Animal Rights

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by DR_EVIL_ACTUALLY, Oct 9, 2002.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TheScarletBanner Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 19, 2002
    star 4
    Since I was a little girl, my dad drilled into me that you only shot to kill, if you do not have the shot, you do not take it.

    I wish all hunters were so responsible. :)

    I don't get to hunt much now with a nine month baby.

    Congratulations. :)

    We rarely ever buy beef and the main red meat in our diet is venison, which a lean meat. After eating so much venison I really can not stand how fatty beef is. We save probably eight hundred a year on our grocery bill, because of hunting and a freezer full of venison.

    I generally support hunting for the same reasons. There is, if you're a decent hunter, less chance of hurting the animal unnecessarily; it isn't kept in poor conditions; it's a lot cheaper; and generally, the meat is a lot better.

    Since we wiped out the wolves in Wisconsin (we have probably 200 wolves now with reintroduction) we wiped out the deers natural preditor. We have the responsiblity to control the deer population and hunters are vital to that.

    Wouldn't it have been better to cull them back to a controllable number, or, even better, made an effort to relocate them, no matter how much it cost in time/effort? I mean, wiping out so many innocent animals because they are not native, and they happen to prey on something that is, just doesn't strike me as right.

    how far will you go?

    If it's just me we're talking about, I'd go out of my way to make sure I'd got a product that wasn't explicitly tested on animals. I wouldn't forgo vaccinations or medical treatment, however. For the sake of a future family, I'd do pretty much the same. Their health is much more important, to me.

    - Scarlet.
  2. JediTre11 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 25, 2001
    star 4
    Ok so I've never shot an animal, period. I've never even held a gun. I'm not however against hunting. But please someone tell me where the sport is? Is it in getting close enough? Is it the fact that you can hit the target?

    I can't see using a rifle that is designed to kill at 1500 yards or more as a sport. Even getting within 200 yards of an animal isn't that difficult. To me a sport is when the animal has a chance, one besides just running away. Bow hunting seems to be a little more sporting as the projectile doesn't travel the speed of sound or more. Is there a type of hunting that just uses a knife, and nothing else? I could see the sport in that because the risk is mutual and equal for both parties involved.

    Has anyone ever tried outdoor paintball? Now thats a sport. Its the closest thing to combat a civilian will ever see (hopefully).

    As for heat from DEA, this isn't really on the topic, so I wouldn't expect much.

    DP, I agree with you about over-population being the basic problem of starvation. I also think that this is where DEA will object to your post.

    How do hunters feel about wolf reintroduction anyway? This might actually be better in its own thread.
  3. DR_EVIL_ACTUALLY Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 9, 2002
    star 1
    Here we go. Hunting.

    Saving money on groceries???

    After considering license fees, equipment, food, lodging, and transportation, deer hunters spend, on average, more than $20 per pound of deer meat. Of course, this assumes that each deer killed was preserved and eaten, which we know is false. Many deer are never recovered and some are intentionally left in the wild.

    Conservation.

    Wildlife always has and always will regulate it's own populations. No human intervention is required. It is human intervention that created this conservation mess.

    Here is the kicker that hunters don't like to tell you. Hunting contributes to herd growth. When the deer population is reduced, the remaining animals respond by having more offspring. These offspring now have an abundance of food due to the reduction in population and the lessened competition for food and habitat.

    If population control was really the goal, hunters would only shoot does, considering that one Buck can impregnate multiple does. If only does had antlers.

    Unlike natural predators in the wild, hunters do not target the weaker individuals of a species. It is now not uncommon to find herds of deer that have no bucks over the age of three.

    Doesn't it seem odd that the states that report the heaviest hunting also report that they are experiencing higher deer densities then ever before?

    Doesn't it also seem odd that animals such as doves, racoons, bears, ducks, cougars, qails, turkeys, pheasants, squirrels, and rabbits continue to be hunted despite the fact that they are not overpopulated?

    I find this argument levied by hunters to be primarily self serving as they use conservation as a shroud. I am glad to know that hunters are having a very hard time in gathering new, young members to continue the "sport". By the way, sports usually employ competition. Hunting does not in most cases. It's man, with a few potent unfair advantages against the helpless, unknowing animal. Eight year olds can do it. Would you consider it fun to play soccer against a man with his shoes tied together?

  4. DR_EVIL_ACTUALLY Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 9, 2002
    star 1
    JediTre11,

    If you would like to speak about reintroducing predatory species into the wild, you may. It certainly relates to conservation and animal rights.
  5. JediTre11 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 25, 2001
    star 4
    Would you consider it fun to play soccer against a man with his shoes tied together?

    For the sake of soccer no, for the sake of hilarity, absolutly! Esspecially if he didn't know they were tied together.
  6. Darth-Protius Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2002
    star 3
    After considering license fees, equipment, food, lodging, and transportation, deer hunters spend, on average, more than $20 per pound of deer meat. Of course, this assumes that each deer killed was preserved and eaten, which we know is false. Many deer are never recovered and some are intentionally left in the wild.

    I never, NEVER said that all hunters were 100% resonsible, did I?

    I remember saying that yes, there were irresponsible hunters that killed, and allowed the carcass to go to waste, preferring to take the head and the cape.

    And although I am agaist shameless killing, even if the carcass was left in the woods, scavangers such as fox, coyote, badger and others would eat the carcass, wouldn't they?

    And as for food and loging, I, along with other hunters, (again, not all) hunt Private land, and as soon as the deer is processed, we eat some, and the rest goes right into the frezzer, to be eaten at another time.

    Where I hunt is only roughly about ten miles from where I live, and is a relative, so where is my lodging fee? Yes, I spend money on gas, but the last time I checked, that had nothing to do with animal rights.

    And yes, for my tag and licence, i spend roughly around fifty dollars, but that goes right back into the DNR's pocket for wildlife and land management, so where is the waste?

    And as for equipment, I already have all my equipment, my gun, clothing, ammuniton, etc. So where excatly am I spending money there.

    Unlike natural predators in the wild, hunters do not target the weaker individuals of a species. It is now not uncommon to find herds of deer that have no bucks over the age of three.

    Obviouslly, as a non-hunter you have no actual Idea about deer activity, or their insticts in general.

    Mature bucks that have lived through several seasons are harder to spot, and find in the wild. They know the terrian quite well, know the smell of a human well, and know where we hunt, and that is seems there are no mature bucks in a herd. They are there, they are just harder to find.

    And as for targeting the weaker members of the herd, im sorry, but I find it pretty sad to blast a lame deer, or a doe, or even blast bambi for that matter. Id rather have nature take its course and it will.

    Here is the kicker that hunters don't like to tell you. Hunting contributes to herd growth. When the deer population is reduced, the remaining animals respond by having more offspring. These offspring now have an abundance of food due to the reduction in population and the lessened competition for food and habitat

    You forgot to take into account that harsh weather conditions, and natural preators may also contribute to population control. the rut is generally right before fall, so fawns have to live out their first few months of life during the very late fall, and through the winter. And no matter how hard the doe may try to protect her offspring, they do frequently die, espically if the winter is harsh, and food is scarce.

    And no matter how many does or bucks we take, there are probally at least a dozen or more to take its place by the next year. No matter how hard we try, deer are going to populate. the meager ammount we take during the hunt pales into comparison to what we do not take. And sometimes, we do not take anyting.

    Doesn't it also seem odd that animals such as doves, racoons, bears, ducks, cougars, qails, turkeys, pheasants, squirrels, and rabbits continue to be hunted despite the fact that they are not overpopulated?


    I really hate to tell you this, but some of those species are protected. Here in Iowa, it is illegal to hunt quail, and certian kinds of water foul are protected, and there are certian zones you can and cannot hunt.

    And as for squirrel and rabbit, they are everywhere, and nowhere near extiction.

    And the pheasant population, they suffer greatly in the winter here in the midwest if the winter is harsh, and if not they are all over the place. Ive actually hit a few with my truck, and had to replac
  7. Darth-Protius Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2002
    star 3
  8. DR_EVIL_ACTUALLY Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 9, 2002
    star 1
    I never, NEVER said that all hunters were 100% resonsible, did I?

    And neither did I.

    Obviouslly, as a non-hunter you have no actual Idea about deer activity, or their insticts in general.

    Mature bucks that have lived through several seasons are harder to spot, and find in the wild. They know the terrian quite well, know the smell of a human well, and know where we hunt, and that is seems there are no mature bucks in a herd. They are there, they are just harder to find.

    And as for targeting the weaker members of the herd, im sorry, but I find it pretty sad to blast a lame deer, or a doe, or even blast bambi for that matter. Id rather have nature take its course and it will.


    So, let me get this straight. Mature Bucks are hard to find yet mature Doe are not? Huge hole in this logic. The males of the species are somehow more sneaky and cunning and manage to hide, while the femals just stand in the open? No, Bucks are declining. Why else are hunting organizations utilizing feed on hunting grounds in order to attempt to develop mature males faster?

    I believe you completely missed my point. The point was that you cannot claim conservation if the only members of the species in which you hunt are the one that will least effect the the conservation of the species itself, adult males. If you truly wanted to control the population, you would only hunt females.

    Which group of deer can produce the most offsring, a group that contains one male and 4 female or the group that contains 4 males and 1 female? Easy math.

    Not to mention that by killing only healthy adult males that have survived you employ the reverse of "The survival of the fittest" by allowing the weak and small to survive.

    "You forgot to take into account that harsh weather conditions, and natural preators may also contribute to population control. the rut is generally right before fall, so fawns have to live out their first few months of life during the very late fall, and through the winter. And no matter how hard the doe may try to protect her offspring, they do frequently die, espically if the winter is harsh, and food is scarce.

    And no matter how many does or bucks we take, there are probally at least a dozen or more to take its place by the next year. No matter how hard we try, deer are going to populate. the meager ammount we take during the hunt pales into comparison to what we do not take. And sometimes, we do not take anyting."


    Again, you may be missing my point. Hunters claim that if left alone, deer would populate to unsafe levels. How does the weather factor into their proclamation?

    In any case, all animals control their own population and are regulated by habitat and food. No hunting needed. In fact, as per my examples earlier, in most cases the deer population soares when hunting methods are employed as a measure to control the population. In areas where humans do not intervene, no problems arise. Funny how that works.

    And you dont see me out with a shotgun standing on a street corner passing out flyers while im eating a raw squirrel do you?

    Well, if you are unaware the hunting community is rapidly dwindling. Now, they have resorted to attempting to recruit young children. Even the NRA is funding various campaigns around the country to try to spark a resurgence in the hunting community. No, they are not standing on the corner with a shotgun, but they are there.

    Look, if you want to be a hunter, then so be it. That is your choice to make. Just don't try to label the "sport" as conservation, because clearly it is not.
  9. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    I personally believe that we have a right to hunt. No-one can deny that humans have been hunters for many thousands if not millions of years.

    Rifles are tools used for hunting, just like bows, knives, spears, nets and line. As long as it is done responsibly then no-one should be able to dispute it.
  10. chibiangi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 16, 2002
    star 4

    Animal rights campaign compares murdered women to meat




    Last Updated Wed, 13 Nov 2002 16:17:24
    VANCOUVER - A new ad campaign by an animal rights group compares the murder of women on a B.C. pig farm to the treatment of animals killed for food.

    People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) says the full-page ad is a legitimate campaign, but the families of the murdered women say it's disgusting.
    The Vancouver Province was to have run the ad Wednesday, but decided to pull it.

    The ad featured a series of headlines describing the B.C. murder victims, who were drugged and slaughtered, their heads sawed off and their body parts refrigerated.

    It doesn't refer specifically to accused killer Robert Pickton, but the allusions to the case are clear, referring to unconfirmed reports of body parts being found on Pickton's pig farm.

    PETA says the comparison is justified.

    "The grotesque tragedy of these poor women is similar to what happens to chickens, pigs and other animals every day," said Bruce Friedrich of PETA.

    PETA issued a news release saying, "People who are appalled by Pickton's alleged acts think nothing of sitting down to a dinner featuring the cut-up bits of a tormented animal's body."

    The ad ends with the words "If this leaves a bad taste in your mouth ? become a vegetarian."

    Jack Cummer, the grandfather of Andrea Joesbury, one of the women Pickton is accused of killing, says he's horrified by the ad.

    "That is the most disgusting thing I've heard in my whole life," he said.

    The families of the victims say PETA is exploiting the tragedy to further its cause.

    "It's unethical in and of itself. It angers me, but it also saddens me," said Ernie Cray, whose sister Dawn has been missing for two years.



    Written by CBC News Online staff



    Nope, not fanatical at all...


  11. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    DEA, you're wrong about hunting females for population control for one simple reason, the large bucks are dominant and keep more than one female as their own. Ever heard of a harem? :D


    DEA: "The point was that you cannot claim conservation if the only members of the species in which you hunt are the one that will least effect the the conservation of the species itself, adult males."

    BTW, does are hunted. ;)
  12. Darth-Protius Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2002
    star 3
    So, let me get this straight. Mature Bucks are hard to find yet mature Doe are not? Huge hole in this logic. The males of the species are somehow more sneaky and cunning and manage to hide, while the females just stand in the open? No, Bucks are declining.

    The mature male buck is far more attrictive to shoot due to its antlers or "rack". As thus, they are under far more pressure than females are. And as such, they develop skills that enable them to survive. Such as only moving at night, and staying away from known hunting areas.

    As you know, or maybe you dont, a deers nose is 1000 times stronger than a humans, and they can smell us a mile away, literally.

    Granted, the buck harvest each year is causing them to dwindle somewhat, but you would be surprised how many older mature bucks are left in the woods.

    I wont disagree with you that does also need to be harvested, but with the buck being more attractive to kill, this will not happen until possibly the last day of the season, when desperation sets in.

    There needs to be a doe only season in some states, in additon to the general open season.

    Again, you may be missing my point. Hunters claim that if left alone, deer would populate to unsafe levels. How does the weather factor into their proclamation?

    Im simply trying to state that there are other things out there, like the weather, that may contribute to the deer population. Hunters are not the only things that can kill deer, and if the weather is inclimate, many deer could possibly be lost, and affect the population greatly.

    And yes, I am aware that our numbers are dwindleing, but alot of that can be attributed to misinformation being spread that hunting is "evil", and therefore being a hunter is evil.

    The NRA is trying to counter the negative effects the "popular" media is having on hunting, by teaching that hunting is nothing to be ashamed of.

    Unlike PETA, we are not semi terroists that attack innocent people. We simply state that if you want to hunt, we're here for you. And if you don't, that's fine too, just please try to show a little respect for our lifestyle and choices, after all, we dont judge vegans, we generally leave them alone.

    And we only ask the same in return.

    And while we are on the subject, Dr. Evil, do you disagree with the killing of deer and other game animals infected with chronic wasting disease to halt its spread and possibly save thousands of animals, or is that wrong too?


  13. DR_EVIL_ACTUALLY Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 9, 2002
    star 1
    "Unlike PETA, we are not semi terroists that attack innocent people. We simply state that if you want to hunt, we're here for you. And if you don't, that's fine too, just please try to show a little respect for our lifestyle and choices, after all, we dont judge vegans, we generally leave them alone.

    And we only ask the same in return.

    And while we are on the subject, Dr. Evil, do you disagree with the killing of deer and other game animals infected with chronic wasting disease to halt its spread and possibly save thousands of animals, or is that wrong too?"


    I think the wording you used "terrorist" and "attack" are way over the top. PETA is in no way a terrorist organization, semi, psuedo, quasi, or otherwise. Maybe you don't like there "in-your-face" tactics, but they don't harm anyone, nor is that there intention.

    I haven't treated you in a disrespectful manner. If you don't wish to have your ideals challenged on the subject of hunting, then why did you participate in a thread entitled "Animal Rights" and actually refer to me by name in a post? Did you expect me not to respond? If you don't wish to be engaged in a respectful discussion concerning animal rights (which includes hunting) the may I suggest that this thread may not be the best place to post. I am not in any way telling you to leave. I enjoy intelligent discussion on the matter.

    As far as killing an animal to save the masses, I am afraid that I would need to be further educated on the particular matter you referenced in order to make a proper decision. That being said, if it were for the greater good of the animals in question and they were suffering, than it would be no different the euthanizing a sick pet, though I fear that not all animals killed by hunters are killed as cleanly as they are by your hand.

    I have a question for you as a follow up to that one. It raises an interesting point of discussion. Would it also be suitable to kill a human to keep a disease from spreading to millions of other humans?
  14. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    Kill, no. Quarrantine, yes.

    DEA, do you believe hunting is a violation of animal "rights"?
  15. Darth-Protius Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 2, 2002
    star 3
    LOL! I didnt mean to come off sounding like I was angry at you Dr. Evil. I was just saying that all hunters, me included, like to be shown repect in the OUTSIDE world. I belive that you have been more than fair and respectful to me, and I am enjoying this converstaion greatly, even if we are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

    It is good, after all that opposing sides meet and discuss their differences in a civilized manner. It is far better than going to war, and killing each other.

    PETA has attacked someone before. And it was here in the state of Iowa in fact.

    At our annual state fair in August, a few years ago, PETA attacked the (dont laugh) Pork Princess, throwing raw pork at her and calling her a murderer.

    She was just an innocent teenage girl, whom to my knolege was competeing for the prize, which to the best of my memory, was a partial college scholarship.

    To answer your question about CWS, Here you go, its from the Texas park and wildlife website


    What is Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD)?
    CWD is an untreatable, fatal neurological (brain and nervous system) disease found in deer and elk in certain geographical locations in North America. The disease belongs to a family of diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) or prion diseases. The disease attacks the brain and neural tissue of infected deer and elk. While CWD is similar to mad-cow disease in cattle and scrapie in sheep, there is no known relationship between CWD and any other TSE of animals or people.


    I can get you more information if you like, or give you the web address if you prefer.

    And to answer your question, it depends on what kind of disease it was. If it was some horrific kind of plauge with no hope of being treated or cured, and the person was suffering tremedously, than yes, if the person chose death. If they wanted to live, then quarrantine them, like Uruk-hi suggested. But assisted suicide is worthy of another thread I think.



  16. DR_EVIL_ACTUALLY Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 9, 2002
    star 1
    Well, I was merely attempting to provoke a little thought on the issue of forced death as a means of compassion. Some people feel that mercy killings should be afforded those that suffer without hope, such as cancer or AIDS infected people.

    Does hunting violate animal rights? Well, considering that there is no established rights afforded to animals, the answer is no. Are you asking me if I feel that hunting another animal merely for recreation is against my moral stance then the answer is yes. I certainly think that hunting for food is much more of a humane practice than the blight that is factory farming, but used soley as a recreation I find hunting to be troubling. Taking delight at the weilding of superiority over another being and taking that to its ultimate end, death, seems to me to be indicative of negative emotion. Personally, I choose not to coddle my desire to commit violence as I would hope the vast majority of others would also refrain from expressing these types of emotions whether they be aimed at an animal or a human.

    Shortly, a man is going to be sentenced in a Kansas City court for the killing of his family pet, Dusty. The dog bit the man's child while he was left unattended (both the dog and the child) and this person proceeded to beat the dog to death for a three hour duration. He used a baseball bat and a sledgehammer and even paused during the beating for a beer break. Mind you this was not in a heat of passion as he waited until the next day after he returned from work to dole out his anger on the dog. His family has had dogs that died in their possession prior to this incident.

    Couldn't this man just say that he wanted to see how tough his dog was? That he was engaging in a sport that didn't bring harm to any other being except the dog? Couldn't he even have cooked the dog's flesh and made a meal of it? Why is he prosecuted, yet hunters afforded rights to kill animals? No one would think of bringing charges against a sportsman for killing a deer or a bear, etc. Killing is killing, regardless of the species of animal is it not?

    If you are wondering, the man resides in Saint Louis, but was granted a venue change when the judge determined that he was not going to be able to received a fair trial as the community was up in arms. After their rallies and protests they all went back to their homes to settle in and most likely to devour flesh from an animal that was just as intelligent and just as deserving of life as Dusty. It is quite possible that the man involved will do little to no jail time and he will be allowed to continue his normal daily life.

    Why does Dusty matter? Why does his life receive value while the animals that give us life, something Dusty will never do, are deemed worthy of not even an afterthought.

    66 Billion Cattle, Pigs, Sheep, and Poultry were slaughtered in the United States in 2001.

    180,000,000 per day

    7,500,000 per hour

    125,000 per minute

    2,000 Dusty's every second. For each heart beat another 2000 will die in the good old USA, but no judges will hear their plea, no communities will rally, and no newspaper will ever run their story.







    />
  17. MarvinTheMartian Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Mar 31, 2002
    star 5
    Well, we need to eat something don't we??

    I love animals.

    They taste so dammed good!!!! :p :p
  18. Uruk-hai Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Oct 26, 2000
    star 5
    I wonder if eating animal crackers is against the vegan ethic?
  19. DR_EVIL_ACTUALLY Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 9, 2002
    star 1
    "I wonder if eating animal crackers is against the vegan ethic?"

    At the very least, a Vegan has and stands by his or her ethics. That is much more than can be said for the vast majority of the wishy-washy moral stance that is held by meat-eaters.

  20. Jedi_Master_Mom Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    May 29, 2002
    star 2
    Last year we figured out how much money we saved with venison and even when we factored in what we bought for hunting last year, we saved 500 hundred not buying beef.

    We will probably always disagree weather hunting is a sport. But here is why I it is:

    knowledge: You need to learn the type of habitat your game lives in. How they spend there day. You need to learn what calls work and when they work. You need to know how your gun or bow works, how it fires, learn to aim and shoot a target. All hunters are required to take a hunters education and safety class. My dad is 52,, has been hunting since he was 12 and the dnr make him take the class last year.

    endurance: You need to be able to navigate rough terrain, carry your equipment and if you are a bow hunter, be able to pull back enough weight to kill a deer(I'm a weakly and can't)

    What happened to Dusty was horrible and the jerk belongs in jail.

    In WI hunters are not dwindling...we have more hunters then the national average.

    Wolves were wiped out of WI early last century and the DNR has been reintroducing them.
  21. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    "At the very least, a Vegan has and stands by his or her ethics. That is much more than can be said for the vast majority of the wishy-washy moral stance that is held by meat-eaters."

    Ah yes, black and white, all or nothing extremeism is so much fun. Let's party!

    Oh wait, I forgot, the world sucks. Nevermind.


    :p
  22. DR_EVIL_ACTUALLY Jedi Knight

    Member Since:
    Oct 9, 2002
    star 1
    "Ah yes, black and white, all or nothing extremeism is so much fun."

    Extremism? Hardly. I stick to my guns, nothing black or white about it. I don't pretend that my morals can be bent or swayed to suit my selfish purposes and yest still be called morals.

  23. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Vegans just make me laugh.

    Human beings are naturally omnivorous.

    ...and I don't give a crap how they kill the cow or chicken before it ends up on my plate (as long as they kill it without torturing it - slitting of throats is fine with me or bonking on the head). [face_laugh]

    As far as fur is concerned, if the animals are farm raised, fine, but I really think fur looks tacky anyway.

    And as far as animal testing is concerned, I don't have a problem with it - especially medical therapies that will benefit humans.
  24. ShaneP Ex-Mod Officio

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Unless you're an Eskimo or live in Siberia, fur does look silly.
  25. Falcon Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 7, 2002
    star 8
    And as far as animal testing is concerned, I don't have a problem with it - especially medical therapies that will benefit humans.

    I agree with this particular statement, but I am also aware that the type of animal testing I am against is testing products on the animal's eyes which in my opinion should never happen, it is cruel. My sister worked for the body shop at the mall last year, and she learned that there is still testing like this even though it says they don't on the bottle. Apparently that's why the prices are higher with certain products.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.