Why is it so acceptable in our society to "Kill" animals?

Why is it so acceptable in our society to "Kill" animals? 

FACT: Alpha wolves begin mating when they are 2 to 3 years old, often establishing life-long mates. 

FACT:  The Alpha female digs a den or uses an existing shelter, sometimes with chambers and connecting tunnels, in which to rear her pups for the first 6 weeks of their lives. An average of six pups is born in early spring. Pups are born blind and unable to regulate their body temperature - helpless without their mother. Other pack members help the Alpha female by bringing her food and protecting the den site during this time. As the pups mature, other packs members care them for when the Alpha female leaves the den or rendezvous site to hunt or rest. By 7 to 8 months of age, when they are almost fully-grown, the young wolves begin hunting with the adults.

I truly need to understand this. They call themselves "Sportsmen" and use words such as "wildlife management" "cull" "harvest" all very benign wording. Purposely meant to lull society into accepting what they do. 

The problem here is that "conservation of the species" or "protection of the people" has absolutely NOTHING to do with their supposed "wildlife management". And EVERYTHING to do with their need / desire to Hunt. Recreational Hunting. To kill another living being. That is the only purpose. No matter what excuses they try to make to justify their actions.

This truly needs to change. This Mentality of Killing is very disturbing. And teaching it to children even more so.

Here is an interesting article from Psychology Today
By Mark Bekoff, Ph.D. in Animal Emotions.......

Do some people simply like to kill other animals?

I see no reason to kill other animals for a meal that isn't needed. Every time I read an essay about "ethical hunting" it makes me reflect on a number of different and challenging issues. One that comes up time and time again is that maybe some people simply like to kill other animals and then offer a wide variety of excuses about their lust for blood (consider also the unrelenting war on wildlife including the wanton killing of wolves, the man who used a trapped wolf for target practice, and the egregious abuse of laboratory animals including chimpanzees). I can easily understand why some hunters offer that "getting out in nature" or "getting in touch with nature" or "having quality family time" are important to them and that's why they hunt. But one can get closer to nature without a gun so there's more to it at least for some people, or so it seems.

I also don't understand how some people can deny the suffering and death(s) for which they're directly responsible. I find that when some people say something like "Oh, I know they suffer, but I love my steak" it nauseates me. And when they say they love other animals and then kill then I like to say I'm glad they don't love me.

Many people want to rewild their hearts - reconnect with other nature - and it's incredibly easy to do without causing any harm. So, when will the unnecessary killing stop? I hope sooner than later because it's just not necessary to cause harm and to kill to have a healthy meal plan. So, do some people simply enjoy killing other animals? It seems they do or else they wouldn't do it.

Full Article here:
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201210/do-some-people-simply-kill-other-animals

URGENT ACTION: Only 3 days left. Stop use of dogs to Hunt wolves!

Stop Wisconsin from using Dogs to Hunt Wolves...

We only have until February 22, that's just 3 more days....
to bombard them with emails and phone calls.

Let's let them know the world is watching. And we do not like what we see. This particular action, is to stop the use of dogs to hunt the wolves..... 

If this is allowed to go through, dog training will begin in March.  Dog trainers can also use 'Live Bait Animals' to train these dogs.

Kill sites, Harvest, using dogs to hunt wolves, killing wolves, dogs get killed, breeding of dogs to use in the hunts, using wildlife to train dogs to hunt, lots of offenses here!.... lots of killing! for what? Sport! Money!
But of course they will tell you "Tradition" "wildlife management" , to name a few of their excuses.
And they call themselves "Sportsmen"!!

"Emails from around the world is the best way to discourage this cruelty. The Wisconsin D.N.R. - Department of Natural Resources wants to allow hunters to use a pack of 6 dogs at a time to train them to attack wolves in the wolf hunt, sometimes the wolf is cornered and cannot get away. There are no restrictions to this!  If a wolf is able to fight off a pack of 6 dogs, another pack of 6 will be set loose to attack again. This includes pregnant wolves and mother wolves protecting their pups. The DNR wants to pay each hunter for each dog that is killed so we know they won't be protecting them or helping them if they are injured or dying. Possibly even hoping that the dogs get killed to receive thousands of dollars."

Please Email or Call the following contacts - 

Sample Letter:

RE: Item 2.B.1 

It has come to my attention that the following has been deemed acceptable behavior in the state of Wisconsin.  Trapping, hunting, killing Wolves.  Using Dogs to hunt wolves.  Using wildlife as bait to train dogs to hunt wolves.  

So in essence what we have here is a totally inhumane killing spree.  Wildlife killed to train the hunting dogs.  Hunting dogs killed while hunting wolves.  And wolves cruelly killed by "traps", being attacked by dogs, and then shot.  What is going on in this State?   Killing seems to be the order of the day.  The cruelty here is beyond what any decent respectable human being could possibly stomach.   Respect for the life of any animal is clearly, greatly lacking.  Please stop the insanity! Do not let this ruling go through!   I do NOT support agenda item 2.B.1

Sincerely,

You can use the above sample, or write in your own words.  But let's bombard them!  Time is running short!

Email: Laurie.Ross@wisconsin.gov

Call: 608-267-7420

OR Write:
Wisconsin State Capitol
P.o. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707

Please spread the word and share share share! We do not have much time on this. Only 3 days. Let's bombard them from around the world!

Thank you!

HUNTING: How are Deer Managed by State Wildlife Agencies?

How are Deer Managed by State Wildlife Agencies?

Most people think of wildlife management agencies as serving the ecosystem, interfering minimally and mainly to preserve wildlife. These agencies do have programs to protect endangered species and to protect habitat in general. But instead of managing wildlife solely for the optimal health of the ecosystem, state wildlife management agencies also manage wildlife for recreation. 

To these agencies, deer are a resource, not sentient beings with their own inherent rights. The resource must be conserved, or used wisely, so that there will be plenty of deer for future generations of hunters. As a result, deer management is usually designed to keep the deer population high.

Here Wisconsin actually BOASTS about their Deer "Harvest"
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources states in their annual report: "We rank first in the country for the highest single year deer harvest on record and are number one for deer harvest over the past decade. All of us work hard to keep it that way."

Full ARticle Here: http://animalrights.about.com/od/wildlife/a/DeerManagement.htm

Undercover Video at Covance Laboratories...

The truth behind animals in laboratories is far from the image that scientists would like you to believe. The majority of laboratories rarely follow any guidelines and know, that no one can prove whether they have or have not. Their attitude toward animals is horrendous. No respect for the life of another species. No remorse for what they are subjecting them to! No qualms whatsoever about doing these experiments, as they listen to music, goof off and sing.

The real issue however, is WHY are these experiments are even being done. For what purpose do they actually serve. And can ANYONE justify what these animals are going through, knowing that they feel fear, pain, happiness, sadness, all the emotions that a human does. The fact that these tests have been done for decades. Over and over and over. Seems to me to be completely redundant. Unnecessary to say the least. What is the point of repeating the same old thing time and time again? With no positive results for people?

Watch the following video of a laboratory of monkeys at Covance.... There is nothing graphic here that would make one squeamish. However there is the reality, of what these monkeys are feeling, suffering and being put through all in the name of science. A science that is ancient in this day and age. Where technology would be more likely to give us results that could truly benefit people. And this is just 1 video of many laboratories all around the world. In the United States alone, millions of animals are used and killed in laboratories every year. What benefits do we really see from them? Of course you will hear all the propaganda spewed by the scientists themselves. Because they want these tests to continue. So they can continue to receive the funding and grants that are given to them to conduct these experiments. So they can write their scientific papers and advance in their careers.

COVANCE: FOOTAGE BANNED FROM BRITISH WEBSITE

Covance tortures animals in labs worldwide. In this undercover video, which was banned in Britain, dozens of monkeys are subjected to horrifying experiments.

http://bit.ly/idfx3T 

Penicillin was NOT the result of using Animals!

In the argument of whether it is Necessary to use animals in laboratories to Help Humans.... Here is an excellent example as to WHY it is completely UNNECESSARY and how the scientific community has continued to exaggerate and mislead the public into believing that it is necessary.....

The Discovery and Development of Penicillin 
Ray Greek MD 

The discovery and development of penicillin is often heralded by those who advocate using animals in research as an example of a breakthrough that was dependent upon animals. They triumphantly point to the mice that were used to test the drug in the early 1940s. On a web page from the Foundation for Biomedical Research, the awarding of the Nobel Prize in 1945 to Fleming, Florey and Chain for the discovery and development of penicillin is listed as being dependent upon research with mice.

After injection into an ear vein of a rabbit and with blood samples taken periodically thereafter for testing, it was found that penicillin was rapidly removed from the bloodstream. Samples taken at 30 minutes were found almost completely devoid of activity. Of what use might be an antibacterial agent that took several hours to act but was removed from the body within 30 minutes and inhibited by the blood with which it would obviously be mixing?

The rabbits excreted penicillin in their urine so rapidly Flemming did not think the drug would be effective. A believer in animal models being predictive, he assumed that humans would react like rabbits. This mistake cost lives! Unfortunately, the same
mindset is still costly lives.

Fleming continued to grow penicillin and even administered it to humans prior to the 1940s. Fleming routinely gave penicillin to humans with topical infections for years after 1929. Through a student of his, GG Paine, Fleming gave it to four humans suffering from ophthalmic neonatorum, an eye disease of infants, three of whom responded well. Paine went on to treat more patients with penicillin. Fleming also treated KB Rogers, an assistant in the lab. Physicians at Columbia University also used penicillin to treat bacterial infections of the eye. Fletcher of Oxford was another physician that used penicillin to treat bacterial infections of the eye. All these were topical uses, not systemic.
Such human observation also encouraged Florey to continue the penicillin purification process.

Florey and Chain conducted research with penicillin and produced a purified product using basic chemistry. The purified product was tested on mice resulting in cures of otherwise fatal infections. Fleming obtained the more pure form of penicillin, which he gave to his friend in 1942, from Florey. The purification process was classic in vitro research, based on knowledge of chemistry. If Florey gained the confidence to proceed, based on tests in mice, that does not mean that animals were incumbent for the development of the drug. If he had used guinea pigs, who knows what would have happened?

The fact that Florey and Chain used mice to test penicillin is not an example of animals being necessary for a discovery. In fact, Florey and Chain almost made another animabased mistake. If they had the guinea pig, society would have had to wait even longer for penicillin. The basis for the claim that mice were necessary for penicillin’s development emphasizes the fact that the animal model community, even in light of current knowledge of evolutionary biology, genomics, and complex systems continues to insist that results from animals can be directly extrapolated to humans. It is thinking of this nature that delays personalized medicine and cures. Animal models are not predictive for humans vis-à-vis drug testing and disease research.

In August 1942, a close personal friend of Fleming had contracted streptococcal meningitis. When conventional therapy failed and death seemed imminent, Fleming turned to Florey for help. The latter personally delivered his remaining supply of penicillin to Flemming and instructed him in the initial use of it. A dramatic cure was obtained, even the more so since penicillin was administered into the spinal canal for the first time to enhance its effectiveness.

BOTTOM LINE:
Florey, co-winner of the Nobel Prize for penicillin, administered penicillin to a cat at the same time Fleming was giving it to his sick friend. Florey’s cat died. Under certain circumstances, penicillin kills guinea pigs and Syrian hamsters. In addition, penicillin is teratogenic in rats, causing limb malformations in offspring. This is one of the problems with using animals to predict human response. If you had been Fleming, Florey or one of the other scientists, which species would you have believed? The dead cat? The rabbit that metabolized penicillin so rapidly? The guinea pigs and hamsters it would have killed had it been tested on them? Or the mice on which it worked?

Penicillin was not the result of basic research using animals. Animal use actually misled Fleming suggesting penicillin would be ineffective systemically.

Full article can be found here:
http://www.afma-curedisease.org/pdf/penicillin.pdf

FALLACIES & OTHER NONSENSE REGARDING ANIMALS IN LABORATORIES . . .

A) The appeal to popularity fallacy
"The vast majority of people support animal-based research. Hence such research is justified." This does not address whether the vast majority of people are correct. Recall that in earlier times, large numbers of people believed all sorts of things we now k now to be false, such as the once-held belief that the earth is flat.

B) The appeal to pity fallacy
In an appeal to pity fallacy, advocates of animal-based studies use descriptions of children with birth defects to argue that more money should be funneled to animal experiments involving the study of birth defects. Their argument ignores the question of whether or not animal experiments are efficacious in this context.

C) The fallacy of insufficient statistics
"Animal experiments helped prove that the heart pumps blood; therefore, all animal experiments are useful." Cherry picking data is another example of the fallacy of insufficient statistics. If you are presented with the results of 100 cases comparing animal outcomes with humans and you only include in your analysis the 10 cases where animals and humans shared the same outcome while ignoring the 90 times where they did not, you are cherry picking the data.

D) The straw man fallacy
The straw man fallacy is an argument made whereby a person misquotes, misrepresents, exaggerates, or otherwise distorts his opponent's argument so as to make it appear ridiculous and hence easy to disprove; like knocking down a straw man. Example: While animal activists say that animals are not predictive for human drug and disease response, an advocate for animal-based research will say that: "Animal activists really think that animals are far more intelligent than humans, that animals should be in charge of humans, and would rather save rats than babies. Therefore society should oppose them." Since this is not what the animal activist said, indeed is a gross misrepresentation of what the animal activist said, this is a straw man fallacy.

Full article can be found Here:
http://www.afma-curedisease.org/pdf/2010-11-04-fallacies-brochure.pdf

WEEAC Campaigns 2013

WEEAC Campaigns 2013

Hello friends.  The following are just some of the actions we wish to focus on throughout the year.

At the moment we are very heavily involved in the Anti-vivisection campaign.   Working right now against the University of Wisconsin Madison and Covance.    And the upcoming protests for World Day against animals in laboratories.  April 20 - 28.

v Work on creating a solid campaign for the following:

• Circus - No more animals in circus acts.
• Wolves - no more hunting 
• Greyhounds - end racing
• Horses - end the roundups of wild horses, that are then sold to auction or the slaughterhouse.

No More Wild Pets Campaign

• Work with Sanctuaries that are promoting this campaign.
• Push hard to get . . . .  
• Bill S 3547 /HR 4122 passed (to make it illegal to own Wild Animals as Pets)
• Create List of Sanctuaries to be Promoted as good places to Donate to.
• St. Francis of Assisi
• Farm Animals
• Gentle Barn
• Peaceful Prairie
• Big Cat Rescue
• The Wildcat Sanctuary
• Help those that need donation drives and fundraising.
• List of Parks that actually abuse & exploit animals for their own monetary gain.
• Their breeding and cross-breeding practices
• Using cubs to take on road shows for money
• Animal abuse within the parks

v Work on Palm Oil use and destruction of Forest, harm to Orangutans

v BSL Campaign…. Push to end discrimination

v  Help Free Yupi the Polar bear from Morelia Zoo in Mexico

v Homeless animal population

• Educate on spay/neuter
• Adopt don't shop

Animal Testing for Cancer Research is . . .

The results of animal model systems for drugs or other modalities have done nothing but confuse and mislead the cancer researchers who have tried to extrapolate from mice to man.

Cancer research scientist Irwin D.J. Bross, Ph.D., director of biostatistics at Roswell Park Memorial Institute in New York, attributes the public's lack of knowledge about cancer to misleading animal studies: "Not a single new drug for the treatment of human cancer was first picked up by an animal model system...the results of animal model systems for drugs or other modalities have done nothing but confuse and mislead the cancer researchers who have tried to extrapolate from mice to man.

Moreover, when they have been used to guide clinical research they have sent investigators on one long and costly wild goose chase after another. Thus, scientifically speaking, the animal studies are a fraud. Privately, they [vivisectors] will concede that animal models don't work, but they shrug this off because nothing works."
Every year, $30 billion is spent on cancer research, detection, and treatment in the United States, yet cancer remains our nation's No. 2 killer. In fact, the incidence of cancer has risen 18% and the mortality rate has increased by 7% since 1971.

Why hasn't progress against cancer been commensurate with the effort (and money) invested? One explanation is the unwarranted preoccupation with animal research. Crucial genetic, molecular, immunologic and cellular differences between humans and other animals have prevented animal models from serving as effective means by which to seek a cancer cure. Mice are most commonly used, even though the industry’s own Lab Animal magazine admits: "Mice are actually poor models of the majority of human cancers." Leading cancer researcher Robert Weinberg has commented: "The preclinical [animal] models of human cancer, in large part, stink… Hundreds of millions of dollars are being wasted every year by drug companies using these models."

{Animal experimentation is lucrative.
Its traditionally respected place in modern medicine results in secure financial support, which is often an integral component of a university's budget. Many medical centers receive several hundred million dollars annually in direct grants for animal research, and an average of over 40% more for overhead costs that are supposedly related to that research. Since many medical centers faced with declining clinical revenues depend on this financial windfall for much of their administrative costs, 
construction and building maintenance, they perpetuate animal experimentation by praising it in the media and to legislators.}

According to Clifton Leaf, a cancer survivor himself: "If you want to understand where the War on Cancer has gone wrong, the mouse is a pretty good place to start."

Critical Differences
Those who profit from animal experimentation continually insist that animals are physiologically similar to humans--similar enough to persuade us to believe that what happens in a rat, mouse, dog, cat, or other-than-human primate will occur in humans. However, research chemist Dr. Edward Sharpe points out that cancer tumors found in animals are of a completely different nature from those found in humans.

Most animal cancers arise in the bone, connective tissue, or muscle (sarcomas), whereas most human cancers arise in living membranes (carcinomas). Furthermore, animals confined to small laboratory cages, repeatedly manipulated, and otherwise subjected to pain and stress make very poor "models" of human cancer patients.

Such animals are often heavily irradiated in attempts to give them cancer tumors, or are given highly concentrated doses of substances that a human being would never be exposed to.

Former American Cancer Society president Dr. Marvin Pollard has acknowledged the problems with animal studies. "My own belief is that we have relied too heavily on animal testing, and we believed it too strongly. Now, I think we are commencing to realize that what goes on in an animal may not necessarily be applicable to humans.

Why using animals persists:

• In the "publish or perish" world of academic science, it requires little originality or insight to take an already well-defined animal model, change a variable or the species being used, and obtain "new" and "interesting" findings within a short period of time.
• Scientists' salaries and professional status are often tied to grants, and a critical element of success in grant applications is proof of prior experience and expertise.
• For the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, animal experiments provide an important legal sanctuary. In cases of death or disability caused by chemical products or adverse drug reactions, the responsible companies claim due diligence by pointing out that they performed the legally prescribed "safety tests" on animals and are therefore not accountable. As a result, the victims or their families most often come away empty-handed after suing for damages.14

Morality:

Animal experimenters’ language betrays their efforts to avoid morality. For example, they "sacrifice" animals rather than kill them, and they may note animal "distress", but they rarely acknowledge pain or other suffering. Young scientists quickly learn to adopt such a mind-set from their superiors, as sociologist Arnold Arluke explains: "One message – almost a warning – that newcomers got was that it was controversial or risky to admit to having ethical concerns, because to do so was tantamount to admitting that there really was something morally wrong with animal experimentation, thereby giving ‘ammunition to the enemy’." Physician E. J. Moore also observes: "Sadly, young doctors must say nothing, at least in public, about the abuse of laboratory animals, for fear of jeopardizing their career prospects."

Sources:
http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2011/06/21/animal-research-is-helping-us-beat-cancer/
http://www.mrmcmed.org/crit3.html

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS NOT ONLY FAIL! THEY COST LIVES!

ANIMAL EXPERIMENTS NOT ONLY FAIL! THEY COST LIVES!
VIVISECTION... LETHAL SCIENCE.......

Vivisection not only tortures and kills millions and millions of animals each year (95% of whom receive no protection under that Animal Welfare Act), it is taking valuable resources from potentially life-saving solutions and pouring money into bad science.

- But how safe, how effective are these animal-modeled advances? Investigating further, we learned that though cardiac-bypass surgery was practiced extensively on animals, when first tried on humans, the patients actually died.

- Penicillin kills guinea pigs and is not effective in rabbits. Were these troubling examples common ones? Or were they exceptions to the rule? Apparently not, we found. Roughly fifteen percent of all hospital admissions are caused by adverse medication reactions. And legal grugs, which made their way to the public via animals, kill approximately 100,000 people per year. That is more than all illegal drugs combined and costs the general public over $136 billion in health care expenses...We had been led to believe that the majority of medical advances had come about as a result of research carried out on animals. Now we wondered was this truth or propaganda?" -c. Ray Greek, Md, and Jean Swindle Greek, DVM

- "Normally, animal experiments not only fail to contribute to the safety of medications, but they even have the opposite effect." -Dr. Kurt Fickentscher, Pharmacological Institute of the University of Bonn, Germany, "Diagnosen", March 1980.

- "What good does it do you to test something [a vaccine] in a monkey? You find five or six years from now that it works in the monkey, and then you test it in humans and you realize that humans behave totally differently from monkeys, so you've wasted five years." -Dr. Mark Feinberg, a leading AIDS researcher.

- "Biomedical research does not need animals any more, but should use computers. It is pointless and even dangerous to continue following the traditional paths, for the difference between man and animals is so great that it mostly leads us into error." -Dr. Luigi Sporieri, contributor to the invention of the cardiopulmonary bypass machine in "La Nazione", Florence, Italy, October 5, 1980.

Full article here: http://animaladvocatesdsu.tripod.com/id10.html

The Polio Vaccine was NOT the Result of Animal Experiments....

The Polio Vaccine was NOT the Result of Animal Experiments....

• - Animal experimentation actually delayed this much-needed vaccine throughout the first half of the 20th century.

- researchers successfully infected monkeys with polio. But because monkeys contract polio nasally rather than orally, this "triumph" only postponed the development of an effective vaccine for decades. Incredibly, the scientists working on the vaccine chose to ignore the human digestive data in favour of the monkey data!

- It is true that a "vaccine" was derived from animal experimentation. But manufactured from monkey tissue, this "cure" resulted in six human deaths and 12 cases of paralysis.

- nearly 30 years earlier.
Sabin later denounced the monkey model blunder:
"... prevention was long delayed by the erroneous conception of the nature of the human disease based on misleading experimental models of the disease in monkeys."

- Containing the live virus, the animal-based vaccine infected 204 people with polio and resulted in 11 documented deaths. It also resulted in at least one virus (SV4O) jumping the species barrier and infecting humans.
Because of that, the polio vaccine is now grown in human diploid-cell culture rather than animal tissue.

Full Article Here: http://www.safermedicines.org/faqs/faq06.shtml

Vivisection - Lethal Science - A Vicious Circle

Vivisection - Lethal Science

Please Sign the following Petitions & share.

Thank you!

https://www.causes.com/actions/1730752-urgent-action-stop-uow-torturing-cats-in-their-laboratories

https://www.causes.com/actions/1730339-urgent-stop-uow-maternal-deprivation-tests-using-baby-monkeys