Successes in AV, such as the outlawing of vivisection in the Italian province of Bolzano in 1985 or the closure of Consort  breeding establishment in 1998,  have been achieved by small groups of dedicated, well-informed people, without great financial backing, nor even any moral support from the rich, established societies. Unprecedented media coverage was obtained by small, sometimes new, grass-roots groups, as distinguished from the large established societies, which, however, always manage to cash in on the publicity produced by the grass roots activists. The small new groups of activists could surely achieve more if they had more money, but a wealthy grass-roots organisation is a contradiction in terms.
 
The big money of the societies comes from legacies, and it is understandable that men and women making out their wills won’t legate their will to  small, young groups that might be her today and gone tomorrow, but will prefer old, established organisations with lots of by-laws, big councils and a long tradition. The older and richer a society, the more likely it is to become corrupted.

 However , there are now many well-informed grass-roots groups everywhere, too small to be infiltrated, moving independently towards one and the same goal, letting the big societies trundle on towards the dinosaurs’ cemetery, their directors having invested their big moneys, accumulated from legacies, in interest-bearing stocks and dividend-paying shares with which to ensure the continuation of lavish salaries and expensive offices, while the animals invoke the release of death in their straining devices.

Whoever wants to leave money after their demise, should leave it to the grass -roots groups of the moment, with the proviso that it must all be spent within one year in bringing the errors and horrors, the futility and damage of vivisection to public notice, with large advertisements in the press, the distribution of pertinent works by AV scientists and MDs, the projection of films and the like; and for no other purpose. And if you don’t want to wait for you own demise, then do your own advertising in the big press while still alive. In other words, do exactly that which the big societies fail to do, and what they advise you not to do.
The US group The Nature of Wellness/SUPRESS, the Campaign Against Fraudulent Animal Research and BAVA agree that the only way vivisection will ever end will be when enough informed people demand that changes are made. This can only happen when enough people are convinced as to the total absurdity and dangers of basing human medicine on animal experimentation. This does not mean that the moral and ethical  case against vivisection should be in any way minimised. The cruelties and horrors  are self-evident to normal human beings. However, if the largely misinformed, frightened general populace think for one minute that a miracle cure depends on sacrificing  animals, vivisection will never be abolished.
So far a multi-billion pound industry depending on vivisection’s continuation has funded a massive and totally one-sided propaganda campaign  in its attempt at convincing the public that vivisection is essential for human health. This is changing but the following  tactics need to be stepped up:-.

· The staging of demos
· Acts of civil disobedience/direct action
· Holding press conferences
· Using stockholder resolutions
· Introducing legislation
· Lobbying -  the basic requirement of successful lobbying is to muster sufficient support from different factions to make governments and Parliament take notice
· Conducting PUBLIC EDUCATION   - stressing the  medical  and scientific reasons for abolition. HUMAN HEALTH  is at stake.  Medical research is the central issue of vivisection. It accounts for over 90% of all experiments, and is literally the root of this evil. Whilst significant,  emphasis on cosmetics testing (about 1% of all testing)  is totally disproportionate and diverts attention from the central issue. Students especially should know the facts about vivisection. A new generation of well-informed  scientists and doctors will change archaic attitudes to dissection, research and medical practices. It is a fact that the government will only listen if massive public pressure is brought to bear. A  MORI (UK) poll (1999) found that 94% of people are unaware that no prescription drug is marketed without first being tested on animals.
· Making the public aware of the links and associations of MPs to  the pharmaceutical industry, etc.
· Letter writing & E-mail (A LIFELINE BETWEEN ACTIVISTS)
· Becoming Internet-based - a great campaigning tool
· Campaigns/Boycotts  directed at the media (bias, misinformation, omissions) legislators, hospitals, universities, companies and individuals that are the targets of protest and using every opportunity to inform the public of the USELESSNESS, FRAUDULENCE AND DANGERS  of vivisection; that is has hindered medical progress in the past and is not essential for future progress.
 Working with a wide range of sympathetic organisations in order to turn public concern for animals and humans into concrete political action
· Checking  out the backgrounds of speakers, societies and "independent’ bodies - their affiliations, links, investments, funders -  be aware of the illicit liaison between large corporations, career academics and journalists

"COWARDICE ASKS THE QUESTION - IS IT SAFE? EXPEDIENCY ASKS THE QUESTION - IS IT POLITIC ? VANITY ASKS THE QUESTION - IS IT POPULAR? BUT CONSCIENCE ASKS THE QUESTION - IS IT RIGHT?"
Martin Luther King
 
 On a personal level:-
 
· Support alternative/natural medicine, holistic therapies;  practise preventive medicine; avoid, as far as possible, the deluge of animal  ‘safety-tested’ vaccines, painkillers, steroids, antibiotics, pesticides and industrial and agricultural toxin-laden products.
· Adopt a vegan diet for yourself and your pets (cats need a supplement)
· Encourage cruelty-free companies and those which invest ethically
·  Shop & invest ethically   eg  does your bank support companies involved with vivisection ( eg  Nat West  and  Huntingdon Life Sciences)
· Support vegan -organic farming practices/lobby for clean air, food, water
· Withdraw support from charities which support vivisection  and say WHY. (check them out - the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association, for example, finance animal experiments; the RSPCA used to own shares in Glaxo)
· Use natural cleaning products, eg  lemon juice, baking soda, vinegar
· Be well-armed with  facts and information about vivisection
· Be suspicious of  AV individuals/groups who state that vivisection is/may have been useful/is still needed  or who argue the moral/cruelty/welfare aspects only, whether intentionally or through ignorance.  Who are their paymasters/sponsors? Be aware that the pro-vivisectionists are wealth and highly -  organised.  They have  deliberately fostered dissension amongst AVs and have committed acts with the intention of discrediting AV/AR activists in the eyes of the public. PHONY OR INCOMPETENT MEDICAL  "AUTHORITIES"  WITHIN THE AV MOVEMENT REPRESENT A GREATER OBSTACLE TO ACHIEVING ABOLITION THAN UNDISGUISED VIVISECTORS.
· Accept that everyone has their part to play and that how to achieve the total abolition of vivisection will vary from person to person. What is certain is that over one hundred years  of arguing the moral case has led nowhere. The three Rs approach  -  reduction in the numbers of animals used, refinement of experiments to cause less pain and  finding replacement techniques will ensure vivisection’s continuation, apart from suggesting that it is a valid methodology. The welfare of lab animals is important but legislation has not secured better conditions for many of them. Improving conditions poses no threat for  vivisectors. Individual animals need help whilst legislation is being prepared but AVs must be united about the ultimate goal - total abolition. The gradualist approach will lead nowhere. Social and economic arguments  in favour of vivisection are not valid.  The western world did not collapse when slavery was abolished, yet it had been formerly  deemed indispensible. There will only be a public outcry, and consequently the demise of vivisection, when the connection is made between medical disasters, deteriorating public and planetary health, no cures for major diseases  and  animal experimentation; when the public realise their taxes and donations are being squandered.
· Particularly effective is the increasing involvement of people at grass roots level. By targeting   specific  establishments involved with vivisection, for example, Shamrock UK, much is achieved.  The media become involved, the public become aware, the company suffers from bad publicity and economically, ( extra security measures, loss of business and  staff ) and police protection, at the taxpayers’ expense is limited.  At the same time, the general public can be informed as to why vivisection must be abolished, via leaflets, speeches, etc.
· If the major AV societies were genuine about  wishing to end vivisection and a concerted effort was made using their extensive financial resources speedy progress would be made. Whilst  undercover investigations and initiatives to ban  the use of primates, for example, are commendable and  help individual animals, the important facts that vivisection is useless, misleading , harmful and delays medical progress, are not being emphasised. If the public, for example, learn about attempts to ban only primate experiments, the inference is that  experiments on other animals are valid.
 Total abolition MAY come EVENTUALLY as a result of  all these piecemeal initiatives, but then again it may not. Which leaves the motives of some organisations open to question.
 
 
 NOBODY EVER MADE A GREATER MISTAKE THAN HE WHO DID NOTHING BECAUSE HE COULD ONLY DO A LITTLE
 
Whatever your views about direct action groups like the ALF, there is no doubt that their actions, along with undercover investigations into labs, have brought vivisection into the public eye, whereas once it was totally hidden. Whether the public are sympathetic or not, the fact is that  high security costs and the fears of employees and local residents make it more and more difficult for them to carry on operating. It has been as a result of their actions and not legislation if conditions have improved. The horrors would have remained hidden forever.   Historically, advancements have often been made because , having found all legal channels closed to them, activists have had to resort to violence, for example the suffragettes and the former ‘terrorist’ Nelson Mandela.
 
 

"IF YOU MAKE PEACEFUL REFORM IMPOSSIBLE, YOU MAKE VIOLENCE INEVITABLE"       John F. Kennedy

"Laws should be challenged or changed when they are seen to violate more general humane principles. When the government consistently violates humane principles one has the right of revolution, because the government has broken the social contract."
(Prof. Lawrence Kohlberg  "Moral Reasoning. The Value of Life."  1972)
 
Pro-vivisectionists   think   AVs should  refuse medical treatments developed or tested on    animals, for example, blood transfusions, anaesthesia, pain killers, etc.,  deliberately ignoring the fact that AVs are not against medical progress, making it  an animal rights issue   and perpetuating  myths about major medical discoveries. From a political aspect, we  are denied the right to choose treatments  on the NHS (UK) which have not been tested on animals.

Just because  vivisection has been a tradition for  over 150 years, it does not prove that  animal experiments were the  real key to the most important discoveries, as pro-vivisectionists would have us believe. There is no proof that they were either vital or irreplaceable, nor that medical progress will be held up by their abandonment. "Vivisectors admit animal experimentation is uncertain, but it gives an indication that one is on the right track., which makes it worthwhile continuing in the same direction. Incomplete information can be useful provided it is correct.  If the vivisectionist method of research gave incomplete but correct indications it might be of some use. It is useless and misleading because it provides only accidentally indications which coincide with the right direction, without the researcher having any way of forseeing whether a fortunate coincidence can be verified or not." (Vivisection or Science" Prof. Pietro Croce, M.D. ). Hence the increasing number of medical disasters and iatrogenic illnesses  and failure to find cures,  just as in the past animal experimentation delayed progress. For example, digitalis was considered dangerous because, tried out on dogs, it raised their blood pressure. Thus the use of this drug, so useful in treating some cardiopathies, was delayed at least a decade. How many potentially valuable  and safe drugs have been discarded because they were harmful to certain species of animal? Conversely, all the drugs which have had disastrous effects, such as thalidomide, had been extensively tested on animals.

VETERINARY MEDICINE
      All animals are different, even within a species, so it is impossible to extrapolate information from one species to another. Artificially -induced diseases are not the same as those which occur spontaneously. Laboratory conditions and pathogen -free animals  combine to produce variable and unreliable results.
      No artificial , violent interventions on healthy animals to inflict maladies and mutilations  and to desensitize the students should be carried out. Only careful study and sympathetic treatment of spontaneous diseases and natural accidents  will produce useful and relevant results.

With reference to the  current [ VICTORY! - CLOSED DOWN AUG 1999] ‘SAVE THE HILLGROVE CATS CAMPAIGN’, Chris Brown, the owner, claims his cats are mainly used to test cat vaccines which save thousands of cats’ lives.
According to Christopher Day , MA  VetMB and Veterinary Fellow of the Faculty Of Homeopathy:
"I  disagree that this (vaccination) is necessary for the benefits of the cat population at large. I believe that the case for vaccines is still not resolved ………To claim that vaccines are for the benefits of cats is ignoring some important evidence and,  in my opinion, all such apparently incontrovertible and ‘self evident’ remarks should be questioned very deeply before they are accepted……..even if vaccines were for the ‘general good’ we do not have the right to experiment on individuals."
Smith Kline pioneered live cell lines in the 60s and 70s so there is a way of testing cat vaccines without using live cats.  Ultimately, clinical trials, ‘in the field’ in typical disease outbreak situations are far more likely to be meaningful and to give valid results. ("The Hillgrove Campaign’  issue 4   March/April  1998)

THERE IS NOT A CRIME, THERE IS NOT A TRICK, THERE IS NOT A DODGE, THERE IS NOT A SWINDLE, THERE IS NOT A VICE WHICH DOES NOT LIVE BY SECRECY. GET THESE THINGS OUT IN THE OPEN, DESCRIBE THEM, ATTACK THEM, RIDICULE THEM IN THE PRESS, AND SOONER OR LATER PUBLIC OPINION WILL SWEEP THEM AWAY. PUBLICITY MAY NOT BE THE ONLY THING THAT IS NEEDED , BUT IT IS THE ONE THING WITHOUT WHICH ALL OTHER AGENCIES WILL FAIL. - Joseph Pulitzer