Animals & Environment » Pets & Animals

Help animals in India

admin — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:38:13 +0000

Rahat for Animals in India

Many people believe that cows are sacred in Indiathat they spend their days lying in the sun and grazing on grass, worshipped by everyone around them. But if you take a closer look at the lives of draught cattle in India, you’ll see a very different reality.

Throughout India, thousands of bullocks, ponies, horses, and donkeys are treated as taxi cabs, forced to cart passengers around and pull overloaded, poorly balanced carts for miles in the sweltering heat. Many suffer from muscle strain and painful sores. The ill-fitting yokes they are forced to wear leave wounds that can lead to cancer and infection. The animals are disturbingly thin and dehydrated because they are not given enough food or water. They become lethargic and depressed; their eyes are sad and hopeless.

But there is hope for these animals. In 2003, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) established the Animal Rahat (“rahat” is the Hindi word for “relief”) program to alleviate the suffering of working animals in India.

The seven-person Animal Rahat staff educates the locals about basic animal welfare measures; they teach them the importance of providing animals with a nutritious diet and reducing and balancing the animals’ loads. Because of Animal Rahat, a growing number of people are moving away from practices that hurt animals. Fewer people now leave bullocks out in extreme heat or unprotected through the wet, rainy seasons, and, as a result, fewer animals are suffering from heat stress, cough, and pneumonia.

Animal Rahat employees have also installed concrete water tanks in and around the main town of Sangli and the nearby town of Miraj to provide water to thirsty, overheated animals. They’ve designed simple, portable shade screens that can be attached to individual carts and used as a shelter against the sun. The screens can also be used as blankets for the bullocks in the cold winter months.

In addition, Animal Rahat has developed a “stress kit” containing supplements and multivitamins to help the animals handle exhausting journeys. To date, Animal Rahat veterinarians have inoculated more than 800 bullocks against foot-and-mouth disease and vaccinated more than 800 horses and 300 donkeys against tetanus.

The Animal Rahat program pays the animals’ impoverished “owners” to rest the animals while still being able to feed their families. Owners receive a small subsidy for allowing animals who are too sick, injured, or old to work

Everything you need to know about animal rights

admin — Thu, 30 Sep 2010 14:50:18 +0000

The Basic Tenets of Animal Rights

Animal Rights is based on a philosophy that says animals have certain basic needs and have the right to fulfill these needs. It also says that animals have the right to live their lives without being exploited by humans.

Background

PETA’s interpretation is “animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on, or use for entertainment”. Or as Alice Walker put it “The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men.”

Many people misunderstand the concept of animal rights and think it means animals should be given the right to vote, etc. Of course this isn’t true and besides they would make terrible voters because they would always vote for the person that promised the most food. And you can just imagine the condition of the voting booth when they were finished.

The arguments for animal’s rights include scientific data that shows that most animals:

* Are sentient (have self awareness)

* Feel pain

* Experience loneliness

* Feel happiness

* Get bored

* Show mental anguish when deprived of certain freedoms

The perception of suffering plays a very large role in Animal Rights issues. Rather than getting bogged down in discussions regarding what Animal Right supporters are guilty of in the eyes of critics, the focus more often is on the damage done by man’s inhumanity to animals and other humans. Rejecting the ideas of the Middle Ages that animals are simply machines made of organic parts, the focus of Animal Rights philosophy is:

The question is not, “Can they reason?” nor, “Can they talk?” but rather, “Can they suffer?”

Speciesism is a term used in animal rights philosophy. It means that humans believe that their species is more important than any other species on earth and that human needs and wants should be met regardless of the suffering and pain it causes other species, even to the point of endangering a species’ existence. This form of bias results not only in suffering and abuse, but in very real ways threatens the survival of the environment.

Resolution

Once you start questioning the way our world uses animals it is difficult not to see suffering all around you. Animal suffering and exploitation cover a broad spectrum of venues including entertainment, fur, hunting, experimentation, pets and vegetarianism.

There are many groups in the United States and elsewhere in the world that have taken on the daunting task of educating people to their cause including PETA – People for The Ethical Treatment of Animals, In Defense of Animals, FARM – Farm Animal Reform Movement, HSUS – Humane Society of the United States, Friends of Animals, PAWS – Performing Animal Welfare Society, NAVS – National Anti-Vivisection Society, NEAVS – New England Anti-Vivisection Society.

Animal Rights advocates feel that AR ultimately relates to the basic questions of humanity; for what is done to animals reflects the character of a society. Abuse and inflicting suffering may begin with animals, but always finds it’s way into mistreatment of humans in the society that condones it.

For more detailed discussions see

animalsandsociety.org

To examine the finer ponts of AR Philsophy

http://articles.animalconcerns .org/ar-voices/archive/case_fo r_ar.htmlis a great resource.

The case for animal testing

admin — Sat, 04 Sep 2010 19:01:46 +0000

There are many reasons why animals are used in testing, whether this is for scientific or psychological research. It can be argued that humans and animals have sufficient amounts of their physiology and evolutionary past in common that conclusions from animal research can be applied to humans.

Since 1822 there have been legal constraints on the use of animals in experiments. Of course laws are getting more stringent all the time, especially in the UK. In the UK the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act (1986) must be adhered to. Laboratories must have an institutional licence (institutions are inspected very regularly), each research project must have a project licence, and all researchers must have a personal licence.

Licences are only granted under the following circumstances:

When the potential results are important enough to justify

When minimum numbers of animals will be used

When any discomfort/suffering will be kept to the absolute minimum (it is important to remember that a lot of testing doesn’t actually involve any suffering!)

In psychological research there are also ethical constraints on research using non-human animals. The British Psychological Society (BPS) have guidelines in place which psychologists must adhere to. While it is acknowledged that there are sometimes alternatives to animal testing (and that new methods are being developed all the time), in some cases, despite the ethical and moral issues involved with animal testing, there is no feasible alternative.

The scientific arguments for animal testing are obvious. Animal research has been the major contributor to our knowledge of basic learning processes and motivational systems. Animal testing has also contributed to our understanding of drug abuse and physical dependence. However, most importantly, animal testing has been used for developing medications and vaccinations for numerous medical conditions. Animal testing has particularly been used in the development of psychiatric medication, and is currently being used to develop treatments for Alzheimer’s research which just can’t be carried out on humans. Of course it can be argued that any animal testing is wrong (after all the animal does not give consent, or have a say in the matter). However, at the end of the day I am sure I’m not alone in thinking that I’d rather see some rats being tested on, than my mother with Alzheimer’s.

It can be argued that since research must conform to the laws, that animals are protected. Thankfully unnecessary animal testing for cosmetic purposes has decreased dramatically, and it’s probably hard to find anyone who would agree with making an animal suffer for the sake of a mascara. However, until alternatives to animal testing have been developed, animals so still need to be tested upon in certain cases. After all, most of us will have benefited from the advances in medical technology which have occurred in part as a result of animal testing.

I am not saying that animal testing is right, in fact I have also written an article against animal testing. However, it really is a complicated subject, and a simple “Yes it’s right”, or “No it’s wrong” is just not possible!

Can you be an animal liberation activist without being vegan?

admin — Fri, 20 Aug 2010 05:34:48 +0000

The official word appears to be that its not a requirement to be a vegan in in order to be active in animal rights/animal liberation causes. However, veganism is the only way to comply fully with the animal liberation philosophy.

Animal liberation has as one of its goals the abolishment of any use of animals or animal byproducts. Activists for animal liberation, ideally espouse the goals and philosophy of animal liberation.

The philosophy of animal liberation does not lie in the treatment of animals but in the use of animals by all humans. That means that animal liberation is against eating the flesh of animals, consuming dairy products or wearing animal skins or fur.

The extreme view in animal liberation is that animals should be elevated to the status of “legal persons” and to misunderstand this philosophy is dangerous to those who simply want to participate in better treatment of animals.

Animal liberation groups do indeed participate in better treatment of animals by promoting or funding some branches of animal welfare and perhaps that is where the lines get blurred for animal lovers.

However, if you wish to grasp the ideals of animal liberation, you should read a book referred to as the “bible” of animal rights. The book was published in 1975, written by Peter Singer and entitled, Animal Liberation.

http://vegan.org

http://www.catholiceducation.o rg

The problem of animal cruelty

admin — Sat, 01 May 2010 02:51:09 +0000

Animal Rights = Human Rights

Treat your best friend the way you want to be treated. Animals provide humans with comfort, love, protection, and even food. 160 years ago the first animal welfare organization was formed in England where the belief to protect animals from cruelty was strong. There are many animal welfare organizations today including People for the Ethnical Treatment of Animals (PETA), the Humane Society, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), and the North American Vegetarian Society (NAVS). Human beings need to accept that animals should be treated equally and with respect. Laws protecting animals should be enforced.

Some people think that animals are not important enough to spend the money to protect them and their wellbeing. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is a law that helps keep animals out of the line of animal cruelty and unnecessary testing (Shives 1). Animals are just as equal as human beings are. The ASPCA is a special organization for animal law enforcement so the police can deal with human issues. This gives them the excuse to say that policemen need to focus on more important things like theft and murder.

/>More than 95% of animals that are killed die for meat. That equals 5 billion a year just in the U.S.(Eyck,136). Animals covered under the animal welfare act include, “Dogs, cats, apes, monkeys, lemurs, rabbits, hamsters, and guinea pigs.(Bloyd,34). Exactly a year later Martin tried to pass his law again, this time with more specifications. The bill states that “want-only and cruelly beat, abuse, of ill-treat any horse, mule, ass, ox, cow, heifer, steer, sheep, or other cattle.” That belonged to some one else would be illegal. Martins bill became law in 1822.(Bloyd,24). Animals caught in the traps for defurring are called the non-target species (ex. Cats, dogs), (unknown,1).

Many people believe that animals are similar to humans in many ways and that is said to be the reason they use them for medical testing.(Bloyd, 35) Richard Martin was laughed at when he suggested that there be a law forbidding the mistreatment of horses.

As a member of the parliament, Richard Martin was given the nickname of “Humanity”, for proposing a law that forbid the mistreatment of horses. Other members of parliament thought martin was joking and just ignored him.(Bloyd,24). Almost 3.5 million furred animals are catched each year in the U.S.(Unknown,1).

Another cruel action against animals is laboratory testing.

The case against animal testing

admin — Fri, 02 Apr 2010 12:37:53 +0000

There has been a long tradition of animal testing for scientific (especially medical) and psychological research. I have already written an article about the case for animal testing in order to give a more balanced view of what has become a highly emotive subject. The arguments for and against animal testing are highly complex, and it is not a simple question of it being right or wrong, and it is important to point out that no matter what our views are, most (if not all) of us will have benefited from animal testing in one way or another. In this article I will look at some of the arguments against animal testing.

Although there are laws which must be followed before and during carrying out tests involving animals, in the past the use of animals has been much less strictly moderated. Some of the research carried out has been nothing short of barbaric (for instance Harlow’s research with rhesus monkeys), and some of the conditions that animals have been kept in are just appalling. Luckily in the UK, laws are relatively strict (more so than in many other countries), and luckily animal testing for cosmetic purposes is no longer common. However, despite these laws, there is still animal testing going on which causes suffering to animals.

One of the main arguments against the use of animals in research is that animal studies can’t actually confirm or refute hypotheses about human physiology or pathology. In straightforward terms, it can be argued that only research done with humans is relevant to humans. Luckily, alternatives to animal testing are gradually being developed (for instance PET scans on human brains). Hopefully in time these alternatives will lead to the eradication of animal testing.

Animal testing generally occurs as a result of developing a cost-benefit model. Basically, if the benefit of the research (to humans) looks high, then it is seen as being worth the costs (to animals). For instance it is seen that if animal research is likely to save the lives of many humans that it is worthwhile. However, it can be argued that all sentient beings have the same rights, and that costs to animals are as important as costs to humans. There is no moral basis for elevating the interests of one species over another this is specieism.

In science animals seem to be seen as renewable resources’ rather than as organisms of value. This violates the principal of respect for all species. No matter what our views on animal testing are, it is without a doubt that all animals deserve respect. With any research it is not possible beforehand to predict that the research will actually benefit anyone, so there is a risk that the test will be totally unnecessary.

An article of this length cannot possibly address all of the arguments against animal testing. The whole subject is extremely complex, and it is certainly not a case of being able to say “animal testing is right” or “Animal testing is wrong” that would be ignorant. However, it is clear that there has been unacceptable testing on animals carried out, and that animals do have a right not to suffer as some testing has made them.

An introduction to animal law in the UK

admin — Wed, 20 Jan 2010 10:36:28 +0000

Animal law in the UK is laid down in Acts of Parliament, in European Union Directives, and in case laws that set a legal precedent until overturned by subsequent rulings. The recent Animal Welfare Act of 2006 was the first major piece of legislation dealing with animal welfare in UK for almost 100 years. This Act covers the duty of care for non farmed animals, and gives greater powers to animal welfare groups to take action to prevent abuse, neglect and cruelty to “companion” animals.

In 1998 the European Union Council set down a directive governing the minimum standards to be maintained for all animals kept for food, wool, skin or fur or for other farming purposes, including fish, reptiles of amphibians. This directive, laid down by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, set out ‘Five Freedoms’ for animals: freedom from hunger and thirst; from discomfort; from pain, injury and disease; from fear and distress; freedom to express normal behavior.

In 2004 the Hunting Act was introduced, amidst much controversy, making the traditional use of dogs for fox hunting (and hare coursing) illegal. This Act has been widely rejected by a great number of country dwellers, who have continued to hold hunts in protest at the Act.

Protests and pressure groups form an important function in UK, helping to sway public opinion. They also aim to influence elected members of parliament who are required to vote on new Acts of Parliament before they are finally passed as law. Animal activists have, for the most part, failed to achieve public sympathy for their stance on animal research and the fur trade. They have been held responsible for many acts of aggression against research laboratories, fur farms and small-animal breeding farms, and, I believe, have lost the sympathy of the general public.

The current legislation focuses almost entirely on animal welfare for domesticated and “kept” animals. There is little provision for animal rights in experimentation conducted by the cosmetic and perfume industries, and in preventing unnecessary and cruel medical research. Until these areas are successfully tackled through legislation the UK cannot truly stand by it’s claim to be a “nation of animal lovers”.

Reference: Major Legislation in UK

Animal Welfare Act 2006

Welfare of Animals (Transport) Order 2006

Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or killing) Regulations 1995

The Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925

The Pet Animals Act 1951

Animal Boarding Establishments Act 1963

Riding Establishments Act 1964 and 1970

The Breeding of Dogs Act 1973, The Breeding of Dogs Act 1991 and the Breeding and Sale of Dogs (Welfare) Act 1999

Farriers (Registration) Act 1975 and the Farriers (Registration) (Amendment) Act 1977

EU Directive 98/58/EC (regulations on protection of animals kept for farming purposes)