Re: PETA's Ties to Terror

Rubystars wrote:

(snip)
> 
> I think the AWA is the best piece of legislation currently there to 
> protect lab animals, but that doesn't mean its perfect.

The meager protections of the AWA only apply to publically-funded
research.  Private laboratories and institutes need only pay a private
company to certify their housing and handling equipment complies with
industry standards.  There is _no_ oversight to eliminate duplicative,
cruel, unnecessary or wasteful experimentaion in private facilities.  

At least half of all US jurisdictions exempt research from anti-cruelty
statutes.  Further, in those states not offering research exemptions to
anti-cruelty statutes, if an institute receives _any_ funds from the
federal government, even for experiments not under scrutiny, it can
enjoin the federal government (claim it acts as an agent of the
government) and shield itself from civil and criminal suits.

> I already knew it didn't cover mice and rats because I'd already read > the whole 
> thing.

Then why would you claim it's "the best" when the AWA excludes most
animals exhausted and destroyed in medical facilities?

> The same claim that mice and rats didn't have any protection
> under the law was being promoted by organizations like NAVs even back > then, and I 
> just don't think its accurate. Just because its not in the > AWA doesn't mean they 
> don't have other protections.

PHS-funded research includes mus and rattus, but their grants are
relatively small compared to the NIH and NSF.  

(snip)

> My claim is that the AWA said that itself. It said to deal with avian > and rodent 
> pests. Can I take a copy of that book-sized manual and hand > it to you over usenet? 
> No I can't. 

You can provide Chapter and Section.  Please do.