A n i m a l W r i t e s © sm
The official ANIMAL RIGHTS ONLINE newsletter
Editor
~ JJswans@aol.com
Issue # 03/16/03
Publisher ~ Susan
Roghair - EnglandGal@aol.com
Journalists ~ Greg Lawson - ParkStRanger@aol.com
~ Michelle Rivera - MichelleRivera1@aol.com
~ Dr. Steve Best -
sbest1@elp.rr.com
THE ARTICLES IN THIS ISSUE ARE:
1 ~ Questioning The USDA
2 ~ You Are Cordially Invited to Join the AR 2003 Discussion Group
3 ~ Job Opportunity
4 ~ Animals Have Nothing To Celebrate During Refuge Centennial
5 ~ Canine Ritual
6 ~ The Forest By Michelle Pontiff
7 ~ Memorable Quote
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`
~1~
Questioning the USDA
The
Animal Welfare Enforcement Report (AWER -- now called the Animal Welfare
Report) is a document that the Secretary of Agriculture files annually with the
President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives.
The accuracy of this report is crucial to the evaluation of the overall
condition of animals in areas covered by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), such as
research and testing. The report is also used to discuss trends in areas
such as experimentation. When discussions of the use of animals in
experimentation begin, statistics from the AWER are often used as a starting
point. Is animal experimentation increasing or decreasing? The only
source for such statistics is the AWER. The USDA issued the 2001 AWER
late in 2002. Initial examinations of the report made it quite apparent
that significant discrepancies existed between the statistical portion of the
report for 2001 and similar portions of the fiscal 2000 report. These
discrepancies are most obvious in the area of the use of primates in
experimentation. These statistics are broken down by state, and initial
examinations brought up discrepancies in many states. However, as the
2001 AWER was examined more closely it was quite clear that major errors had
been made.
The Animal Welfare Enforcement Report for fiscal 2000 listed overall U.S.
primate use in experimentation at 57,518 with 52,031 being used in non-federal
facilities and 5,487 used in federally owned laboratories. The initially
reported totals for primate experimentation in fiscal 2001 would have been
welcome, if they were accurate. USDA/APHIS initially reported 49,382 as a
national total with 5544 being used in federal labs and 43,838 used in
non-federal labs.
These totals seemed to show a substantial decrease (14%) in primate
usage. A decline of 8136 seemed too good to be true. Where did it
come from? Federal use of primates actually increased (slightly – 57), so
this was not the source of the drop. A state-by-state examination of the
statistics seemed to be in order. The logical place to begin was in
states where the largest numbers of primates were traditionally used.
Louisiana contains several large primate labs (i.e. -- the National Primate
Research Center at Tulane with 6766 primates experimented on in 2000 & the
University of Southwestern Louisiana at New Iberia with 6204 primates
experimented on in fiscal 1998) and at least one moderately sized
laboratory. (LSU – 112 primates used in 2000). A previous state
total for primate use in Louisiana had been 8092 (fiscal 2000). The 2001
AWER reported Louisiana state total of 2913 does not seem to be credible since
all of the aforementioned facilities are still receiving NIH funding for the
projects that used primates in fiscal 2000.
Maryland has always contained many facilities which use large amounts of
primates (i.e.Johns Hopkins University). For fiscal 2000 facilities in
Maryland used 5460 primates. The initially reported 2001 total for
Maryland was 2503. After SAEN (Stop Animal Exploitation NOW!) contacted
USDA/APHIS and questioned the initial total it was revised upward to
6062. The initial error for this state was 58.7% of the final total.
Primate usage in Georgia is always high as a result of the presence of the
Yerkes Primate Research Center at Emory University. The Georgia total for 2000
was 3601. The initially reported total for 2001 was 3310. This total was
revised upward to 4930 after SAEN contacted USDA/APHIS. The correction
was almost half of the original total.
The District of Columbia is typically not a large user of primates in
experimentation, utilizing only 480 in 2000. However, the initially reported
number for 2001 was 31. This total was later revised upward to 371.
This was a ten-fold error, and the number may still be too low.
Primate use in Puerto Rico was reported to be 2015 in 2000. The AWER of
fiscal 2001 lists primate use in Puerto Rico to be 35. Puerto Rico is the
home of the Caribbean Primate Research Center, and this facility continues to
be funded up to the present day.
Primate use in Arkansas is not typically high, using only 140 in fiscal
2000. However, the 2001 AWER reported primate use in Arkansas at 0.
After SAEN contacted the USDA this statistic was revised up to 56, but this
number is still believed to be too low.
The AWER lists the experimental use of 63 primates in the state of
Oklahoma. The University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center (UOHSC) is
the recipient of NIH grant #RR12317. This grant funds the Baboon Research
Resource Program. The progress report for this grant, filed with the NIH
on 7/31/01 lists experimentation within the program on 94 primates during the
reporting period. It also discusses supplying 24 other primates to separate
projects at UOHSC. This report also discusses providing 11 baboons to the
Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation for use in NIH-funded
experimentation. The potential total for Oklahoma becomes 129 primates,
not 63 as was originally reported.
The AWER of 2001 reports 18 primates used in experimentation in Colorado.
However, a USDA/APHIS inspection report dated 2/28 – 3/1/01 lists a primate
inventory at the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center at 98.
There were significant drops in several other states including Texas and North
Carolina. These drops were partially corrected by USDA/APHIS after SAEN
questioned them. However, the funding (i.e. by the NIH) of primate
research in these states does not appear to have decreased. And these
states contain major primate laboratories (TX -- the Southwest Regional Primate
Research Center in San Antonio, the University of Texas facilities in various
cities; NC -- the Primate Research Center at Duke, Wake Forest, etc.). It
is believed that these statistics may still be inaccurate.
Are the
Labs Honest?
Since it has become apparent that the USDA has difficulties managing the data
provided by laboratories regarding animal experimentation, the next logical
step was to examine the data that labs provide to the USDA. However, if
this information was to be examined critically then an outside source of
information was necessary. This independent source of data also deals
with the use of primates in experimentation.
The National Primate Research Center system is comprised of eight laboratories
that as a whole experiment on tens of thousands of primates every year.
These eight laboratories are affiliated with these research facilities:
Harvard, Oregon Health Sciences University, Tulane, University of Wisconsin
(Madison), University of Washington (Seattle), Emory University, University of
California (Davis), and the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research.
These facilities are required to file annual reports with two federal agencies
– the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the National
Institutes of Health (NIH). The Animal Welfare Act requires all active
research facilities to file reports with the USDA, and all grant recipients are
required to file annual progress reports with the NIH.
These reports have several things in common. One requirement is that the number
of animals used by the Primate Centers is reported to both agencies. The USDA
report can include animals used in experimentation that is part of the facility
(i.e. the University of Washington) that may not be a part of the Primate
Center. So, the USDA report can have totals larger than the NIH report,
because the USDA report may cover labs that are not part of the Primate Center.
However, every primate used in one of the Primate Centers must be reported to
the USDA.
For this comparison totals for both experimentation and breeding/conditioning
from both the NIH and USDA reports are used.
When these reports are compared, several things become apparent. The most
obvious fact is that the numbers don’t match. In the case of Tulane,
Emory, the University of California, and the University of Wisconsin, the USDA
numbers are larger, or the same, so we cannot say that anything is amiss
there. However, Harvard, the University of Oregon, the University of
Washington, and the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research have all
reported more primates to the NIH than to the USDA. It appears that these
facilities have all violated the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by inaccurately
reporting their primate use to the USDA or the NIH.
Specific examples of these discrepancies abound within these
laboratories. Harvard has already been shown to have misreported their
primate use in 1998, and this has been confirmed by USDA correspondence.
Harvard reported the use of 336 primates to the USDA in 1998, 2054 in 1999 and
2119 in 2000. However, this same laboratory reported 1810 primates to the
NIH in 1998, 2337 in 1999 and 2826 in 2000. For a 3-year period Harvard
reported 6973 primates to the NIH and 4509 to the USDA for a discrepancy of
2464.
Several of the other Primate Centers fared no better. The Oregon Health
Sciences University (OHSU) reported 2914 primates to the NIH in 1998, while
reporting 2359 to the USDA (a difference of 555). In 1999 OHSU reported
2612 to the USDA but reported 3543 to the NIH (a difference of 931). OHSU
reported 3437 primates to the NIH in 2000, but reported 2119 to the USDA (a
discrepancy of 1318). The total discrepancy for the three-year period
from 1998 – 2000 is 2804. The Southwest Foundation for Biomedical
Research (SWFBR) reported 4201 primates to the USDA in 1999 while reporting
4806 to the NIH (a difference of 605). In 2000 the SWFBR reported 4693
primates to the USDA, but they reported 4777 to the NIH (a discrepancy of
84). The officials at the SWFBR had a 2-year discrepancy of 689 primates.
The University of Washington, Seattle has done no better. For the
three-year period from 1998 – 2000 the UW reported 1228, 3075, and 1122 to the
USDA (totaling 5425). For the same years the UW reported 2324, 2632, and 2541
(totaling 7497) to the NIH, for a difference of 2072. The potential
inaccuracies contained in the reports by Harvard, the Oregon Health Sciences
University, the Southwest Foundation for Biomedical Research, and the
University of Washington (Seattle) are significant from the point of view of
the overall accuracy of the Animal Welfare Enforcement Report. The
facilities that make up the primate center system reported (during fiscal 1999)
36% of the primate use for the entire country. And when only 4 of these
facilities have 3-year reporting discrepancies totaling over 7200 primates,
then the integrity of the statistics on primate usage must be questioned, and
thereby the entirety of the Animal Welfare Enforcement Report.
Conclusion
It is quite apparent that the reporting system which is used as part of the
regulation of the use of animals in research is seriously flawed. The
fiscal 2001 Animal Welfare Enforcement Report, as filed with the Speaker of the
House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, is seriously flawed.
The statistics for primate usage are substantially skewed so as to indicate a
major reduction in the use of primates in experimentation. The facts of the
situation are that no reduction took place, and that there may have actually
been an increase, though it is currently impossible to tell.
An examination of documents filed by major primate laboratories with the
National Institutes of Health has revealed major discrepancies between these
documents and reports filed by the same facilities with the USDA/APHIS.
It is entirely possible that officials within these laboratories have purposely
filed fraudulent reports with the USDA/APHIS. These discrepancies are
sufficient to cast doubt on the entirety of the reporting system, especially
when they are combined with other potential erroneous reporting which has been
discussed relative to the fiscal 2001 AWER.
The reporting system for animal experimentation is in serious need of an
overhaul. At no time from 1992 to the present has the USDA been able to
obtain reports from all research facilities in the U.S., with the high for
non-reporting facilities reaching 128 in 1997. Yet, the USDA/APHIS
website does not list any instances of facilities receiving a fine or official
warning for non-reporting.
The current system of reporting does not even cover all animals. The
totals listed in the AWER ignore animals confined within a research or breeding
facility that are not currently being used in experimentation (i.e. animals being
held for breeding, conditioning, etc. that are not yet part of an experimental
protocol). This allows a significant number of animals to go uncounted, and
unreported. These animals may comprise as much as 40% of the laboratory
population for some species.
The reporting process must be overhauled if animal experimentation is ever to
be regulated, or even understood. At the present time we do not have any
accuracy regarding the number of primates that are confined within research
facilities. And though only primate statistics have been examined in detail,
there is no reason to assume that information regarding any other species would
be any more accurate. Information from other sources indicates that
animal experimentation as a whole is probably increasing. Until the
process for tracking animal experimentation is made much more accurate, we will
have no way of knowing the truth.
What You
Can Do:
1. Write to these government officials to demand an investigation into the
reporting of animal experiments in the US:
Senator Thad Cochran, Chair
Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee
113 Dirksen Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510-2402
senator@cochran.senate.gov
Representative Bob Goodlatte, Chair
House Agriculture Committee
2240 Rayburn House Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20515
agriculture@mail.house.gov
Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Washington, DC 20250
agsec@usda.gov
PhyllisFong,
USDA Inspector General
Room 9-E Jamie Whitten Bldg
1400 Independence Ave SW
Washington, DC 20250
Phyllis.Fong@usda.gov
2. Go to the SAEN website at www.saenonline.org to read the full text of
our report and to see our letter to the Secretary of Agriculture.
Stop Animal Exploitation NOW!
PMB 280
1081-B St. Rt. 28
Milford, Ohio 45150
513-575-5517
saen@att.net
www.saenonline.org
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~2~
You Are Cordially Invited
to Join the AR 2003 Discussion Group
Animal Rights 2003 is the movement's annual
national conference intended for sharing knowledge, discussing strategies and
tactics, and providing networking opportunities for activists. To make it
possible for more activists across the U.S. to attend, conferences will be held
this year in both Washington, D.C., June 27-July 2; and Los Angeles,
California, August 1-5. Both conferences will feature speakers from every area
of the animal rights movement in plenary sessions, panels and discussion
groups, as well as dozens of exhibits and an extraordinary video lineup.
This discussion group is provided to give organizers, presenters, and attendees
an opportunity to exchange ideas to improve the quality of the conferences and
to make inquiries on topics not adequately addressed on the website. You can
also get a head start on planning your own conference objectives, and
communicating and connecting with other activists by subscribing to and then
posting at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AR2003
The easiest way to join the group is to send a blank e-mail to:
AR2003-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
You may also go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/AR2003/ to
join.
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~3~
Job Opportunity
Job Title: Coordinator(s),
Grassroots Animal Rights Organization based in the Pacific Northwest.
Commitment: One full- or two part-time positions available beginning in
July or August, 2003.
Compensation: DOE, competitive salary-based compensation.
Responsibilities:
* Organize and direct all activities of a medium-sized grassroots organization
with about 30 active members and a mailing list of 1,600.
* Work with and encourage volunteers to implement and manage campaigns, events,
demonstrations, and other actions.
* Educate and engage the public regarding issues relating to animals, including
vegetarianism and veganism, as well as the inherent cruelty involved in testing
of medical or cosmetic products, killing animals for fur, animal circuses,
trophy hunting, and so on.
* Serve as a liaison for support of and collaboration with other animal
advocacy groups in the Pacific Northwest.
* Coordinate all outreach and volunteer management tools, including a weekly
HTML-based email list, a website, and monthly meetings.
* Manage a diverse range of animal-related projects, including publications,
investigations, audio/visual exhibits, and more.
* Manage budgeting and financial matters for the organization, including yearly
taxes, IRS communications, payroll, fundraising, and financial planning.
Qualifications:
* An unfaltering commitment to the belief that animals do not exist for human
purposes, and therefore should not be eaten, worn, experimented on, or used for
entertainment.
* Minimum 5 years experience as a grassroots animal activist, including at
least some experience organizing. Experience as a formal coordinator or
organizer is preferred, but not required.
* Ability to multi-task. Qualified applicants will be able to cover a lot
of ground -- from public outreach to financial management to writing HTML --
and will possess an ability to learn quickly.
* Strong leadership skills and ability to motivate and effectively work with
volunteers.
* Excellent listening, oral, and written communication skills.
Reports To: Board of Directors
Deadline for Resumes: April 30, 2003
Contact: Ché Green
cgreen@armedia.org
P.O. Box 17607
Seattle, WA 98107
Northwest Animal Rights Network (NARN)
Website: www.narn.org Email: info@narn.org
Phone: (206) 250-7301
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~4~
Animals Have Nothing To
Celebrate
During Refuge Centennial
From The Fund for Animals - alerts@fund.org
This
Friday, March 14, marks the centennial of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
President Theodore Roosevelt, perhaps the most famous hunter of his day,
recognized the need for places where animals would be protected from hunting
and trapping, and established the first national wildlife refuge in Pelican
Island, Florida, in 1903, specifically to protect birds from plume hunters. For
half a century, the system was made up of true refuges that protected animals
from hunting and trapping. But now, most people would be astonished to learn
that hunting and trapping are allowed, even encouraged, on more than half of
the nation's 540 national wildlife refuges. As the nation celebrates the 100th
anniversary of the National Wildlife Refuge System this week, please ask
federal officials to restore our national wildlife refuges to their original
mission and President Theodore Roosevelt's original vision of protecting
wildlife from hunting and trapping.
The Fund for Animals has launched a new web site where you can find more
information about this issue, contact federal officials, and look up national
wildlife refuges in your area to find out whether they allow hunting and
trapping. To find out more, please visit: http://www.Refuges.org
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~5~
Canine Ritual
A
woman brought a litter of golden-retriever puppies to the veterinary clinic for
inoculations and worming. She loved the puppies so much that she couldn't keep
from remarking about their cute habits.
As the look-alike pups squirmed over and under one another in their box, the
vet realized it would be difficult to tell the treated ones from the rest. He
turned on the water faucet, wet his fingers, and moistened each dog's head when
he had finished.
After the fourth puppy, he noticed his talkative client had grown silent. As he
sprinkled the last pup's head, the woman leaned forward and whispered, "I
never realized they had to be baptized."
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~6~
The
Forest
By Michelle Pontiff - gatorqueen@AnimalProtector.com
The forest is the place I love to be.
It's where I can just be me.
When I'm there I feel peace and serenity.
I know that nature holds my destiny.
The forest, full of beauty, beholds such mystery.
Flourished with joyous animals of all sorts rejoicing merrily.
Trees with emerald leaves seem to glisten in the sunlight.
Oh, what it would have taken to bring about such life, created with such might.
What I need to make me whole, the forest is the key.
To protect what I love is my duty.
Forever I will sing the forest's song.
For that is where I belong.
*´`³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`*´`³¤³´`*:»«:*´`³¤³´`*:»³¤³´`*:»§«:*´`´`*:»«:*³¤³´`³¤³´`
~7~
Memorable Quote
"The most violent weapon on earth is the table fork."
~ Mahatma Gandhi
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
Susan Roghair - EnglandGal@aol.com
Animal Rights Online
P O Box 7053
Tampa, Fl 33673-7053
http://www.oocities.org/RainForest/1395/
-=Animal Rights Online=-
«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»
(Permission Granted To Quote/Forward/Reprint/Repost This Newsletter In
Whole Or In Part with credit given to EnglandGal@aol.com)
* Please forward this to a
friend who you think
might be interested in subscribing to our newsletter.
* ARO
gratefully accepts and considers articles for publication
from subscribers on veg*anism and animal issues.
Send submissions to JJswans@aol.com
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material whose use has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law).
If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go
beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.