UK to stop testing household products on

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

Well, for the wild hogs, we could kill two birds with one stone.

Start eating them, and reduce factory pig farms at the same time.

Invasive rats are a bit more difficult. We have a nasty invasive rat species in my area that has nearly wiped out many native species, including the oh-so-adorable Alabama beach mouse, which is now an endangered species. Other factors such as habitat loss are also responsible, but considering the rats have taken over the uninhabited areas as well as developed areas, there is little to no room left for competing native species.

The problem is so bad, if you go onto any of the local wildlife trails, you can see, quite plainly, a sea of rats running around. I love rats, especially as pets as they are very intelligent and I was always able to train them much easier than dogs. . .but it has become a serious problem for the environment. Added to the problem is the serious decline native animals that would find the rats lovely prey.

Poisons aren't really a good option because they pose a threat to the native species that are in serious decline as well. Cats are good for indoor problems, but if you let them loose on the outside then you can't really control whether or not they kill the invasive species or the endangered native ones, and they are considered an invasive species themselves.

I think the best solution is to support native predators, at least where I live. There are many species whose numbers are declining rapidly due to human involvement who should be doing well considering the booming number of prey available. The difficulty with that lies with the fact that you can't really reverse habitat loss. Once some land is clear and a condo built, there's not much to do to change it. Some might still have a chance, snakes especially, if there was more education on the matter and people stopped indiscriminately killing them all.

So, it's a difficult situation. Hogs, at least, you can eat. . .rats. . well, I'm sure you could eat them as well, but I don't think many people would be too keen on that idea.

[Rat Girl]

Im interested as to whether you can let me know what species of rat you have thats causing the problem.

There are two 'main' species of rat which we see commonly.

One is rattus norvegicus, the norway rat, or 'brown' rat, which is by far the most common and is the rat you have just seen retreating into the sewer, in the woods, or running about in allyways. All pet rats/lab rats are also rattus norvegicus. They're big, good at swimming, have blunt muzzles and small ears, the wild ones tend to be brown (agouti), but pet strains come in loads of colours. They're by far the most common in the UK and probably USA too.

This species was never linked to the plague. Most people don't realise this when they see a wild or pet rat and make 'eeuw, plague' comments; it has absolutely no relevence.

The other species is rattus rattus, the black rat. These are smaller, more agile and tend to like to climb and live high up. They're a little like chipmunks in their habits, and look more 'mouse-like' than norway rats. They don't make good pets and are rarely kept as such other than by real rat enthusiasts as they're nightmares to keep in captivity, and really nothing like Norway rats at all. These were the rats that were originally linked to plague (even though the rat's part in plague spreading has pretty much been debunked now). Whenever they live alongside the norway rat, they're always out competed, without fail. They're just not big or strong enough to stand up to them.

Black rats tend to be....well....black. Or dark brown. They're extremely rare in the UK, and are one of our rarest british mammals, even thought to be extinct completely here. You're unlikely to ever see one. I've never even seen one in the flesh.

In the USA, they tend to prefer warm climates.

A lot of people don't realise there is over 60 different species of rat,and most people only ever see one or two of these species in their lifetime and many animals that get classified as rats which really aren't very rat like (the Gambian pouched rat, for example, while looking ratty is actually behaviourally more like a hamster and more closely related to those).

I think its also important to remember that the reason rats move into human environments, aside from the draw of food, is that we're encroaching on their habitat. They don't want to live in sewers; they're clean animals and no more enjoy being wet or dirty than any other mammal. They do so because its safer, and we're gradually making their natural woodland homes uninhabitable for them.

Its also worth remembering that rats are often blamed for things other species are as much responsible for.

Here, rats are demonised as being carriers of weils disease, which they are, but so are foxes and some other species.

In fact, its estimated that less than 15% of the British rat population carry weils disease, and the government have admitted they have over-played the risk of this disease from rats.

In the USA, you're more at risk of catching something from a dog or cat than from a rat, but its the rats that get the media coverage and scaremongering.

Similarly, people are happy to have squirrels in their gardens, or foxes, or hedgehogs, but as soon as its a rat, they drag out the poison or traps, even though the rats may be doing no more damage than any other species! People are just extremely ignorant about rats, and pathetically brain washed by the media.

Personally, I think poisoning any animal is always inexcusable. We cannot call ourselves civilised while happily putting other animals through that kind of pain and torture; poisoning is not compatible with being civilised.

I grudgingly accept that people will kill rats, because they're ignorant, and thats unlikely to change. But there are more humane and effective ways of getting rid of rats than poisoning.

I wish humans would take more responsibility for their own species impact on the planet, their own horrendous over-breeding and filthy habits rather than demonising animals who are just trying to survive in a world we make increasingly difficult for them.

[theGhost_and_theDarkness]

Rattus norvegicus is the species causing most of the problems. We actually USED to have and Rattus Rattus problem, but the Rattus norvegicus moved in and pretty much took over. There are a few other invasive rodents, but norvegicus has thrived down here in a very dangerous way. It's not a problem, so much, in homes, or if it is, that's not my concern so I don't know about it. I never really cared about having rats and mice in my house, as they usually don't bother anything because I know how to prevent them from doing so ( ). But in all the years I've lived here, I haven't really heard of problems in houses and buildings. The main problems are in the wildlife refuge. I was introduced to it when I did work with one. One of my jobs consisted of noting concentrated areas of them to help the higher ups determine populations. I never worked with any areas on the mainland, so I can not say if it was as much of a concern for them. . .but it definitely was here.

The problem is that our ecosystem down here is very sensitive. Some animals, like the Alabama beach mouse, can't be found anywhere else, and the recent brown rat population boom (which has happened within the last 50 years, give or take a decade)forced native rodent species (as well as non-rodent species) into decline. There are so many concentrated in very small areas (I live on a rather small island, so there's not too many places to go) that its put a strain on the local environment, and they compete for a limited supply of food with many other native animals. Most of our native rodents are not very large, and this area is just not holding up well with the bigger species moving in and eating up all the food.

Add that to the ridiculous amount of development that has happened, and many native species don't stand a chance. Mind you, the development bothers me more than the rats. It's an island for goodness sake, I don't know how many condos they possibly think they can cram in here. And, with an ecosystem that is so fragile, how do they expect to do it without screwing things up more than they already have?

Anyways, that frustration is completely off topic.

I agree poison is not the answer, and I would never advocate it. The issue is complicated, and I really don't see any viable solution for it other than native predator support. Rats are trickier than hogs, but hogs seem to get the most attention as far as invasive species go.

[ali smack]

I am very happy about this. I've always been against animal testing unless it's for medical research

[Light009]

It's called speaking in generalities, admittedly perhaps not right, but I'm not really gonna sit here and list the people I know who've worked with animals.

Very well I guess we all have our own opinions I just think we really can't say all of them are all great and are there to minimize the pain for the animal or for the greater good for us some tests are pretty much uesless...

No offence, but I think the website names kinda give away the stance of these websites already. Hugely biased websites rarely present unbiased evidence, rather they're much more likely to cherry pick the information that they want and present it in a not so flattering manner.

Yes they do seem to be biased, however that doesn't change the fact on whats going on their some of those animals are pretty much tortured having to go through multiple exams with little to no care at all.

If you see, my quote isn't refering to making a "better cleaning product" it's about ensuring that whatever changes are made don't lead to injuries down the line because a chemical wasn't tested thoroughly before being put into houses all over the world.

I see the point your trying to make, however at the same time is there really any need to make a bleach that won't affect your eye's for example? I mean honestly some things are common sense you don't put bleach or bug sprays in your eye's or skin. There is no need to make them "safe" since their purpose isn't to be used by direct contact. This includes most cleaning materials such as for clothing, floors, etc... Again it also comes down to common sense you should know that eating glue is bad or paint for that matter. My point is the same as with this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iKuQQ42ZZ8&feature=related

If its common sense stuff then really there is no need to put an animal through torture basically just to make a product safer to use for us. And If a child get's their hands on such a product than the only one's to blame are really the parents for being dumb enough to leave a product where their kids can get a hold of it.

Because torture done to somebody/something is different than the noun torture in my opinion. What the animals feel may indeed be "torturous" however the scientists aren't torturing them. I'm sure that there may be a few scientists who enjoy causing animals pain, however I'm also certain that they're in the minority. I see absolutely no reason why animal testing should be stopped because a few scientists enjoy it.

The scientist may not be directly torturing them however the process in which they make the animals go through may be considered torture. For ex. applying liquids into a rabbits eye where it can't blink or have any type of water to alleviate or wash away the liquid they just stay there with the liquid until it makes them go blind or in some cases even corredes the eye. After that they are then sent for other cruel testing in which case once they have been "used up" are thrown away like garbage. No not all animal testing should be stopped because of a few, but it should be monitored, also animal testing on products such as these for the most part should be stopped they aren't for the "greater good" of people its just for us to live in a more comfotrable world a better cleaning device or household product wouldn't really be considered for the greater good of people. Honestly if it isn't for a medical break through then there really isn't much of a reason to do animal testing.

It was more a general question to everybody rather than directed at any specific person. Why though, is animal testing receiving so much attention whilst rat poisons are ignored? I'm all for people supporting what they believe in, but it irks me when people ignore much larger issues that are the same, to handle the cuter cuddlier ones.

In my opinon most people just see rat's as a pest so they don't really care what happens to them, but when they see other animals treated as such they may feel some compasion to them. And sometimes they way the animals are treated and what they go through may also help fuel their strong emotioins on the way they feel against animal testing. Some are just truely beyond cruelty and torture....

Edited October 8, 2011 by Light009

[Farmerboy]

As for your question no Ive never used rat poison. I've only used pesticides to kill roaches or other bugs. And before you say what's the difference the main difference is bugs feel NO PAIN.

I wouldnt be too sure about that my friendCrabs feel pain! Hermit crabs experience pain Ok, not really bugs as you mean, but still evidence of the feeling of pain in arthropods! lol

I'm currently being lectured by the guy who carried out this study, hes an all round nice guy, not a demon scientist who loves torturing crabs

Edited October 9, 2011 by Farmerboy

[Dougal]

Common sense doesn't stop a lawsuit, nor bring back a child's life. I completely agree that alot of the things are common sense and you don't really need to test them. Unfortunately alot of the worlds current population either have no common sense, or just enough to realise that if the bleach doesn't say "DON'T PUT IT IN YOUR EYES" and they put it in their eyes, they're in for a nice pay check.