Guest guest Posted June 27, 2001 Report Share Posted June 27, 2001 > Priscilla Feral, President > Friends of Animals > Connecticut, U.S. > feral > > Lee Hall, Co-founder > Great Ape Standing & Personhood > Baltimore/Québec > probonobo > > 26 June 2001 > > > For Immediate Release > OPEN LETTER TO IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS > > Re IDA Press Release of 23 May 2001: > " CONGRESS URGED TO TAKE ACTION ON NIH/COULSTON " * > > > Dear IN DEFENSE OF ANIMALS: > > We write to you regarding the above-captioned IDA Press Release, in which > IDA laments the NIH's award of a $42.8 million Chimpanzee care contract to > Charles River, a company which breeds animals for vivisection. > > We respectfully request that you address three (3) main concerns. > > 1. WE ASK YOU TO STOP PORTRAYING THE ANIMAL RIGHTS > COMMUNITY AS ACQUIESCING TO GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP > OF NON-HUMAN APES. > > Your Release states that The Coulston Foundation " has repeatedly run afoul > of federal laws enforced by the USDA " and other agencies. This implies that > if they hadn't run afoul of federal laws it might be acceptable to control > Chimpanzees through a government system. We assert that it would certainly > not be acceptable. > > Your Release quotes Representative James Greenwood's statement that the NIH > " already has more chimpanzees than necessary. " IDA's use of this reason to > oppose the contract ignores the reality that Chimpanzees should not be owned > by exploiters -- " necessary " or not. The very fact that the law considers > research on Chimpanzees " necessary " both justifies and codifies the human > right to torture non-human great apes. > > You mention Representative Greenwood's points that the babies would be > costly to the taxpayers and not valuable for respiratory virus testing. > Obviously, vivisectors do find them valuable, or they wouldn't be interested > in continuing to use them. Ape advocates' arguments should not be on > vivisectors' terms. > > Your Release states that the NIH's planned purchase defies " the will of > Congress, as outlined in a January 26, 2001 letter to the NIH from > Representative James Greenwood. " If a revolving door defied the will of > Congress, the Amendments to this Act would not have been written. > Greenwood's letter is not legally binding. Professor Gary Francione has > carefully explained, in open letters to the animal advocacy community, how > administrative law would work in this matter. > > Like HR 3514, IDA's Release invokes the administration of the Animal Welfare > Act. Judges defer tremendously to administrative agencies when they > interpret statutes. Should U.S. scientists deem it necessary to use more > Chimpanzees than are available, NIH officials would likely be delegated the > discretion to decide whether a Chimpanzee in the government system had been > appropriately deemed surplus. Again, we refer you to Professor Francione's > open letters on this subject. In the future, we hope IDA will value the > advice of the nation's leading legal theorist in the field of animal rights. > > 2. WE ASK THAT IDA ACKNOWLEDGE THE EFFORTS OF > ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS WHEN SUCH EFFORTS BEAR > ESSENTIAL RELEVANCE TO YOUR STATEMENTS. > > IDA, evidently surprised by the idea of a contract with Charles River, now > demands " permanent retirement " for the Chimpanzees. Friends of Animals > (FoA), Professor Francione, and numerous sanctuaries predicted this type of > contract to IDA, and insisted that the Chimpanzees' best interest could only > be served by legally transferring the Chimpanzees to private and respectful > sanctuaries. HR 3514 presented a chance to make the liberationist point of > view heard. IDA declined to do so. IDA is not the leading critic of the > problems caused by HR 3514. To imply otherwise is to re-write history. > > There was a time when HR 3514 was considered dead. Support from (and > tinkering by) Senator Bob Smith, backed by IDA and certain other national > groups, kept HR 3514 viable. Now IDA protests--with no mention of > groups and individuals who opposed this bill consistently. > > Why did we oppose the bill? Chimpanzees are so like humans that moral and > legal consistency requires us to include them in the community of moral > equals. The patently demeaning language of HR 3514 ran counter to this > position from its inception. Moreover, it expressly permits certain types of > research. The animal rights community supports neither the law nor the > spirit behind it. Non-human apes are not surplus research tools, nor are > they appropriately left under continued government ownership and control. > > 3. WE URGE YOU TO SPEAK CLEARLY ABOUT THE POSITION > OF ANIMAL RIGHTS. > > Perhaps your recent Release shows us that IDA can no longer ignore the > pitfalls of welfarist legislation. If so, we urge IDA, in future statements, > to notify the public about the immorality of perpetuating the enslavement of > non-human primates. > > If, on the contrary, IDA does support and promote welfarist legislation > which reinforces primates' property status, please say so, and explain > openly that IDA is not opposed to instrumental use of primates. As promotion > of welfarist legislation is not a rights position, we request that you make > it clear that animal rights advocates disagree with your position. Do not > pretend advocates for fundamental rights of non-human primates simply don't > exist. > > Thank you. > > > *Note to readers: Copy of IDA Press Release, " CONGRESS URGED TO TAKE ACTION > ON NIH/COULSTON, " is available upon request from GRASP, Inc. at > probonobo > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.