Michelle, there are quite a few things wrong with keeping snakes as pets, significantly, they are wild animals that shouldn't be kept in captivity. There's no reason to keep one, they don't provide the same companionship as many other animals, and thats not an opinion, that is a fact based on their brain structure. They are not capable of love and joy. (again, this is a fact) Secondly, you are keeping a wild animal at the sacrifice of and horrendous pain and suffering for animals that DO feel joy and love. (which is a proven fact) Thirdly, cats and dogs can be fed on a vegan diet healthfully, I don't think/know if a snake would be able to. Not to mention that cats and dogs are actually domesticated and cannot be released back into the wild. And please don't try to bullshit me that pet snakes can't survive in the wild. I live in florida, peoples "unreleasable unable to survive animals" live in my backyard and thrive.

Pet snakes cause undue suffering and have no business being in ones tank. Them eating domesticated rats and mice is NOT nature. There is nothing natural about breeding animals to depend on and trust humans being put into a glass box with a wild animal.

To answer your second question, in florida it is stated that undue cruelty to animals is prohibited UNLESS (and oh, yes, there is an unless) its for scientific/medical purposes.

Pythons are wild animals who have been "tamed" in a vague sort of way for profit. Their release into the "wild" has wreaked havoc in places, like the Florida everglades.

Yes, they can make okay companions. They are beautiful animals, and I'm sure your friend is responsible. But that does not mean they SHOULD be bred and raised in captivity for the pleasure of human beings.

Inform me Michelle, because from what I am taught they don't do horrible procedures on rats in scientific research.  In fact, I myself conducted a research experiment on a rat in one of my classes.  But please, tell me what you have heard about scientific research on rats OTHER THAN what you have heard from PETA, HSUS, or any other animals rights nuts.  I know from first hand experience that whatever you say, is wrong.

So using your same "logic" Cow Girl, I can argued, with equal validity: But please, tell me what you have heard about scientific research on rats OTHER THAN what you have heard from CCF, those whose profit is necessarily dependent on continuing animal exploitation, those wedded to "tradition," and animal experimenter nuts.  I know from first hand experience that whatever you say, is wrong.

This is fun. As long as we can each make grand statements, we both win! Like children. 

The only exploiting of animals being done in research is in cosmetic research, and I don't condone that.  Scientific research conducts experiments for the health of the animal and of humans.  How about we lock you up and do research on you for different types of cancers that occur in humans?  Do you want to be a test subject to find a cure for cancer?  No, you'd rather have a lab rat or pig do it.  Unless you just want to die of disease, because that is what will happen if you just stop animal research all together.

If I had cancer I'd be more than willing to be a test subject for a cure. Family members and friends who have died of cancer, said the same. Giving a healthy individual a disease, human or animal, is unconscionable and in this day and age unnecessary. Considering animal testing has a less than 50% success rate for predicting the effects in a human subject, you might as well flip a coin for all the good it does.  

Really Steve?!  Uneducated on the topic much?  I'd say so.  Have you ever once studied the physiology of the pig?  I highly doubt it.  Did you know that they are doing tests right now that could shorten the organ donors wait list tremendously?!  Yeah, that's right, they have successfully completed xenotransplantation from a pig to an ape.  And the ape lived a healthy life once they got it past it's bodies natural tendancy to reject the organ as a foreign body.  We aren't doing this for profit, we're doing it to save lives!  Do you have any idea how many people die on an organ donor waiting list.  I have a friend on the waiting list for the second time now after being turned down once because someone else needed it more than he did.  Pigs have similar sized organs to a human being and have extremely similar physiology to a human to the point that it's mind boggling.  And no we don't inject the animal with anything that can't be treated or that it will actually live long enough to suffer from.  Read scientific research papers, don't read the crap this lady puts out.  You'll actually learn something instead of forming a biased opinion.

Of course, this quote is from an animal rights nut, so it probably doesn't count, but here it is anyway.

"Ask the experimenters why they experiment on animals, and the answer is: 'Because the animals are like us.' Ask the experimenters why it is morally okay to experiment on animals, and the answer is:  'Because the animals are not like us.' Animal experimentation rests on a logical contradiction." ~Charles R. Magel

The problem with your argument Cow Girl is you assume your conclusion without reasoning to it.

The question is this: Is it ethical to experiment on nonhuman animals when we wouldn't deem it ethical to perform similar experiments on human beings? Unless you can come up with a reasonable argument, your answer to this question isn't valid. 

I never argued that (some) animal testing has been beneficial. Just like (some) human testing has been quite beneficial as well. So you are arguing against a straw man. 

Again, how can we justify, ethically, the testing? 

"And no we don't inject the animal with anything that can't be treated or that it will actually live long enough to suffer from."

A search through Pubmed says something a little different.

- Rats injected with nephrotoxicant to determine at which point renal failure and/or renal lesions occur.
- Rats injected with streptozotocin to induce diabetes enough to cause neural damage. After one month or three months, rats killed to study their hippocampus.
- Pulmonary hypertension was induced by injection of monocrotaline. Rats endured several transplantations and bone marrow cultures. Rats were killed to study their lung lining.
- The femurs of rats were drilled with a bone laser to create defects. One group lived (that is, woke up from surgery w/o analgesics) for 7 days before death and more were killed at 20 days
- There are more than 1,000 published studies on the injection of warfarin and it's effects on rats....even though warfarin is a well-understood blood thinner. Most of the rats are fully conscious while they experience the effects of warfarin.

So please do not tell us that researchers aren't injecting "things" into rats just to see  what happens. And please do not tell us that these are all reversible injections. And stop telling us that these animals do not suffer when they wake up with broken bones or when they are dying from warfarin poisoning.

But please do check out pubmed. It is an excellent resource on the horrors we inflict upon nonhumans.

And you didn't once think to take the thing to the vet to be humanely euthanized?  You just sat there and watched it bleed from it's mouth and suffer?  That's goes against everything that you are taking a stand for.

Sorry, didn't finish reading.

We, of course, couldn't arrest you for "murder" Cow Girl because murder is a legal concept. This is why we can't prosecute "pest" control companies. I might criticize you ethically for causing unnecessary suffering and death because of course there are many alternative options. But legally, you are safe.

The distinction is subtle, I know, but I'm certain you can grasp it.

Secondly, defend your conclusion: there is an ethical difference between a rat and a dog.  

So what you are saying is that you would prosecute PEST control companies if you could?  If it's a rat or a creepy crawly, it's a pest.  Do you want to sleep with that kind of disease ridden creature in your home or bed?  No, you don't.  That's why it's called a pest.  Wild animals belong outside, it's when they enter your house, chew holes in your wall, spawn in your insulation, and ruin your electrical wiring that they become PESTS.  And yes, dogs are WAY different than rats.  Chihuahuas are way different than dogs too.  For starters, when a rabbit is bigger than a "dog" it's not a dog, it's a rat of canine origin.  My roommate has a rat of canine origin, and if you crazies wouldn't prosecute me and it wasn't against everything I was studying to be, I'd kill the stupid thing.  When anything, living or not disrupts my sleep, tries to bite me, and ruins my concentration on my studies where I'm learning how to save it's life, then in my opinion it needs to go see jesus.  A dog is something with four legs, barks (doesn't yipe), is actually cute, is friendly with all people (not just mom), loving (not just towards mom), and weighs more than 10lbs at mature doggy size.  What I am living with now yipes, bites, is smaller than my rabbit, and poops all over the house.  So what do I do when my roommate doesn't clean up his crap, I put it in his cage and make him sit with it all day long so I don't have to look at his feces scattered all over my $500 apartment.

Rats for one are pests, they are rodents.  Whether they are caged or not, they are snake food one in the same.  There is little to no individual distinction from one to another, they don't answer to their name, they don't come when called, and they certainly don't have an industry that is catering to their owners every desire.  They don't have reputable breeders, specialized veterinarians, need I really go on?!

"The distinction is subtle, I know, but I'm certain you can grasp it."  Way to be condescending there Alex.  Let me guess you're one of those artsy fartsy guys who has zero grasp on reality whatsoever, right?  PETA and HSUS/Wayne Pacelle supporter 100%?  Dude, I'm an A+ animal science student studying to be a veterinarian.  I have more knowledge at 21 years than you could ever begin to grasp the concept of.

I thought I knew everything when I was 21 too, Cow Girl. I urge you to copy and paste your writings into a Word doc and keep it for a few years. When you look back on it and see how childish you sound, you can message us to apologize.

Also, I do so hope you work a critical thinking class into your college curriculum. They're invaluable.

Cow Girl,

I think if we were being ethically consistent we would employ the various methods of humane and non-lethal "pest control." And indeed, within such a society where we don't unnecessarily kill animals, bringing them under the legal concept for "murder" makes sense.   

Black people and women were once (and still are) called "things" and "property." So, on your reasoning, like the rats who are called "pests," simply labeling a being something makes the label accurate? 

On your explanation of what constitutes "pests," surely I should be able to kill infants, the mentally handicapped, or any other human who "disrupts me," or otherwise causes me any discomfort at all. 

You "...have more knowledge at 21 years than you could ever begin to grasp the concept of"? Grasp the concept of what exactly? "Knowledge"? Of what exactly? Do they teach that kind of logic in your "science" classes?

I have pet rats, and yes, you *can* train them.  My rats (MasterProp and Bowser) come to me when I call their name.  I litter-trained them, so they use a little litter box in their cage.  They are affectionate, and sometimes if I fall asleep before putting them back in their cage, they curl around me and fall asleep.  Domestic rats are NOT the same as wild rats, and they do NOT carry disease. 

Am I opposed to using animals for medical experimentation?  No, as long as it's done humanely.  I'm not some extremist, and I do see the benefit of using animals (especially pigs) to develope procedures to aid humans.  But please recognize that there are some things done, even in the name of science and medicine, that are cruel and usually unnecessary.

And you know what, kid?  You can claim you have all the knowledge in the world, but you make it glaringly obvious that you have a distinct lack of wisdom.  Not being down on you;  you're 21, you're not supposed to be especially wise at this point in your life.  Just please learn to open your mind to the legitimacy of small animals as beings deserving of the same treatment that we would give our pets.

Mandy,

Thank you for the great information!

I do have a suggestion though. Don't use the word "extreme" because it suggests ridiculous things.

Can I assume that you are an "extremist" on the issue of experimenting on unconsenting human beings, or on rape, or genocide? Well, if you are, what's suggested by the word "extreme" as you employ it is that you must be saying something necessarily wrong or absurd. Your position goes so far that it must be wrong. But that's ridiculous because all you are saying is that you are ethically consistent, and this is a conclusion to reason to.  

The same is true of "extremists" who don't believe we should be testing on nonhuman animals. Right, they are simply being consistent and principled. All your argument does is beg the question against these "extremists": How can you justify experimenting on a pig if you won't equally justify, ethically, experimenting on a human animal?

I know I'm probably going to catch hell for this, but maybe we *should* experiment on people.  Serial murderers, repeat rapists, and chronic child molesters would be excellent fodder for medical experimentation.  I think that would be an excellent idea.  In my mind, those "people" are a step below some of the animals being tested on, as they made a conscious decision to do the horrible things they did.  And whereas pigs are very similar to human beings, human criminals *are* human beings!  I agree that experimentation on the general populace is an awful, disgusting idea, and genocide and rape are right out.  But experimentation that can benefit the world, being done on violent/sexual repeat offenders?  Bring it on.

Prop Kid,

There are many cases where prisoners have offered themselves to the scientific community only to be rejected by ethics boards (and I believe the law). They are trying to repent, if you will. It is argued, however, that prisoners aren't capable of "consent" under those circumstances and therefore the experimentation would be unethical.

This raises an interesting question. We have human beings who have violated the "social contract" (as absurd as that may be), they are criminals, offering themselves to the medical community as a means to seek forgiveness from society. We reject them because even though they have "wronged" society and have therefore been removed they still fall under the umbrella of ethics: It is still wrong to do x and y to them.

So instead we experiment on nonhuman animals who are as sentient as these criminals and definitionally innocent (because, like human infants, they aren't moral agents). We call this ethical because they are excluded from the umbrella of ethics from the outset because they aren't human.

But what is it to be "human"? Most would argue that it is rationality, moral agency, etc. etc. Hasn't the person who broke the law, however, shown that he doesn't fit into these pleasant standards? So why is he protected, when nonhuman animals aren't?

This is a strange system.  

Well said. Also strange that when people describe these "unethical" humans, they almost always refer to them as being ANIMALS. (Most recently from a father who's child is missing- first thing out of his mouth is "this creep who took my daughter has got to be an animal!"). He's a pig! He's a dog! He's a snake! None of these rants actually makes any sense. No, people...he's a human!

This always gets to me because these psycopaths/sociopaths are HUMANS. Calling them "animals" belittles the sentient beings that would never commit crimes such as these against their own species.

I love the idea of using criminals as lab experiments as well, but people will never go for it. Prisoners still have "human" rights, no matter what they do.

Love the thought!

Gotta say that the one thing that scares me about this whole thread/post is that cow girl is studying to be a veterinarian!  Her obvious, callous disregard for the life of various types of animals has me completely baffled as to her motivation for choosing that career.

Controlling and sadistic.  No, I'd say he's got some mental problems slightly worse than you folks.  I'm sure he didn't strangle a rat for no reason.  Me, I've got a reason to kill a dog right now but enough control not to, enough desire to, but more control not to.  Anyone who doesn't have that control has problems, I wouldn't call him the spawn of satan as you have deemed him, but he has some issues.

I'm pretty sure Ruby was just trying to figure out why there was a fish floating at the bottom of the tank.  And Ruby's actions of trying to pull Goldy back into the water, she was probably trying to eat her.  My boyfriend works in a fish store, when a fish dies the others try to eat it because they don't want a rotting carcass floating in their living space.  And did you ever think that maybe Goldy died of a disease and maybe, just maybe Ruby caught it?  Chances are that if you have a dying fish in a tank with a healthy one, the healthy one is going to catch whatever the dying one has.  Low and behold, that fish will die too.  It's not all about compassion and feelings, it can be primal instincts and medical conditions.  Not trying to be a horrible human being, I'm just making observations and speaking on what I see. 

"Not trying to be a horrible human being"

No, that is obviously a natural talent you possess. 

Dude, I'm studying to be a freaking veterinarian.  I'm going to be saving animals lives for a living.  Yeah, I'm a bitch.  Ban me for using fowl language, like I honestly care.  I know I'm a bitch, and I thoroughly enjoy it.  I'm competitive and I won't let anyone or anything get in my way of living out my life long dream.

Common sense would say, remove the sick fish and put it in another bowl so you don't kill the other fish. But apparently common sense is something this whole lot of you lack.

"I'm going to be saving animals lives for a living."

But just the ones that fall under your exceedingly odd moral compass, yes?

Cow Girl, I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, I swear!  And I'm not pointing this out just for the sake of pointing it out, but I found it funny that you called it "fowl language", considering the topic and your future profession.  Just, some stupid little humorous thing that caught my eye.  Carry on!

Yee haw, cow girl!

Keep digging that hole...you're almost there.

I'm glad you have tall boots. You're going to need them.

Work on your EQ. Being an A+ student will only get you so far.

And, please make sure when you become a Vet, write in and warn us where you work. I'll be sure to stay at least a thousand miles away.

"I've never had a pet rodent nor do I like to really see them unless it is a person's pet , but I would NEVER kill one !!!  If one got into my house I'd just set a sticky trap or a cage and trap it and then release it a good distance from my house."

Just a note, Isobella...

What do you think sticky traps do to mice? Have you ever seen mice stuck to one? Once they are stuck, they rip their limbs and skin off, and they die a slow, painful- bloody death.

There are humane traps that do not kill mice. They trap them so you can re-locate the animals, not kill them.

Your comment was nice, although I don't think you realized what you said. Using sticky traps DOES kill the animals. Slowly and painfully. You can get the kind ones at the Veganstore.com website- and it can be used many times. It does not kill them.

item #266

http://www.veganstore.com/index.html?action=search

Cheers. Thanks for your kind comments.

Maybe, Cow Girl, you should "study to be a freaking" VEGETARIAN before you continue your studies to be a veterinarian.

Hello, fellow rat fan ;)  "bald rats" are called "hairless rats" or "sphinx rats".  I almost got one, but they are a lot of trouble!  They get so cold so easily!