Should all animals live free?
142069
Yes sure ...as us ppl want be in free so i think they should 2
524539
Wow loss of meat. But i would be hapy.  I mean not for me but for the animals. They wud be somewhere where they weren't being hunted for their furs or tusks. They could rome freely the way God intended for it to be.
407465
certainly against\n\nIf it is correct than why not we found thousands of creatures changing their species daily and why not monketys being converted to human beings daily?
824393
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_rights\n\nhttp://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?splash&oid=3
576127
The zoo is like, so restricted, yet you get all the health benefits and care. But in the wild, you get to like, run free, but always on the look-out for humans. It's a choice I'm happy I don't have to make.  Good luck!
307674
First I am against killing animals, but if they become a threat to humans or to other animals (due to overpopulation), may answer is yes.
866553
Worms don't really have much in the way of a brain or nervous system, so I doubt they mind.  As far as other animals, I used to be against it but I've become rather desensitized to it... Many more animals are killed to become food or fur, or killed for sport... I have to deal with killing mice on a regular basis to feed snakes... They are low on the food chain for a reason.  A few humanely euthanized rats here and there for students to learn is a small price to pay.  As a bio student, there really is no replacement for learning first hand on the real thing.  My favorite dissection was a fetal pig in high school... Very interesting.  The only time I took offense was a mink dissection, and that is because the school was actually getting the minks from fur farms and paying for them, so our experiments were fueling the fur trade...
865631
depends what your trapping for, if it's for food, yes it should be legal. if it's to remove animals to a safer environment, then yes. if it's just for fur-NO
1031039
I don't know. I like to consider myself culturally sensitive but when the safety and well being of innocent animals is at stake I will always advocate for the animals. A local news report on the conditions would probably do wonders for rectifying the problem.
343177
With animal rights and animal cruelty, it's often not a simple 'yes' or 'no' question, not a simple matter of 'right' or 'wrong'.  There are many degrees.\n\nIf you are talking about animal rights, what rights should an animal be afforded?  Does an animal have the same rights as a human?  Do all animals get the same levels of rights?  Does a single ant have the same right to life and liberty that a human, or even a dog does?  How about a starfish?  A sponge?  An amoeba?\n\nAt what level do you make the arbitrary decision that 'this organism has a right to exist, but this one doesn't?'\n\nDoes the Ebola virus have a right to exist and propagate itself?  If you don't agree a virus has the right to live, how about Cochliomyia hominivorax, the human screwworm?  Should you allow treatment of humans infested with intestinal parasites?\n\nWhere do you draw the line?\n\nThe same can be said for animal cruelty.  Who gets to decide what's cruel?  How exactly do you define cruelty?  Is dropping a kitten in boiling water cruel?  Most people would say yes.  How about dropping a mosquito larva in boiling water?  Or a lobster?  It's cruel to keep a kitten in a jar on your desk, but how about a goldfish?\n\nAs with most things in life, there is no easy answer.  Certainly, there should be some benefit, some gain to humanity that must be demonstrated in order to justify killing another organism, but what level of justification is required?  \n\nIs squirting caustic substances in a bunny's eyes justified if it means we can develop a substance that won't burn a child's eyes?  \n\nIs killing hundreds of thousands, even millions of mosquitoes justified if it keeps one person from dying from West Nile virus?  How about if it means you can have a backyard BBQ without being driven inside by biting flies?\n\nIs shooting a deer justified if it means that a family can eat for a month off the meat?  How about if some guy just really wants to kill something and put its head on his rec room wall?  How about if the deer are so overpopulated that they are becoming diseased and the overall health of the whole population is declining because they have eaten all the available forage?\n\nThere are no easy answers.
959241
yes.....having an animal as a pet is good for the heart, relaxes it more and most that have pets in their lives actually live a longer life.
811992
no, example look at the tigers in a zoo. there not healthily & they dont feed them like they would out in the wild. so the answer is no we should leave natuer to itself & stop expanding into there area. another example: we could build or use the same buildings that was shut down for one reason or another before we go out and build another in nature area. tear the old building down & build one in its spot. but no that would cost the rich s.o.b to much money. so they go to areas that have alot of wild animals in it & uild there & then when a fox or other animals attact a person they wonder why this happened. DUH!! your in there area were the use to live & now they have to find a new place to live & all.
752972
Natural Instincts of the animal world..Survival of the Fittest.
472661
Cows were first domesitcated about 5,000 years ago.  I think if they were wild and allowed to run free, maybe they would behave alot like Bison or Wildebeasts.  They would probably stay in herds that graze in open grasslands, with sub-groups of a Bull and females.
257234
Animals definitely. Man is a social animal but is not doin anything humane... killing all life form from this earth for his own gain... even killing himself through wars etc. A kind of animal never kills its own race.. eg a dear never kills a dear. This is although not valid to carnivores, who have a rather very beastly lifestyle. Mostly animals live in harmony. The best way to answer wud be to tell u that even a lion/a tiger never hunts when hes not hungry. man (hunts) when hes hungry but he is never contended... so keeps on hunting.
548738
Animals don't have souls, that is why we can kill them to eat them.  You don't see anyone killing your neighbor just for some prime rib(at least I hope not)
926979
In an ideal world, no, not at all. Sadly, a lot of the time animals are not given the respect they deserve by Man.\n\nHowever, for some medical research, animal testing is necessary. We simply cannot test new drugs etc on people 'straight out of the box' - a lot of people would die, which I don't think anyone would accept. Trust me, a lot of scientists wish animal testing wasn't needed! This is why a lot of research is going into the devlopment of alternatives. Some branches of bioinformatics for example, aim to create accurate computer models for 'human testing', so that a lot of side-effects can be accurately predicted before human trials begin, so avoided the need for animal testing. This technology is still only in the development stage though.\n\nHowever, it is worth noting that not all labs treat animals in such cruel ways. Different countries have different rules. In many labs now, the animals used are extremely well cared for. Sadly, this is not the case everywhere.\n\nWhile I do not like it, I do see the benifits. Until a suitable, permanent alternative can be found, I think it is important to campaign for better treatment of animals used in this way.\n\nI will never support animal testing for anything but medical uses. There is simply no excuse for testing cosmetics on animlas!!