Re: PETA's Ties to Terror

"frlpwr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<snip>
> 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.

Surely even private researchers have to follow regulations.

> 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.

They're exempt from anti-cruelty statutes (the kind of thing that would keep
the average citizen from doing surgery on their pets) but that doesn't mean
that the labs don't have to follow certain guidelines.

> > 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?

I was actually happy and relieved to know that 90% or more of the animals
being used are rats and mice as opposed to dogs, cats, and primates. That's
just me though. I don't have a problem animal use if procedures are followed
to minimize stress and pain.

<snip>
> You can provide Chapter and Section.  Please do.

How the hell can I give chapter and section for something I read a decade
ago?