I only believe in animal welfare, but animals do have rights too even if they are not the same as ours, i.e. Voting.

They have the right to have a decent life, even if they are bred for food, so that means to me that even like say a chicken, should be able to spread its wings, can peak at the ground can walk without always bumping into other chickens and always have access to clean water and sleeping quarters. I think we should eat meat if we want to, but should think of the walefare of that animal. If you saw puppies being cramped in small cages, sitting in their own fecies where desease could spread easily, would you buy one of those to keep as a pet? It would probally die on the way home. I feel animals that are being bred for food or pets should be raised properly. I've always read about good pet breeders that they get no profit from breeding, but they breed animals because they love to. Yes, there are people living on the streets, mothers and children, people who have lost everything and there are organisations helping them, if not then there should be, plus the govenment should be doing something to home these people, but many animal orgs are started by the public. Maybe some people believe "Animals are better than people"(Animal Planet) But my views on animals only, is their walefare and health. I am disgusted at how the so callled animal rights 'Protestors' are threatening and attacking workers of huntingdon Life Sciences. Doesn't their work include finding cures for deadly deseases like cancer? But I am against testing on animals for cosmectic reasons.

I can't condone protesters who use violence but, being a peaceful protester who has attended demo's at Huntingdon Life Sciences I can assure you that we don't all behave in this manner.However, if you read the scientific arguments for the use of animals in medical research you would realise that no matter how similar that species may appear to us, genetically it is still different, meaning that whatever drug is tested on it the result for the animal will not always be the same as the result in a human. Companies like Huntingon use animal testing as a way of getting a product onto the market (and most of their so-called "life saving research" is for cold/flu remedies,pesticides and food additives)by saying that it has been found to be safe on animals and is therefore safe for us. However, this doen't mean that it is, and when somebody does die from taking such a drug(it happens a lot more often than you think)the so-called scientists then change their mind, stating that animals and people are different and that is why such an error was made. There is no drug on the market that couldn't have been dicovered without the use of animals, as there is no sure fire way of knowing a drug is safe until trials have been carried out on human volunteers.Did you know that tobacco companies denied the fact that smoking causes lung cancer for decades because the variety of animals they tested on did not show this link? Or that if it was down to the research on cats we would still be using highly poisonous asbestos in our homes as it has no effect on felines? Or maybe you didn't know that heart disease research and heart bypass surgery was delayed for years (ensuring the death of thousands of people-could have been a member of your family, think about it)because they were tesing on dogs, and still are, although they now know that a dogs heart has to be manipulated to even come close to a human heart? Before you take the uninformed attidude that animal testing is the way to find cures for disease, try reading up on it first.I'm sure families who have lost someone close to them because a drug that the deceased has taken to make them better(being declared safe for animals) has killed them,would not appreciate such an ignorant view.But then, we are children of mass marketing, and we'll believe what the big money makers tell us, won't we?