little Indian GP who is tormented by octogenarians,who either can't run five miles before breakfast or can only manage three erections a night.
The poor wee man is driven to distraction by these self obsessed wrinklies, who are taking up space in his surgery which could be taken by folk who were really ill.

He's started telling them,"Whats matter with you? ...you want to live forever?!!"

Some of us do want do live forever, however useless and unsatisfactory our lives have become, and we don't care how we acheive that impossible dream.

The use of disposable objects like animals is just one of the ways....Ake

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 02:37 PM

"but don't get upset by other peoples opinions"

That's all some people have to get them through the day

Personally, I like to stand back and laugh at them

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Raptor
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 03:18 PM

Little Hawk You my friend are the one who's dense. The house cats aren't NATIVE to this country.
So they are not Natural Here!

Penquins are not native in Saskatuan so they are not natural there. although there are different spiecies of birds that live there.

Mabey if you'd have gone to science class a little more and didn't watch so much Star Trek...

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 03:34 PM

"So they are not Natural Here!"

Ya... but then again, neither are we...

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Raptor
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 03:53 PM

Good Point

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 03:54 PM

I think it's high time we use actual animals (other than humans) as suicide terrorists! For instance: Place bombs inside male animals of the bovine species.

I do understand that some of you will feel I am completely off the wall suggesting this. I also know that others will see the suggestion as totally abominable! (But it is really only a-bomb-in-a-bull!!)

Art Thieme

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 03:56 PM

So, maybe we should be keeping each other inside all the time too eh?
LOL
(Honestly, not a bad idea, as it could be applied to some)

Here's yet antoher tangent...
How long after invading can a species still be said to NOT be native?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 04:06 PM

Bartender... Art needs his bill....

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 05:00 PM

Took the words right out of my mouth twice there, Clinton.

Like he said, Raptor, WE are not natural here. Look at all the weird stuff you and I do on a daily basis with our cars, our TVs, our microwaves, our ovens, our headphones, our plastic whatnots, our air conditioners, our electric dryers, our rubber-soled footwear, our stereos, all our silly stuff. Almost NONE of it is natural. And you want to save the natural world by keeping cats indoors?????

Gimme a fucking break. LOL! Where is a poor cat to go anymore when he's "not natural here"?   He's not natural inside the house either. Poor cat. We should immediately ship all domestic cats back to wherever they are "natural", wherever the hell that is...

I don't think anyone knows where it is anymore. Well, I do. It's outside in the fresh air, that's where.

This BS isn't debatable in Trinidad. You know why? They don't have sealed glass on most of the windows there, they have lots of openings so the fresh outside air can blow in and out of the building and keep things healthy. It is therefore virtually impossible to keep a cat indoors in Trinidad unless you confine it permanently to a windowless, locked room. Good for Trinidad!

You and I are living in a North American cultural fishbowl, Raptor, in which the fish take it all so seriously only because they are unaware it's just one more stupid arbitrary fishbowl.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Cluin
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 05:49 PM

Let your kitty run free if you want.

When he doesn't come home, go check the menu at the local Manchu Wok.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Peace
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 06:07 PM

Cat doesn't taste bad at all, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 06:38 PM

I 'm convinced that people like Bunnahabhain, who catagorise protesters as "bad, mad and dangerous to know", are more worried about the effectiveness of the protests, than the future of research or the welfare of animals.

Why, thank you Ake. Actually, I'm more worried that these terrorists will start killing people directly. They're already killing people indirectly through the difficulties they are causing for researchers.

And they will drive the research to somewhere less regulated. The final result would be more people and more animals suffering and dying. How does that do anyone any good?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Leadfingers
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 07:11 PM

I am somewhat concerned about SOME of the Animal Rights people - Which animals rights are they worrying about when they break open a Mink Farm and release several hundred SERIOUS Killers into the local habitat ? Or as happened a month or so back when Four Hundred Wild Boars on a farm were released into the Endlish Countryside ?
And how the HELL is removing an old ladies body from her grave going to help Animals ??

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Leadfingers
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 07:12 PM

AND 100 !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 07:39 PM

so....   How long after invading can a species still be said to NOT be native?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Cluin
Date: 06 Feb 06 - 08:18 PM

The winners write the history books.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 07:23 AM

To move away from cats (Do americans really remove the claws from their cats? Please tell me this is some sort of ironic joke?!) and back to animal rights in general.

smiler seems to have toddled off again, but I'd be interested to see his/her reaction to

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 07:30 AM

...and, if work carried out on animals really has no relevance to humans, why exactly are we worrying about Avian Flu?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Raptor
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 08:27 AM

Little Hawk this thread was going good untill you had to bring up the wierd things you do with your plastic whatnot.
Now I feel sick
Thanks a hell of a lot!

Raptor

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 10:39 AM

"Do americans really remove the claws from their cats?"
Americans are not the only ones....

Raptor... don't feed the idiot troll...

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Gervase
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 10:53 AM

Idiot troll me arse!
It's just that, as a Brit, I've never heard of such a thing, and would imagine that most vets this side of the pond would refuse to carry out such a procedure.
At the moment we have a law going through which will make it illegal to dock dogs' tails, so cat declawing would be right out of order, I would think.
Is the whole claw actually removed? Front and hind legs? How does it affect the cat's ability to climb, and its general behaviour (given that scratching is such a part of a cat's make-up)?
If pulling out cats' claws is the norm, what would be the reaction to someone wanting to remove or file the teeth from dogs in case they bite?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Clinton Hammond
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 11:35 AM

"Idiot troll me arse!"
No no no... not you Gervase...

"Is the whole claw actually removed?"
Yes... the common practice is front claws only...

"How does it affect the cat's ability to climb, and its general behaviour"
If you do it when they're kittens (The same time you spay 'em) they'll grow up never knowing the difference....   I've seen declawed cats that can climb like fkn squirrels... And as far as scratching behaviour goes, that has more to do with scent marking, and a declawed cat will still do it... only they won't wreck the sofa while they're at it....

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Feb 06 - 02:14 PM

"How long after invading can a species still be said to NOT be native?"

That's strictly matter of opinion, and there's no way of proving who has the final opinion on it.

As regards human beings, my opinion is that you're automatically native to any area of land you happen to be born on. People are people, and they're all native to the land they are born upon.

As regards introduced animal species, imported insects, plants, etc...well, that's a bit trickier. You have to consider how they'll react with the local flora and fauna.

People did no favors to Hawaii, for example, when they brought dogs, cats, pigs, rats, mongooses, and mosquitos...all of which proved disastrous and reproduced uncontrollably. They did no favors to Australia either when they introduced rabbits.

But who ever thought ahead about it back in those days? They only found out afterward.

Raptor, you're welcome. I just expanded the borders of the topic a little, didn't I?

It's true that an adult cat does not remember having its claws removed in infancy. Neither does a human being remember its fingernails and its sexual parts being removed in infancy. Maybe we should start doing that too, and keep people indoors all the time where they won't kill things. Think how the natural environment would benefit as time went by...

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 02:18 PM

Bill Caddick once wrote a song about somebody who hanged a pig. Apparently they used to try animals who had done bad things and then hang them.

never happened up my street.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Cluin
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 05:11 PM

Domestic cats and dogs wouldn't exist today without the alterations arrogant mankind has impinged on them through breeding, confinement, association, etc. Talk about closing the barn door if you wish, but the horse left a long time ago. If a cat is going to live in my house, with furniture and drapes and my thigh and little kids around who don't know not to "ask for it", I will have them declawed. The dog will learn to go outside to pee and poo and shut up when I tell him to.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 05:45 PM

We need you HERE, Cluin! These dogs will not shut up no matter who tells them to. ;-)

As for the cats...pfui! It's a tempest in a teapot. Tom Sawyer managed to survive and grow up unmaimed and happy in the company of clawed house cats, and so did I. Mark Twain would laugh at the ridiculous stiff people worry about nowadays.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Cluin
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 07:17 PM

Mine doesn't either, LH. At least not until I go pick him up and carry him away from the front window and pet him till he calms down.

Hey, wait! I'm probably reinforcing his behaviour.

Whattaya gonna do?

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 07:32 PM

It ain't easy...

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Janie
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 07:34 PM

I once lived with an animal terrorist--a big psychotic cat named Harry who would lurk on top of the refrigerator, waiting to pounce--claws extended, teeth biting. He could trash a whole room in 15 seconds flat when he really got worked up, and really was known to do some serious damage to humanoids. Finally told the cat and his mistress they had to move on.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 07:39 PM

Harry represents a long and proud feline tradition that has not been affected in the least by globalization...

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Janie
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 07:42 PM

Just proves that pride goeth before the fall--I think he finally had to be euthanized as a menace to society.

J.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 07:46 PM

No! Say it isn't so! (*sob*) Another hero has fallen in the long, but unremitting struggle which shall finally end with cats achieving total victory and running everything and doing exactly what they want ALL the time...

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Cluin
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 08:35 PM

Of course you've seen this.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: Little Hawk
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 08:49 PM

Yeah. LOL! I love it.

Subject: RE: BS: Animal Terrorists
From: GUEST,Art Thieme
Date: 08 Feb 06 - 10:49 PM

1 blender
1 cat
1 tray of ice cubes
1 tumbler of Vodka
Blend on high for 50 seconds.

Makes Catatonic for four.