Well, as I said before:
-These employees may have used controlled substances illegally (and from the trial records it appears they did).
-They may have lied to people about what they were doing. (from the trial records, I’m not sure; people say they lied, but it’ll be interesting to see what the defense says).
-These animals may well have had a chance at adoption.
On the other hand:
-Tens of thousands of perfectly adoptable animals are euthanized every year in North Carolina alone, due to a lack of good homes. This is a matter of public record: you may contact the Department of Veterinary Medicine to get records on euthanasia county-by-county.
-The evidence that I see so far in the trial record does not indicate that the animals suffered from botched euthanasia (e.g., intracardial injections).
-As I understand North Carolina animal cruelty law, the standard of proof for felony conviction is malicious behavior. This does not appear to be malicious behavior.
-I was unaware that there was a misdemeanor animal cruelty statute that allowed for intentional behavior that was not malicious. This does appear to qualify there. In the earlier thread I strongly doubted that these crimes qualified as animal cruelty; it appears I was mistaken.
I expect the defense to try to show that this constituted “The lawful destruction of any animal for the purposes of protecting the public, other animals, property, or the public health,” the only exception to the law that might vaguely apply. I don’t expect them to succeed.
So, I was wrong in the previous thread. I do, however, think that the bigger issue here is the tremendous numbers of unwanted adoptable animals in our state, region, and country. And I am curious as to the method of euthanasia common to this county before PETA stepped in, and the statistics for that euthanasia.
And wild animals die horrible deaths all the time, but let’s not pretend we’d be doing them a service by keeping them in cages their whole lives and then humanely dispatching them. I have a number of problems with PETA practices, but extending the notion of “give me liberty or give me death” to animals isn’t one of them.
I’m not sure what species Della was referring to earlier, but I’d be surprised if the animals in question were wild. Research animals are typically domesticated species, bred for uniformity and also for ease of handling; they don’t behave as their wild counterparts do. (I adopted a pair of ex-laboratory ferrets; they’re sweet and gentle as can be, but lord do they act dumb as rocks sometimes. The domesticated strain just doesn’t have the same set of survival instincts, at least when raised in captivity.)
True, animal research may not do those particular animals a service… rather, they are doing humanity, and their fellow animals, a service by providing a valuable model for processes that couldn’t be effectively studied otherwise. We can only honor that debt by ensuring that their use is toward a worthwhile cause, which is why releasing lab animals in such a fashion is doubly tragic-- not only will they die, but the very reason they were bred and raised for is also rendered worthless, since no useful information will be gained from those animals.
For what it’s worth, in our research we use albino rats, which are highly inbred in order to maximize uniformity of subjects’ behavior, development, neuroanatomy, etc. These subjects are born and raised in a lab environment, meaning that they’ve never been hungry, cold, or exposed to predation of any kind. It’s unlikely that these animals would know where or how to find food in the wild, let alone know what was dangerous and how to avoid that danger. This is borne out by the fact that in the aftermath of the ALF attack on our facilities there were multiple reports of birds of prey and cats being seen with dead white rats.
I know that animals die in the course of my research. It is my job, however, to make sure that all my research in conducted in absolutely the most humane way possible. We follow regulations for the housing, feeding, breeding and, yes, euthanization of our subjects. So does every other animal researcher out there. While I’m sure that the rats don’t appreciate being subjects, in the long run I know that my research will benefit mankind. That’s a trade I’m able to live with.
Oh, and thanks, Terrifel for making many of these points before I found this thread again.
I think the problem with PETA (and any number of other “cause” organizations) is that the goal of the members is often the furtherance of The Cause - i.e. the conversion of other people to the desired belief system. The animals are a noble symbol of their cause in their minds, not real individual living things. Actually providing help to the animals is secondary, and sacrifice of any number of animals is completely justifiable if it helps The Cause.
(It’s kind of like fighting slavery by murdering slaves, in order to cause economic hardship to slave owners.)
Nor are they happier in cages. I’m not saying it’s right, but there is an argument to be made that a short life in the wild is preferable to a lifetime in a cage.
For some animals that’s absolutely true, and in fact it’s one of the main problems I have with the animal rights position: too often, they privilege some anthropomorphic (and Western) value such as length of life over what are probably the animal’s actual desires. There’s no indication that a cow wants to live to a ripe old age, for example, but there’s a strong indication that a cow wants to eat fresh grass. The cow that gets to live in an outdoor pen where it can engage in its natural behaviors for a year until slaughter-time is probably living the bovine good life much more than the cow who is never slaughtered but who often goes hungry and suffers the predation of parasites, as would a “wild” cow.
However, you gotta be careful not to project your ideal of freedom onto an animal. A lab rat who is well treated and eventually killed quickly is probably living the rat good life more than a rat in the wild who gets infected by a botworm or who must constantly scrounge for food or who barely escapes from a hungry cat with a huge gash across its forehead. To the best of my knowledge, rats are not wide-roaming species in the wild; freedom is not one of their natural urges.
That said, della is exaggerating when s/he says that “every other animal researcher out there” follows all the regulations, or implies that these regulations lead to a super-humane existence for these animals. Researchers are no more saints than any other class of people, and of COURSE there are researchers (or research assistants) who are lazy, temperamental, or just plain assholes who don’t follow the regulations. And even when people do follow regulations, some of those experiments are horrifically painful for the animals. I sat in on a lecture from a researcher who set lab animals on fire, inflicting third-degree burns without anesthesia. And it was his lecture that convinced me animal research was necessary.
We gotta keep our eyes open and judgment clear, no matter which side we’re on.
Slight hijack, any interest in persuing animal alternatives to testing? I understand the need for medical research but would alternatives be cheaper and more accurate than animal testing?
For the record, I am interested in medical research and also researching animal alternatives.
Not a lot of pets are kept 100% in cages. My friends who have birds often let them out to fly around the house for a bit, and rodents are also let out to play.
However, a cage that is large enough will keep certain animals happy.
Terrorist organizations allow the upper echelons deniability by persuading field operatives to suffer the consequences in return for financial aid, direct and indirect, to the families.
Okay, that’s just silly. What sort of terrorist objective would PETA be accomplishing by having these jerks euthanize animals in the field? This whole thing has been a publicity nightmare for them, no doubt a financial nightmare for them, and it’s almost certainly ruined their relationships with Eastern North Carolina animal shelters. There is no upside for PETA for this, unless you think that PETA is secretly a front for Cobra Commander or something equally implausible.
Both PETA and the vet hospital were appallingly negligent in not having a written contract describing the agreement between them You do not transfer custody of animals to someone without a written understanding of what they intend to do with those animals. Likewise, you do not accept animals from someone without their signed agreement with your plans for the animals. This, to me, is the biggest thing that comes out of the day’s testimony.
PETA employees did a great deal to improve shelter conditions in this county. Don’t let this point be lost in the awful actions of their asshole employees.
Multiple people have said that PETA employees claimed they were going to find homes for the animals. Unless there’s something very odd going on, I’m inclined to believe them.
Why would the employees have said they’d find homes for these animals? What possible gain do they have from doing so?
It just occurred ot me that somebody’s name (probably a veterinarian) is on the roster for the sodium pentobarbitol used to euthanize those animals. That person is responsible to the DEA for keeping the substances under strict control. If PETA’s internal security was so lax that a couple of employees could take the controlled substances across state lines without anyone being the wiser, the DEA could revoke the vet’s license to use controlled substances in their practice, effectively ending their veterinary career.