Re: PETA's Ties to Terror

Note that I'm not snipping because I don't want to get accused of ignoring
anything.

"frlpwr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?

I would think the institutions funding the research and/or the labs
themselves would have welfare regulations.

>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.

If that's true then it should be changed, but LEGALLY.

> > > 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.

I would think keeping 20 dogs would be cruel to the owner. Think of all that
barking. Ugh.

> > 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.

What about the vetrinarians that most labs employ? Aren't they there to make
sure that the animals are properly cared for?

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

Maybe they're afraid that it won't be a welfare advocate but a rights
advocate. Maybe even a secret member of ELF or ALF. But I do see your point,
and I think there could be a lot of improvements.

One thing that Ipse dixit doesn't understand is that I'm interested in
helping lab animals and I want them to be cared for properly just as much as
she is.

If I find out that rodents and birds aren't being adequately protected, that
only means that we all have to work harder to try to get them protected.

> > > > 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.

My "relativist emotional attachment" is part of it. The other thing is that
I think that dogs are more emotional and intelligent than rats and mice.
Rats and mice can be smart but I don't think they come anywhere near dogs.

A dog would likely consider the lab workers fellow members of its pack and
if its hurt it would probably be more distressed than a rat who thinks of
the lab members simply as outside forces.

> > 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?

The AWA says dogs must be provided opportunities for exercise.

> > <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.

The online version doesn't seem to cover pest control like the old one did.
I don't know why I can't find that section, that's why I'd like to get a
text copy and see if I can.

-Rubystars