Re: PETA's Ties to Terror

Rubystars wrote:
> 
> "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.

What makes you think so?  As I said, private laboratories seeking FDA
approval for developed substances must have housing and equipment
certification.  There is no oversight of the scientific value of their
research and no mandatory reporting of the number of animals used nor
classification of the pain and distress they must endure.
> 
> > 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)

Exactly right, people are free to abuse animals in the course of
conducting business.  Keeping 20 dogs in a house is "hoarding" and
violates anti-cruelty statutes.  Keeping 20,000 hogs in a corrugated
shed is good and profitable business practices.

> but that doesn't mean that the labs don't have to follow certain 
> guidelines.

Where might I find these "certain guidelines"?
> 
The IACUC system is essentially self-policing.  This is tantamount to
putting the fox in charge of the henhouse.  While every IACUC must have
at least one member not attached to the institute, the director of
institute is charged with the appointment of this individual and it's no
surprise that animal welfarists are not often invited to participate.

Why not mandate that this 'disinterested' member be a welfare advocate? 

> > > 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. 

What, precisely, makes rats and mice less deserving of protection than
dogs?  Other than your entirely relativist emotional attachment, I mean.

> That's just me though. I don't have a problem animal use if procedures > are 
> followed to minimize stress and pain.

How would you "minimize stress" in a dog confined to a 3' x 4' cage 23
3/4 hours a day?  Would you treat your dog like this?
> 
> <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?

You might try Findlaw for an on-line version.