Page 6
by Jim Bollinger
In a report released recently by United Action for Animals, Inc.,
a non-profit organization dedicated to insuring the humane
treatment of laboratory animals, it was revealed that zoos across the
nation are being used as compounds for research, and many of the
animals in the exhibits are being used as laboratory animals by
behavioral scientists, and others. In the report, it was pointed out
that many organizations for animal protection, such as the Humane
Society, have done little, if anything, to try to protect these helpless
animals.
The report cited a meeting of the American Association of
Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) in October 1973, which
was attented by a number of animal-protection agencies, several
government lab-animal procuring agencies, M.D.'s from Baylor,
California, and Chicago, and the vivisection arm of the National
Academy of Sciences. The purpose of the meeting, the report said,
was to discuss the possibility of "(breeding) zoo animals and
(promoting) the use of zoo animals in biological and biomedical
research."
Many readers will be shocked to learn of the sadistic tortures
contrived by behavioral and other "scientists" which pass for
scientific experiments, and many of them subsidized by the U.S.
government, by our tax money. Here are a few examples cited from
the report:
Two standard methods (of nutritional research) are employed:
overdosing with toxic amounts of vitamins or other nutrients, and
deprivation of vitamins or other substances. In the latter, the animals
are 1) deprived to death, or 2) killed at an advanced stage of
deprivation.
In the experimental psychology laboratories, "presentation of
special stimuli" often means electric shock, food/water presentation
after depriving animals of food/water, air blasts in the face,
presenting cats with mice or rats to kill, etc.
Mouth rot was artificially produced "repeatedly" in the king
snakes... It might be said that these experiments were "for the good
of snakes," but if mouth rot is a problem in zoos it seems strange
that veterinarians can't identify the infecting organism in the
naturally-occurring disease and treat it WITHOUT artificially
infecting other, healthy snakes.
The published literature abounds with accounts of how
psychologists "present live prey" - mice or rats - to cats to watch the
cats' "aggression" as they kill the rodents. We even have numerous
pictures of these experiments. They're standard laboratory exercises,
subsidized largely by Congress with money out of the pockets of the
unsuspecting public. They're "necessary" only to pay the rent and
put food on the table of the experimenters by use of public funds.
The report quoted some speakers at an informal discussion
session concerning the killing of animals in zoos for their
"experiments." One speaker emphasized the delicacy of the
subject: "Studies of predatory behavior involve killing. This is
disagreeable to the public... I would agree, don't do it when there are
people there to watch it... But you can certainly do it after hours."
This entire subject, as handled by these sadists masquerading as
scientists reeks of something out of the mind of Edgar Allen Poe.
Perhaps these learned "gentlemen" have watched one too many
Frankenstein flicks. At any rate, their preference to perform their
ghoulish acts in relative secrecy cannot be called anything less than
cowardly and immoral.
The report also described some very grisly methods used to
prevent zoo birds from escaping from their aviaries via flight. What it
boils down to is that "all bones corresponding to the wrist, palm,
and fingers in humans are 'removed and discarded' " in a very
complicated process which also requires some extensive makeshift
plastic surgery to make the birds appear normal, although it may fail
at this: "(it) produces an unsightly appearance when these birds
display with wings outstretched." For the clincher, this entire
obviously-painful technique is normally done WITHOUT THE USE
OF ANESTHESIA!
These are only a few of the many instances of scientific torture
performed by scientists of all biological persuasions (and this
includes some veterinarians, too) on the many defenseless living
creatures who inhabit this planet with us. Please refer to the related
article on scientific torture on dogs for more information. And
perhaps the greatest transgression is that much of this torture goes
on behind the public's back while using the public's money.
The report goes on to state that animal experimentation, besides
being barbaric, is also practically obsolete, and the methods
currently being followed are those "favored 100 years ago by Claude
'ernard. Bernard tole his students: 'Experiment first, think
a t erwards. ' "
Government action, one would think, is required. However, the
pro-vivisectionist lobby is suprisingly strong and consists of many
varied special interest groups who have a grave stake in these affairs
and who carry much weight in Washington. To top it all off,
organizations such as the American Humane Society have done very
little to stop these monstrous proceedings. The report tells of a
number of instances where humane society "investigation(s) that
turned out to be a non-investigation(s)."
To wind up this tale of debauchery and sadism, I have reprinted
the Conclusion from the UAA report!
Based on our investigation, the evidence is that zoo animals are
under siege by many self-interests whose aim is to profit from the
exploitation of them. Zoo animals are doomed to be used as "animal
models of human disease" in the standard biological and biomedical
laboratory experiments. They are destined to become victims of
brain ablation and other "behavior modification" used allegedly on
humans to make them normal, but used on animals to make them
abnormal. Zoo animals are fated to be altered physically and
psychologically in the name of "animal behavior," just as laboratory
animals are altered, tormented and terrorized. The big difference
between vivisection and "animal behavior" is that in vivisection the
animals have some hope of dying. In "animal behavior," the animals
are tormented, tortured and terrorized throughout their entire lives.
Zoo animals have been abandoned - betrayed - by the very ones
purporting to be their protectors and benefactors - humane societies,
wildlife groups, conservationists, environmentalists, etc. While some
of these groups have issued various reports concerning zoo animals,
these have concerned "humane care and treatment" or "improved
conditions" which mean nothing more than animal husbandry. Some
have called for "accreditation" of zoos, as some laboratories are
accredited. But "accreditation" as defined by those who coined the
word, the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, also
SCIENTIFIC SADISM
C.C. READER
means what is essentially animal husbandry along with "unfettered
freedom" for researchers to do what they please to the animals.
Since starting our investigation of zoos and issuing subsequent
reports, we have discovered that there is a great deal of opposition in
this country to capturing and impounding wildlife in cages or
compounds. It was also interesting to find that some zoo
experimenters agree that there is no justification for keeping zoo
animals captive except to experiment on them.
We thus conclude that zoos should be phased out by not
replacing the creatures that die. Efforts should be directed, rather, to
providing maximum protection to all wildlife in its native habitat -
to allow the other creatures on this earth with us to live in their own
way without interference or manipulation.
This monkey is sealing 1940'5, yet zoo animals
its own death warrant. His have been dying agonizing
cage like those in many deaths from lead poisoning
zoos, is painted with all along because zoos have
lead-based paint. This type refused to switch to a
of paint was discontinued non-toxic paint.
for human use in the
Replacement needed but
Congressmen get plaques
A U.A.A. Inc. Progress report
As our members know, UAA
is pioneering in laboratory
anumal welfare work, using
every possible approach in the
hope of finding the one that
may be the most effective. Now
is appears that our disclosures on
"Higher Education U.S.A., or
Animal Models of Terror and
Pain" is the most effective work
we have done so far. We have
shown that students at
institutions all across the
country are being educated and
trained to maim, kill, torment
and torture animals - that they
can earn their PhD's and other
academic titles by abusing
animals. This information has
come as a bombshell to students
at every level. Letters are
pouring in even from elementary
school children who tell us, in
the scrawled handwriting of the
very young, that they are angry
and determined to do-something
to stop cruelty to animals in
education. We feel certain their
parents and teachers are hearing
the views of these young people.
A great many university
students have requested our
material, so me expressing
outrage at what is being done to
laboratory animals in the
college teachers have requested
material , without comment. A
number of student - run
newspapers are speaking out
about cruelty to animals in
research and education. Often as
a result of an article in a student
newspaper, we are inundated
with mail from the . students at
the institution requestion the
details. We have had to hire two
new people on our staff just to
EXXE
keep up with our outgowing
flow of information. We do not
seek contributions from
students. All of this work on
education is a public service
which we are able to conduct
only because of the generosity
of our dues-paying members.
There can be little doubt that
our work on cruelty to animals
in education is having an impact
on the research Establishment,
which never before seemed too
upset about our disclosures of
cruelty to laboratory anumals.
For example, in its February
1974 Bulletin, the National
Society for Medical Research,
which exists to promote the
procurement and use of
laboratory animals, published a
statement by its executive
director, a veterinarian, as
follows:
"The anti-science groups
apply subtle but effective
pressure with grisly
advertisements in newspapers
and by trying to mislead the
public into believing that
animals experimentation is not
needed."
We're delighted that the
NSMR's veterinarian rates our
work as "effective". But why
does he call us "anti-science"
when the very reason UAA was
founded was to work for the use
of modern, sophisticated, more
economical and humane research
methods to replace the
centuries-old, obsolete method
of animal experimentation? Of
course the NSMR hasn't
especially singled out UAA for
name-calling , it even calls
medical schools "anti-science" if
their students don't do enough
"basic research", that is, animal
May 16, 1974
experimentation. The NSMR
was founded to promote animall
experimentation, just as UAA
was founded to promote
alternatives, so it is not
surprising that the NSMR and
UAA are at opposite ends of the
pole. But what about Congress:
In the coming fiscal year the
National Institutes of Health will
receive an estimated $2.6 Billion
research subsidy for Congress,
most of which will be used for
animal experimentation , just as
NSMR wants. A long string of
other federal agencies - The
USDA, the VA, the military
Establishment, etc. - will receive
similar research subsidies, which
will also be used for animal
experimentation. The total
Congressional research subsidy
for all agenciesmay reach $2O -
$25 billion in the coming year. .
But Congress has remained deaf
to the appeals of a great many
people that modern,
sophisticated, more economical
and humane research methods
replace outdated, outworn, and
unspeakably cruel animal
experimentation. As an example
of Congressional bias, On
October 13, 1969, Rep. Paul
Rogers spoke before the
American Association for
Laboratory Animal Science, a
self-interest organization that
exists to promote the
procurement, breeding,
husbandry and use of laboratory
animals. Rep. Rogers assured the
AALAS: "It would be folly to
think that we can eliminate
animals as subjects for research .
. And I would not champion
such a cause." It is hard to
understand how Mr. Rogers
became such a close and devoted
griend of the AALAS, which is
made up of research
veterinarians and other animal
experimenters, laboratory
animal breeders, dealers and
importers, cage and equipment
manufacturers, laboratory
animal feed producers and
others whose very bread depends
on the expanding use and
consumption of
laboratory animals.
CONGRESSMEN PLEAD
IGNORANCE GET
PLAQUES
How can anyone convince
powerful lawmakers - those key
Congressmen most responsible
for the ever-increasing federal
research subsidies - of the need
for replacment when they (1)
plead ignorance of what is being
done to laboratory animals with
public funds , and (2) accept
"plaques" from a registered
lobby in recognition of the
billions of tax dollars they vote
for animal experimentation? For
example, in a letter to a
constituent dated August 2,
1973, Senator Warren Magnuson
stated:
"There is not yet a sufficient
amount of information to
legislate further in regard to test
animals in laboratories beyond
the prohibition in the Animal
Welfare Act."
Senator Magnuson has been a
key figure in helping pushing the
Congressional research subsidy
to its present staggering
proportions. He is also Chairman
of the powerful Senate
Subcommittee on
Appropriations. How does it
happen that he pleads ignorance
of how the public 'funds he
appropriates are REALLY used?
The American Veterinary
Medical Association, a registered
lobby, maintains a Washington
office to keep an eye on
Congress. In 1972, the AVMA
told the House Appropriations
Subcommittee on health
(Chairman, Rep. Daniel J.
Flood) that public funds were
needed for "laboratory animal
resources" - that is, more
laboratory animal holding
facilities - because "An entire
new industry has been developed
. . with several of the larger
companies having obtained
international status with stock
traded regularly on the major
exchanges of this country. "What
continued on page 7