http://www.shac.net/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Huntingdon_Animal_Cruelty
http://www.facebook.com/pages/SHAC-Stop-Huntingdon-Animal-Cruelty/7806580793

This group is on the FBI’s list of know Terrorist organizations. I can testify personally I witnessed them attempt to disrupt our organization (even though the company I worked for was selling in vitro cell cultures to Huntington, sparing hundreds if not thousands of rats, mice & monkeys)and had the pleasure of having the FBI watch my house.

Needless to say, I never told my wife and teenage daughters until it was pretty certain the threat had passed.

I echo every point Dan & Peggy have tried to get across.

You should really read up on the care that animal researchers take in minimizing any suffering in their subjects before you go caricaturing them. I do however appreciate that you can recognize that these acts constitute terrorism and are in no way excusable in our society.

(personally, I know I disagree with ALF members, but I may also disagree with you)

Peggy-
I’m perfectly willing to grant that liberating minks might be dumb or counterproductive, I just don’t think it’s terrorism. If I was a mink farmer, and I needed to sell those minks to eat, I might feel differently.
Also, just putting this out there, maybe the ALF folks knew about mink release effects on ecosystems, but decided that the long-term effects would still be a huge net-positive for animals (by nudging people into being unwilling to mink farm in the first place). I’m just saying, I can see it from either end of the continum… which is what I think is missing here.

I’m not at all sure of your interpertation of non-vertebrate researchers coming under attack. For one thing, it is not necessary to have a spine to have nerves that are capable of registering pain. That matters to a lot of animal rights people, and also some animal welfare folks.
For another, although claims that animal research is underregulated are pretty bizarre to anyone who works with, e.g., rabbits, they are reasonably true when it comes to invertebrates. Nobody is there to stop you from pulling the wings off butterflys for fun.

Moreover, be sure to read Peggy’s excellent response to you.

Beyond the unequivocal support of terrorism and violence by animal liberation groups, I would extend this problem further – a clear disrespect for socially acceptable means of handling these issues. Taking the law into one’s own hands is sociopathic. Yet, that seems to be what you’re advocating, based on your reference to breaking into mink farms. Even with nasty things like mink farming, acting outside the law only strengthens their position and weakens yours.

Michael,
Thanks for the contribution, and that’s an excellent perspective to put this and related discussions into. I find it frustrating though that the animal liberation groups and their supporters (those people who would ascribe actual human rights to animals) continually caricature animal researchers as the “crazy people who would willfully torture animals.” You’re right – it is a trade-off, and one that I think few researchers take lightly.

It’s interesting that you mention releasing minks, since, to my mind, that’s a good example of either the ignorance or love of “action” over actual animals (I don’t know which) of radical animal activist groups. Minks are efficient predators, and their release into the wild can seriously damage local wildlife. I personally don’t like the fur industry, but simply smashing their cages is not the way to go about eliminating it. Not if you actually care about animals, anyway.

Bottom line: if you really believe what you are saying (that ALF is all about violent terrorism, and that “violence against animals” isn’t even *possible*) you are saying that releasing minks from a farm is an act of violence, but killing animals for food, fur, sport OR research (no matter how they may suffer in the process) cannot be violent. This is so loony sounding I dearly hope it is a strawman. If so, why don’t you clear up my confusion. What constitutes terrorism? What constitutes violence? Do we have the right to do whatever we want to animals, and if not, what should the restrictions be?
If you are going to write on this ethically complex topic, write something with some actual philosophical thought behind it… not just “These are Bad People” simpleminded nonsense.
Also “these people don’t agree with me!” or “these people dared ask for evidence about terrorism!” are *not* logically interchangable with “I must be right!” and “These people are Bad People too!” (Bush administration notwithstanding).

I am a co-author of “The Animal Research War,” for which you provide a link to a review above and a target of animal extremists (about which I write in the book).

I find it convenient to think of people’s views of animals as a continuum. At one end are crazy people who would willfully torture animals. At the other end are people who would ascribe actual human rights to animals. In the middle are welfarists, like you and I, who believe that, while animals do not have rights like people do, it is our responsibility as humans to care for them, attend to their needs and minimize their pain and suffering. Research is a trade-off: in order to help people (and animals, by the way) with medical advances, we engage in research, but it is our obligation to use the smallest number of animals possible, minimize their pain and suffering and, whenever possible, replace research animals with alternatives. In addition to being an ethical requirement, this is the law (Animal Welfare Act, enforced by the USDA).

You can read the comments of others on our book, “The Animal Research War,” here: http://www.amazon.com/Animal-Research-War-Michael-Conn/dp/023060014X

- Michael