It's been a good week for animals ... unless you're a duck, of course, in which case you might have been served up at the dinner table.
The Government climb-down over legal highs not only sought to protect humans from the perils of synthetic cannabis, it even extended to four-leggedcreatures with Prime Minister John Key surprising even his closest allies by proving a bit of a softy.
The testing of these recreational drugs on animals was outlawed this week, along with the drugs themselves.
Whether Mr Key was showing a compassionate side or just sniffing which way the political wind was blowing, who can say? But the about-turn cleverly headed off a Labour Party petition to ban such animal testing - a petition which was gathering pace in a way not seen since the petition to ban the gassing of dogs in Wanganui.
So, much joy for animal welfare organisations like SAFE and Animal Watch Whanganui - and for Labour senior pro and dog-owner Trevor Mallard who was in town this week beating the drum for all creatures great and small.
Mallard predicted an end to such tests on animals within 10 years. Let's hope he's right.
In cases of research into serious human illness, an argument can be made for the estimated 87,000 animals killed each year to further our knowledge. But for mascara, eye-liner and moisturiser ... ?
And, of course, there is always a question mark over products tested on animals. How accurately do the effects correspond to how humans would react?
The classic example was the thalidomide scandal of the 1960s when around 10,000 babies were born worldwide with deformed limbs after their mothers took the drug to alleviate morning sickness. Only half of those babies survived.
But as the thalidomide makers said at the time: "We tested it on rats and everything was fine."
It seems humans aren't the same as rats, mice, rabbits or dogs.
