Monthly Archives: August 2005

Primate Freedom Project Publicizes University of Wisconsin Documents on Experiments that Lead to Researcher\’s Suspension

Posted on by
Reply

The Primate Freedom Project recently released internal documents it obtained through an open records request about an experiment at the University of Wisconsin that led to a number of primate deaths and, ultimately, the suspension of the researcher.

Ei Terasawa, a professor or pediatrics at the University of Wisconsin, received approval to do experiments involving primates to study how the animals\’ brains developed during menopause.
But Terasawa\’s experiment was plagued by a number of problems. In one case, a monkey died because an attendant left a laboratory for lunch during an experiment. That was just one of at least four times when animals involved in experiments were left unattended when the protocols of the experiment required that someone be present at all times.

Other monkeys involved in the research were given drugs that had not been approved by the university\’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. In other cases, monkeys were given the correct drugs but at dosage levels that had not been approved.

According to the Associated Press, Terasawa was barred from working with animals for two years and the experiment in question was stopped. Eric Sandgren, chairman of the university\’s IACUC, told the Associated Press,

It\’s one of the most severe actions that the committee has ever taken.

Which seems, frankly, a mild punishment. If dereliction of duty and ignoring experimental protocols that leads to the unnecessary deaths of experimental animals garners only a two year suspension, what would a researcher have to do to be handed a more severe penalty?

Even more disturbing is that although Terasawa was suspended in 2004, her suspension and the circumstances surrounding it were never made public. The Primate Freedom Project\’s distribution of the university\’s internal documents on the case were the first opportunity that the public had to learn of this mess.

Not going public in 2004 about the suspension was beyond stupid. How can researchers expect to be taken seriously when they talk about their commitment to the welfare of the animals they use if they cannot even be open and honest about a case like this? Why in the world did the University of Wisconsin put itself in the position where Rick Bogle was the first person to talk to reporters and the public about the suspension of a research that happened last year?

The following University of Wisconsin internal documents are available regarding this case:

Sources:

U. of Wis. Records Show High Monkey Deaths. Ryan J. Foley, Associated Press, August 16, 2005.

UW monkey deaths during experiments raise questions. Aaron Nathans, The Capital Times, August 16, 2005.

Share

Illinois Governor Vetoes Bill That Would Have Legalized Snares

Posted on by
Reply

Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich recently vetoed Illinois House Bill 1486 which would have legalized the use of snares in wildlife trapping.

The bill passed overwhelmingly in both the Illinois House of Representatives (87-27) and Senate (49-2). But Balgojevich transmitted the following message of veto,

August 12, 2005

To the Honorable Members of the
Illinois House of Representatives
94th General Assembly

Pursuant to Article IV, Section 9(b) of the Illinois Constitution of 1970, I hereby veto
House Bill 1486, entitled \”AN ACT concerning wildlife.\” House Bill 1486 allows hunters to use snares to trap animals such as raccoons, foxes and beavers on land. These traps have been banned in Illinois for over 50 years because the trapÂ’s wire hoop strangles the animal. Twenty-one states in the nation do not allow the use of snares.

Snares are inhumane and indiscriminate. Not only do they cruelly kill wild animals for their fur, they may also kill domestic pets and even endangered species. Even though the bill requires a mechanism on the snare to reduce the chance of strangulation, the safety provisions are still inadequate and animals would suffer unnecessarily. While I support the hunters and trappers of Illinois, I refuse to support this particularly gruesome hunting method thatÂ’s been banned in the state for years.

For this reason, I hereby veto and return House Bill 1486.

Sincerely,

ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH
Governor

There is no word yet on whether the House and Senate will try to override the governor\’s veto.

Animal rights groups commended the governor\’s veto. In a press release, Camilla Fox of the Animal Protection Institute said,

We commend Governor Rod Blagojevich for saying \’No\’ to the fur industry\’s attempts to further legalize a device that is known to cause immense pain and suffering to animals. With this action, the Governor has made a clear statement that snares have no place in a humane and civilized world.

The full text of the vetoed legislation can be read here.

Source:

Animal advocates commend Governor Blagojevich\’s veto of bill that would expand use of cruel snares in Illinois. Press Release, Animal Protection Institute and Illinois Humane, August 16, 2005.

Share

PETA Suspends Its Slavery Exhibit

Posted on by
Reply

It took months before public pressure forced People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to end its \”Holocaust On Your Plate\” campaign, but less than a month after the debut of its \”Are Animals the New Slaves?\” campaign the animal rights group suspended the traveling exhibit.

PETA\’s Dawn Carr told the Associated Press,

We\’re not continuing right now while we evaluate. We\’re reviewing feedback we\’ve received — most of it overwhelmingly positive and some of it quite negative.

The NAACP and other civil rights groups vehemently objected to the comparison. NAACP spokesman John White told the Associated Press,

PETA operates by getting publicity any way they can. They\’re comparing chickens to black people?

Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Alabama, put it best when he told the Associated Press,

Black people in America have had quite enough of being compared to animals without PETA joining in.

PETA, of course, sees nothing at all amiss about the comparison. According to its web site,

Africans captured and forced into slavery were often compared to animals so as to somehow justify their treatment. They were called \”brutes\” and \”beasts\” because of the color of their skin. Their lives were considered expendable, and many died at the hands of their oppressors. The same oppressive mentality behind those actions leads to the slaughter of animals today.

Beatings, lynchings, burnings: These cruel acts happen today just as in the past, only the victims have changed. Cattle and horses are branded with hot irons to mark them as property; elephants used in circuses are captured from their homelands, then beaten with metal \”bullhooks\” and baseball bats. Cows, chickens, and pigs are strung upside-down before their throats are slit. Many animals are beaten, kicked, and spat upon by farm and slaughterhouse workers who view them as objects of scorn, not as frightened individuals.

Of course the most obvious implication of this nonsense is that African slaves who were being oppressed by the system of slavery were in turn themselves oppressors when it came to the animals they ate. Some slaves, for example, hunted to supplement their meager diet. In PETA\’s view, these slaves were no better than those who laid legal claim on them as mere property.

Sources:

PETA suspends controversial exhibit. Dionne Walker, Associated Press, August 17, 2005.

Share

Dr. Terasawa Response

Posted on by
Reply

To: Eric Sandgren, Chair of the Graduate School ACUC

From: [REDACTED]

Date: May 7, 2003

Re: Protocol [REDACTED]

I am writing this memo to clarify the issue regarding \”continuous observation of chaired monkeys during the push-pull perfusion,\” which appears in Questions [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].

In [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] we state that \”During the actual push-pull perfusion experiments animals will be continuously attended by our research staff.\” Concern was raised regarding this statement, because one monkey [REDACTED] died while the scientist who was conducting this project was away for a brief lunch.

This statement was present in a protocol agreement approved in the late 1980\’s. At that time we could eat and drink in the same laboratory where experiments were conducted, and we had to collect samples manually every 10 minutes. Sometime in the 1990\’s the rule changed so that no eating and drinking were allowed in the animal area. Thus, we purchased a fraction collector, with which sample collections can be conducted automatically at 10-minute intervals, and scientific staff can have lunch and supper during the long course (10-16 hours) of sample collection.

As we also stated in [REDACTED], this experiment requires a quiet and stable condition. Especially, during the sample collection, it is important for an experimenter to keep a continuous \”private\” condition in which he/she established a \”rapport\” with a monkey. Many monkeys are very sensitive to strangers or intrusion by other scientific staff, even though they are familiar with those monkeys. Thus, we did not make arrangements to have substitute personnel come in while the experimenter was away for eating, drinking and bathroom necessity. After the death of [REDACTED], we realize that the word \”continuously\” could mislead our situation.

We will make a revision in the protocol stating that \”During the actual push-pull perfusion experiments animals will be continuously attended by our research staff, except for a few brief breaks of no more than 20 min for bathroom, eating and other incidental needs\”. (The application to the revision will be submitted before the June meeting.) Meanwhile, we will implement the practice of having substitute personnel present while the experimenter is away from the experimental room up to 20 min. The substitute personnel will not be visible to the monkey while in the experimental room.

Finally, I would like to point out the fact that [REDACTED] was in good health prior to cannula insertion followed by chairing as well as during push-pull perfusion experiment until right before the experimenter left for a 25-minute lunch. (The monkey was checked by the vet staff prior to the procedure starting, as is our standard procedure.) The death of [REDACTED] could have occurred in her home cage, rather than in a chair, because she was 31 years old (equivalent to 90 years old in humans), and because she had a pathological condition, specifically cerebral edema or emboli formed from the left atrioventricular valve thrombus, based on the necropsy record.

Share

University of Wisconsin Report on Terasawa Research

Posted on by
Reply

To: Christine Parks
RARC
From: [REDACTED]
RE: Protocol G00146
Date: July 1, 2003

[REDACTED] and [REDACTED] cross-compared the protocols (see below) and records obtained from all possible sources (e.g., colony records, laboratory note books, check sheets) and compiled a list of discrepancies between approved protocols and actual records. The apparent and potential violations are summarized below. The period of this investigation is from March 2000 to present. The tabulated information in detail is available upon request.

Protocol approval date: 3/13/00 with final amendment on 4/19/00
Major amendment approval date: 10/15/01
Minor amendment date: 05/20/02
Renewal approval date: 04/14/03

1. Apparent Violations

  • Bret left animals during the push-pull-perfusion (PPP) experiment for lunch 4 times. The protocol states that animals will be attended continuously. One animal died in the chair while Bret was at lunch.
  • In 24 PPP experiments in 11 animals, 4 different drug challenges were given. The 3/13/00 protocol did not contain this, but in the 10/15/01 protocol the maximum number of drug challenges was added to be three.
  • Five drugs (the ATP sensitive potassium channel blockers, tolbutamide and glybenclamide; the purinergic receptor blockers, PPADS and suramin; and the ATP hydrolysor, apyrase) that had not been stated in the 10/15/01 protocol were examined with PPP experiments.
  • In 15 PPP experiments ATP doses exceeded the dose range stated in the protocols.
  • In 2 animals more than 12 PPP experiments were conducted (1 animal with 13 times; 1 animal with 15 times). The 3/13/00 protocol did not contain this, but in the 10/15/01 protocol the maximum number of PPP was added to 12.
  • One c-section resulting in a 4th major surgery (the 3/13/00 protocol stated that the maximum number of major surgeries was 3. This confusion occurred because the protocol stated that \”the animals used for the project 1 (puberty-project) with PPP experiment can be used for breeding females in project 2, in which 3 c-sections were allowed\”.

2. Inadvertent Violations

  • Five animals received reheadcap surgeries. This procedure was not described in the 3/13/00 protocol, but it was added in 10/15/01 protocol.

  • In 15 animals blood draws were conducted on project 2, in which no blood draw was described. In projects 1 and 4 blood drawings are described.
  • In 12 animals more than 4 ml of bloods were drawn in one week. The protocol stated that taking more than 4 ml/week of bloods requires CBC. (See also related problems in No.3).
  • Forty-two animals received higher doses (up to 20 mg/kg) of ketamine. The protocol stated that ketamine dose will be 10-15 mg/kg.
  • Antibiotics were given to 18 animals after PPP experiments. In most cases a staff veterinarian approved the treatment, but consent was not in writing. In fact, Carol Emerson suggested antibiotics after PPP experiments on a regular basis.
  • Prophylactic antibiotics were given before and after surgeries, such as cranial pedestal implantation as well as cranial pedestal repair and removal, in 59 animals. Staff veterinarians knew of this practice, but we failed to describe it in the protocol.

3. Errors due to Reproductive Services for Breeding in Our Animals

  • In 7 animals Reproductive Services took blood samples up to 14 ml in a week under our protocol.
  • Reproductive Services conducted ultrasounds in 8 animals under our protocol. Ultrasound examination was not described in the protocol.

4. Record Errors

  • Fourteen initials/signatures are missing from check sheets.
  • Forty-one hourly check sheets for Chairing/PPP experiments conducted by a former postdoctoral research fellow (Dr. Shinichiro Nakamura) are missing. Since the check sheets had to be displayed on the door of room [REDACTED] when the experiment was conducted, they must have been filled out. However, at this time we cannot locate these records.
  • Errors in computer records are found in the following animals: 
       r94070     6/15/01           Remark by a veterinary assistant says \"in chair\".
                                However, this animal did not have cranial pedestal at
                                this time and there is no chairing record. So, there is no
                                way that she was in chair.
   r96130     7/10/00-7/14/00   Record says she was in chair after cranial pedestal
                                removal. This is not possible.
   r96112     8/8/00            The animal should be 96119. Record has been corrected.
   r99046     6/12/01           The animal should be 97046. Record has been corrected.
   r98003     6/12/01           The animal should be 98033. Record has been corrected.
   r98040     7/10/01           The animal should be 98049. Record has been corrected.
   r84108     10/3/00           This monkey does not belong to this protocol, because it
                                is a male. To take blood Reproductive Services assigned to
                                our protocol.
   rhaa56     10/3/00           This monkey does not belong to this protocol, because it
                                is a male. To take blood Reproductive Services assigned to
                                our protocol.
   r87100     12/8/00           This monkey does not belong to this protocol, because it
                                is a male. To take blood Reproductive Services assigned
                                to our protocol.
   rhaq36     4/30/01           Cranial pedestal removal surgery was stated as major
                                surgery.
   r93061     3/13/01           Cranial pedestal removal surgery was stated as major
                                surgery.
   rh1935     10/8/01-10/11/01  Chairing is not stated in colony record.
   rh2116     05/14/01          Record states \"out of chair on 5/14\". But it should be 5/4,
                                because there is no way that she was in chair for 13 days.
   rh2118     04/25/01          PPP experiment was conducted on 4/26/01. The date of
                                the out chair should be 4/26/01.
   r93058     12/10/02          PPP experiment was conducted on 12/11/02. The date of
                                the out of chair should be 12/11/02.
   r96082     11/27/00-11/29/00 Chairing is not stated in colony record.
   r98033     1/6/03-1/8/03     Chairing is not stated in colony record.
   r99031     2/18/02 & 2/19/01 Two records of cannulation. 2/19/01 is correct, based on
                                chairing record.
   r99031     03/12/02          Cannulated three weeks after last time by accident.
                                However no PPP experiment was conducted.
   r99077     09/10/01          Record says that pedestal repair and cannula implantation.
                                Only cranial pedestal repair surgery was conducted.
   r01050     10/14/02          There is no record saying that ketamine was
                                injected.
   rhYO3      05/12/01          Cannulation date should be corrected to 14th, based on
                                the chairing record and the PPP experiment, which was
                                conducted on the 17th.

    5. Others

    • Three animals had skin lesions after chairing.

    * * * * * *

    All \”Apparent Violations\” were recognized during the review process for the renewal of recent protocol (approved on 04/14/03) and discussed with the Graduate School IACUC. Also, my letter date 6/5/02 in response the Dr. Eric Sandgren\’s letter date 5/13/03 dealt with some of the issues. Thus, they have been resolved.

    Most of the \”Inadvertent Violations\” are due to unrealistic descriptions in the previous protocol or absence of our recognition, e.g., the activity by the Reproductive Services Unit. We will submit an amendment to correct these errors:

    1. A series of 3 ml blood draws up to 12 ml in an experiment will be added to project 2 and project 4.
    2. Ketamine dose will be changed from 10-15 mg/kg to 10-20 mg/kg.
    3. Prophylactic antibiotic treatments before and after surgeries such as cranial pedestal implantation, cranial pedestal repair and removal, will be added to the protocol.
    4. Activities of the Reproductive Services Unit, such as blood draw up to 14 ml/week, ultrasound examination and possible artificial insemination, will be added to the protocol.

    Examination of clinical records from 2000 – 2003 by Christine Parks and Amanda Crumbaugh.

    1. Unsual number of death/serious illness in animals used late 2000 – mid 2002 (23 monkeys used; events of use included even if outside above date range.) Some of the animals were aged. The following are summaries/quotes from the clinical records.
      1. rhap53-Died 6/17/02, 6 days after experiment (push pull perfusion). Necropsy report in clinical record said : \”The infarct and thrombus most likely occurred during the experimental procedure 6 days prior to death. They could account for the latered mentation reported clinically, but the ventricular hemorrhage and acute brain swelling are the most probable reason for the monkeys rapid clinical decline and demise.\”
      2. rhao21 – In 2001, animal had problems such as lethargy, inappetence, lying down in cage after experiment, cannula implant infection, holding hand stiffly, ulcers. Was noted to have a guarded prognosis but recovered (3/2001). Used again in late 2001 and January 2002; ulcers on 1/29/2002.
      3. 95105 – 3/11 cannulated On 03/15/2002 – poor recovery after experiment (vomiting, lethargy, laying down in cage, dehydrated). 5/28/02 cannula placed. 5/31/2002 – \”lethargic and not eating post procedure; evolved to apnea; good hr and pulse; no spontaneous respiration; pc02 61.4 mmttg; pupils fixed and dilated; elected euthanasia – by i.b.\” Necropsy: Cerebral/cerebellum edema but no histological diagnosis due to accidental freezing of tissue.
      4. rh2116 – 03/06/2002 – \”received emergency (sic) call that chaired animal had died; dead at least 5 minutes (no crt), attempted chest compressions; no heart beat/blood pressure; called pathologist on duty, left message – by [REDACTED]. Three moderate to severe ulcers on caudal thigh, pressure point in chair; blood on ulcers – by [REDACTED] . . .\” Blood clot in heart found on necropsy: probably throwing thrombi into circulation. Laboratory notebook noted that something unspecified is \”bloody\” or \”pinkish\” while in the chair.
      5. 00046 – 11/08/2002 \”in chair on experiment; ulcer (1cm) noted on left foot; cleaned and applied ointment; some swelling of foot, foot is warm; able to use foot and is eating; plan-observe – by [REDACTED]\” \”removed from cahir (sic) procedure 11-7 p.m.; left ankle appears irritated with open sore present on lateral surface; appears bright, alert, responsive and hydrated with good attitude; discuss treatment with vet- by j.b.\”
      6. 00040 – 12/20/200 – \”post push-pull observation-animal is lethargic\” 12/21/200 – \”down in cage; eyes open; will move if touched; push-pull procedure ended 12/20; antibiotic started 12/20; plan- collect cbc/chemistry; monitor closely; [REDACTED] \” Lethargic for a few more days but improved by

    • Share

    Illinois House Bill 1486 – Snare Legalization

    Posted on by
    Reply 
    



    

    


 

 

    




    


    






    


HB1486 Enrolled

LRB094 10666 RCE 41027 b

    

    
    		

    

    



    

    
1

    AN ACT concerning wildlife.
 

    

    
2

    Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
 

    

    
3

represented in the General Assembly:

 

    

    
4

    Section 5. The Wildlife Code is amended  by changing 

    

    
5


Sections 2.33 and 2.33a as follows: 




    

    
6

    (520 ILCS 5/2.33)  (from Ch. 61, par. 2.33)



    

    
7

    Sec. 2.33. Prohibitions. 


    

    
8


    (a) It is unlawful to carry or possess any gun in any
State 

    

    
9

refuge unless otherwise permitted by administrative rule.


    

    
10

    (b) It is unlawful to use or possess any cable restraint


    

    
11

snare or like


snare-like device,
deadfall, net, or pit trap to 

    

    
12

take any species, except that cable restraints
snares not


    

    
13

powered by springs, spring poles, or other mechanical devices 

    

    
14


may be used to trap
fur-bearing mammals on land with written 

    

    
15

permission from the land owner or tenant of the land , in water 

    

    
16

sets only, if at least one-half of the snare
noose is located 

    

    
17

underwater at all times.


    

    
18


    (c) It is unlawful for any person at any time to take a 

    

    
19

wild mammal
protected by this Act from its den by means of any 

    

    
20

mechanical device,
spade, or digging device or to use smoke or 

    

    
21

other gases to dislodge or
remove such mammal except as 

    

    
22

provided in Section 2.37.


    

    
23

    (d) It is unlawful to use a ferret or any other small 

    

    
24


mammal which is
used in the same or similar manner for which 

    

    
25

ferrets are used for the
purpose of frightening or driving any 

    

    
26

mammals from their dens or hiding places.


    

    
27

    (e) (Blank).


    

    
28

    (f) It is unlawful to use spears, gigs, hooks or any like 

    

    
29


device to
take any species protected by this Act.


    

    
30

    (g) It is unlawful to use poisons, chemicals or explosives 

    

    
31

for the
purpose of taking any species protected by this Act.


    

    
32

    (h) It is unlawful to hunt adjacent to or near any peat, 

    

    

    

    


 

 


    

    


    






    



HB1486 Enrolled
- 2 -
LRB094 10666 RCE 41027 b

    

    
    		

    

    


    

    
1

grass,
brush or other inflammable substance when it is burning.


    

    
2

    (i) It is unlawful to take, pursue or intentionally harass 

    

    
3


or disturb
in any manner any wild birds or mammals by use or 

    

    
4

aid of any vehicle or
conveyance, except as permitted by the 

    

    
5

Code of Federal Regulations for the
taking of waterfowl.  It is 

    

    
6

also unlawful to use the lights of any vehicle
or conveyance or 

    

    
7

any light from or any light connected to the
vehicle or 

    

    
8

conveyance in any area where wildlife may be found except in


    

    
9


accordance with Section 2.37 of this Act; however, nothing in 

    

    
10

this
Section shall prohibit the normal use of headlamps for the 

    

    
11

purpose of driving
upon a roadway.  Striped skunk, opossum, red 

    

    
12

fox, gray
fox, raccoon and coyote may be taken during the open 

    

    
13

season by use of a small
light which is worn on the body or 

    

    
14

hand-held by a person on foot and not in any
vehicle.




    

    
15

    (j) It is unlawful to use any shotgun larger than 10 gauge 

    

    
16

while
taking or attempting to take any of the species protected 

    

    
17

by this Act.


    

    
18

    (k) It is unlawful to use or possess in the field any 

    

    
19

shotgun shell loaded
with a shot size larger than lead BB or 

    

    
20


steel T (.20 diameter) when taking or
attempting to take any 

    

    
21

species of wild game mammals (excluding white-tailed
deer), 

    

    
22

wild game birds, migratory waterfowl or migratory game birds 

    

    
23

protected
by this Act, except white-tailed deer as provided for 

    

    
24

in Section 2.26 and other
species as provided for by subsection 

    

    
25

(l) or administrative rule.




    

    
26

    (l) It is unlawful to take any species of wild game, except


    

    
27

white-tailed deer, with a shotgun loaded with slugs unless 

    

    
28

otherwise
provided for by administrative rule.


    

    
29

    (m) It is unlawful to use any shotgun capable of holding 

    

    
30

more than 3
shells in the magazine or chamber combined, except 

    

    
31


on game breeding and
hunting preserve areas licensed under 

    

    
32

Section 3.27 and except as permitted by
the Code of Federal 

    

    
33

Regulations for the taking of waterfowl.  If the shotgun
is 

    

    
34

capable of holding more than 3 shells, it shall, while being 

    

    
35

used on an
area other than a game breeding and shooting 

    

    
36

preserve area licensed
pursuant to Section 3.27, be fitted with 

    

    

    

    


 


 


    

    


    






    


HB1486 Enrolled
- 3 -
LRB094 10666 RCE 41027 b

    

    
    		

    

    


    

    
1

a one piece plug that is
irremovable without dismantling the 

    

    
2


shotgun or otherwise altered to
render it incapable of holding 

    

    
3

more than 3 shells in the magazine and
chamber, combined.


    

    
4

    (n) It is unlawful for any person, except persons who 

    

    
5

possess a permit to
hunt from a vehicle as provided in this 

    

    
6

Section and persons otherwise permitted
by law, to have or 

    

    
7

carry any gun in or on any vehicle, conveyance or aircraft,




    

    
8

unless such gun is unloaded and enclosed in a case, except that 

    

    
9

at field trials
authorized by Section 2.34 of this Act, 

    

    
10

unloaded guns or guns loaded with blank
cartridges only, may be 

    

    
11

carried on horseback while not contained in a case, or
to have 

    

    
12

or carry any bow or arrow device in or on any vehicle unless 

    

    
13


such bow
or arrow device is unstrung or enclosed in a case, or 

    

    
14

otherwise made
inoperable.


    

    
15

    (o) It is unlawful to use any crossbow for the purpose of 

    

    
16

taking any
wild birds or mammals, except as provided for in 

    

    
17

Section 2.33.


    

    
18


    (p) It is unlawful to take game birds, migratory game birds 

    

    
19

or
migratory waterfowl with a rifle, pistol, revolver, or 

    

    
20

airgun.


    

    
21

    (q) It is unlawful to fire a rifle, pistol, revolver or 

    

    
22

airgun on,
over or into any waters of this State, including 

    

    
23


frozen waters.


    

    
24

    (r) It is unlawful to discharge any gun or bow and arrow 

    

    
25

device
along, upon, across, or from any public right-of-way or 

    

    
26

highway in this State.


    

    
27

    (s) It is unlawful to use a silencer or other device to 

    

    
28


muffle or
mute the sound of the explosion or report resulting 

    

    
29

from the firing of
any gun.


    

    
30

    (t) It is unlawful for any person to trap or hunt, or allow 

    

    
31

a dog to
hunt, within or upon the land of another, or upon 

    

    
32

waters flowing over or
standing on the land of another, without 

    

    
33

first obtaining permission from
the owner or tenant.  It shall 

    

    
34


be prima facie evidence that a person does
not have permission 

    

    
35

of the owner or tenant if the person is unable to
demonstrate 

    

    
36

to the law enforcement officer in the field that permission has


    

    

    

    


 

 


    

    


    






    


HB1486 Enrolled

- 4 -
LRB094 10666 RCE 41027 b

    

    
    		

    

    


    

    
1

had
been obtained.  This provision may only be rebutted by 

    

    
2

testimony of the
owner or tenant that permission had been 

    

    
3

given.  Before enforcing this
Section the law enforcement 

    

    
4


officer must have received notice from the
owner or tenant of a 

    

    
5

violation of this Section.  Statements made to the
law 

    

    
6

enforcement officer regarding this notice shall not be rendered


    

    
7

inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered for the purpose 

    

    
8

of showing the
required notice.


    

    
9

    (u) It is unlawful for any person to discharge any firearm 

    

    
10


for the purpose
of taking any of the species protected by this 

    

    
11

Act, or hunt with dog
gun or gun
dog, or allow a dog to hunt, 

    

    
12


within 300 yards of an inhabited dwelling without
first 

    

    
13

obtaining permission from the owner or tenant, except that 

    

    
14

while
trapping, hunting with bow and arrow, hunting with dog 

    

    
15

and shotgun using shot
shells only, or hunting with shotgun 

    

    
16

using shot shells only, or
on licensed game breeding and 

    

    
17

hunting preserve areas, as defined in Section
3.27, on property 

    

    
18


operated under a Migratory Waterfowl Hunting Area Permit, on


    

    
19

federally owned and managed lands and on Department owned, 

    

    
20

managed, leased or
controlled lands, a 100 yard restriction 

    

    
21

shall apply.


    

    
22

    (v) It is unlawful for any person to remove fur-bearing 

    

    
23

mammals from, or
to move or disturb in any manner, the traps or 

    

    
24


cable restraints owned by another person without
written 

    

    
25

authorization of the owner to do so.


    

    
26

    (w) It is unlawful for any owner of a dog to knowingly or 

    

    
27

wantonly allow
his or her dog to pursue, harass or kill deer, 

    

    
28

except that nothing in this Section shall prohibit the tracking 

    

    
29


of wounded deer with a dog in accordance with the provisions of 

    

    
30

Section 2.26 of this Code.


    

    
31

    (x) It is unlawful for any person to wantonly or carelessly 

    

    
32

injure
or destroy, in any manner whatsoever, any real or 

    

    
33

personal property on
the land of another while engaged in 

    

    
34

hunting or trapping on that land


thereon.


    

    
35

    (y) It is unlawful to hunt wild game protected by this Act 

    

    
36

between one
half hour after sunset and one half hour before 

    

    

    

    


 

 


    

    


    






    


HB1486 Enrolled

- 5 -
LRB094 10666 RCE 41027 b

    

    
    		

    

    


    

    
1

sunrise, except that
hunting hours between one half hour after 

    

    
2

sunset and one half hour
before sunrise may be established by 

    

    
3

administrative rule for fur-bearing
mammals.


    

    
4


    (z) It is unlawful to take any game bird (excluding wild 

    

    
5

turkeys and
crippled pheasants not capable of normal flight and 

    

    
6

otherwise irretrievable)
protected by this Act when not flying.  

    

    
7

Nothing in this Section shall prohibit
a person from carrying 

    

    
8

an uncased, unloaded shotgun in a boat, while in pursuit
of a 

    

    
9

crippled migratory waterfowl that is incapable of normal 

    

    
10


flight, for the
purpose of attempting to reduce the migratory 

    

    
11

waterfowl to possession, provided
that the attempt is made 

    

    
12

immediately upon downing the migratory waterfowl and
is done 

    

    
13

within 400 yards of the blind from which the migratory 

    

    
14

waterfowl was
downed.  This exception shall apply only to 

    

    
15

migratory game birds that are not
capable of normal flight.  

    

    
16


Migratory waterfowl that are crippled may be taken
only with a 

    

    
17

shotgun as regulated by subsection (j) of this Section using


    

    
18

shotgun shells as regulated in subsection (k) of this Section.


    

    
19

    (aa) It is unlawful to use or possess any device that may 

    

    
20

be used for
tree climbing or cutting, while hunting fur-bearing 

    

    
21

mammals.




    

    
22

    (bb) It is unlawful for any person, except licensed game 

    

    
23

breeders,
pursuant to Section 2.29 to import, carry into, or 

    

    
24

possess alive in this
State any species of wildlife taken 

    

    
25

outside of this State, without
obtaining permission to do so 

    

    
26

from the Director.


    

    
27


    (cc) It is unlawful for any person to have in his or her


    

    
28

possession any freshly killed species protected by this Act 

    

    
29

during the season
closed for taking.


    

    
30

    (dd) It is unlawful to take any species protected by this 

    

    
31

Act and retain
it alive.


    

    
32


    (ee) It is unlawful to possess any rifle while in the field 

    

    
33

during gun
deer season except as provided in Section 2.26 and 

    

    
34

administrative rules.


    

    
35

    (ff) It is unlawful for any person to take any species 

    

    
36

protected by
this Act, except migratory waterfowl, during the 

    

    

    

    


 

 


    

    


    






    


HB1486 Enrolled
- 6 -
LRB094 10666 RCE 41027 b

    

    
    		

    

    


    

    
1

gun deer hunting season in
those counties open to gun deer 

    

    
2

hunting, unless he or she wears, when in
the field, a cap and 

    

    
3


upper outer garment of a solid blaze orange color, with
such 

    

    
4

articles of clothing displaying a minimum of 400 square inches 

    

    
5

of
blaze orange material.


    

    
6

    (gg) It is unlawful during the upland game season for any 

    

    
7

person to take
upland game with a firearm unless he or she 

    

    
8

wears, while in the field, a
cap of solid blaze orange color.  

    

    
9


For purposes of this Act, upland game is
defined as Bobwhite 

    

    
10

Quail, Hungarian Partridge, Ring-necked Pheasant, Eastern


    

    
11

Cottontail and Swamp Rabbit.


    

    
12

    (hh) It shall be unlawful to kill or cripple any species 

    

    
13

protected by
this Act for which there is a daily bag limit 

    

    
14

without making a reasonable
effort to retrieve such species and 

    

    
15


include such in the daily bag limit.


    

    
16

    (ii) This Section shall apply only to those species 

    

    
17

protected by this
Act taken within the State.  Any species or 

    

    
18

any parts thereof, legally taken
in and transported from other 

    

    
19

states or countries, may be possessed
within the State, except 

    

    
20


as provided in this Section and Sections 2.35, 2.36
and 3.21.


    

    
21

    (jj) Nothing contained in this Section shall prohibit the 

    

    
22

use of bow
and arrow, or prevent the Director from issuing 

    

    
23

permits to use a crossbow
to handicapped persons as provided by 

    

    
24

administrative rule.  As used herein,
\"handicapped persons\" 

    

    
25


means those persons who have a permanent physical
impairment 

    

    
26

due to injury or disease, congenital or acquired, which renders


    

    
27

them so severely disabled as to be unable to use a conventional 

    

    
28

bow and arrow
device.  Permits will be issued only after the 

    

    
29

receipt of a physician\'s
statement confirming the applicant is 

    

    
30

handicapped as defined above.




    

    
31

    (kk) Nothing contained in this Section shall prohibit the 

    

    
32

Director
from issuing permits to paraplegics or to other 

    

    
33

disabled persons who meet the
requirements set forth in 

    

    
34

administrative rule to shoot or hunt from a vehicle
as provided 

    

    
35

by that rule, provided that such is otherwise in accord with 

    

    
36


this
Act.


    

    

    

    


 

 


    

    


    






    


HB1486 Enrolled
- 7 -
LRB094 10666 RCE 41027 b

    

    
    		

    

    


    

    
1


    (ll) Nothing contained in this Act shall prohibit the 

    

    
2

taking of aquatic
life protected by the Fish and Aquatic Life 

    

    
3

Code or birds and mammals
protected by this Act, except deer 

    

    
4

and fur-bearing mammals, from a boat not
camouflaged or 

    

    
5

disguised to alter its identity or to further provide a place


    

    
6


of concealment and not propelled by sail or mechanical power.  

    

    
7

However, only
shotguns not larger than 10 gauge nor smaller 

    

    
8

than .410 bore loaded with not
more than 3 shells of a shot 

    

    
9

size no larger than lead BB or steel T (.20
diameter) may be 

    

    
10

used to take species protected by this Act.


    

    
11

    (mm) Nothing contained in this Act shall prohibit the use 

    

    
12


of a shotgun,
not larger than 10 gauge nor smaller than a 20 

    

    
13

gauge, with a rifled barrel.


    

    
14

    Nothing contained in this Act shall prohibit the use of 

    

    
15

locking type cable restraints for use in water trapping. 

    

    
16

Written permission of the owner of the land over which the 

    

    
17

water is standing or flowing is not required for water sets.




    

    
18

(Source: P.A. 92-325, eff. 8-9-01; 92-651, eff. 7-11-02; 

    

    
19

93-807, eff. 7-24-04.)
 




    

    
20

    (520 ILCS 5/2.33a)  (from Ch. 61, par. 2.33a)






    

    
21

    Sec. 2.33a. Unlawful trapping.



    

    
22

    (a) It is unlawful to fail to visit and remove all animals


    

    
23

from traps and cable restraints staked out, set, used, tended, 

    

    
24


placed or maintained at least
once each calendar day.


    

    
25

    (b) It is unlawful for any person to place, set, use, or 

    

    
26

maintain a
leghold trap or one of similar construction on land, 

    

    
27

that has a jaw spread
of larger than 6 1/2 inches (16.6 CM), or 

    

    
28

a body-gripping trap or one of
similar construction having a 

    

    
29

jaw spread larger than 7 inches (17.8 CM) on
a side if square 

    

    
30


and 8 inches (20.4 CM) if round;


    

    
31

    (c) It is unlawful for any person to place, set, use, or 

    

    
32

maintain a
leghold trap or one of similar construction in 

    

    
33

water, that has a jaw spread
of larger than 7 1/2 inches (19.1 

    

    
34

CM), or a body-gripping trap or one of
similar construction 

    

    
35

having a jaw spread larger than 10 inches (25.4 CM) on
a side 

    

    

    

    


 


 


    

    


    






    


HB1486 Enrolled
- 8 -
LRB094 10666 RCE 41027 b

    

    
    		

    

    


    

    
1

if square and 12 inches (30.5 CM) if round;


    

    
2


    (d) It is unlawful to use any trap with saw-toothed, 

    

    
3

spiked, or toothed jaws;


    

    
4

    (e) It is unlawful to destroy, disturb or in any manner 

    

    
5

interfere with
dams, lodges, burrows or feed beds of beaver 

    

    
6

while trapping for beaver or
to set a trap inside a muskrat 

    

    
7

house or beaver lodge, except that this shall
not apply to 

    

    
8


Drainage Districts who are acting pursuant to the provisions
of 

    

    
9

Section 2.37;


    

    
10

    (f) It is unlawful to trap beaver with: (1) a leghold trap 

    

    
11

or one of similar
construction having a jaw spread of less than 

    

    
12

5 1/2 inches (13.9 CM) or
more than 7 1/2 inches (19.1 CM), or 

    

    
13

(2) a body-gripping trap or one of
similar construction having 

    

    
14


a jaw spread of less than 7 inches (17.7 CM) or
more than 10 

    

    
15

inches (25.4 CM) on a side if square and 12 inches (30.5 CM) if


    

    
16

round, except that these restrictions shall not apply during


    

    
17

the open season for trapping muskrats;


    

    
18

    (g) It is unlawful to set traps closer than 10 feet (3.05 

    

    
19

M) from any
hole or den which may be occupied by a game mammal 

    

    
20


or fur-bearing mammal
except that this restriction shall not 

    

    
21

apply to water sets.


    

    
22

    (h) It is unlawful to trap or attempt to trap any 

    

    
23

fur-bearing mammal
with any colony, cage, box, or stove-pipe 

    

    
24

trap designed to take more than one
mammal at a single setting.


    

    
25


    (i) It is unlawful for any person to set or place any trap 

    

    
26

or cable restraint designed to
take any fur-bearing mammal 

    

    
27

protected by this Act during the closed
trapping season.  Proof 

    

    
28

that any trap or cable restraint was placed during the closed 

    

    
29


trapping
season shall be deemed prima facie evidence of a 

    

    
30

violation of this provision.


    

    
31

    (j) It is unlawful to place, set, or maintain any leghold 

    

    
32

trap or one of
similar construction within thirty (30) feet 

    

    
33

(9.14 m) of bait placed in
such a manner or position that it is 

    

    
34

not completely covered and concealed
from sight, except that 

    

    
35


this shall not apply to underwater sets.  Bait shall
mean and 

    

    
36

include any bait composed of mammal, bird, or fish flesh, fur,


    

    

    

    


 

 


    

    


    






    


HB1486 Enrolled
- 9 -
LRB094 10666 RCE 41027 b

    

    
    		

    

    


    

    
1

hide, entrails or feathers.


    

    
2

    (k) It shall be unlawful for hunters or trappers to have 

    

    
3

the green hides
of fur-bearing mammals, protected by this Act, 

    

    
4

in their possession except
during the open season and for an 

    

    
5

additional period of 10 days succeeding
such open season.




    

    
6

    (l) It is unlawful for any person to place, set, use, or 

    

    
7

maintain a
cable restraint
snare trap or one of similar 

    

    
8

construction in water, that has a loop
diameter exceeding 15 

    

    
9


inches (38.1 CM) or a cable or wire diameter of more
than 1/8 

    

    
10

inch (3.2 MM) or less than 5/64 inch (2.0 MM), that is 

    

    
11

constructed
of stainless steel metal cable or wire, and that 

    

    
12

does not have a mechanical
lock, anchor swivel and stop device 

    

    
13

to prevent the mechanical lock from
closing the noose loop to a 

    

    
14

diameter of less than 2 1/2 inches (6.4 CM).




    

    
15

    (m) It is unlawful for any person to place, set, use, or 

    

    
16

maintain on land a cable restraint or one of similar 

    

    
17

construction that has a loop diameter exceeding 15 inches (38.1 

    

    
18

cm). It is unlawful for any person to place, set, or maintain 

    

    
19

on land a cable restraint or one of similar construction that 

    

    
20


does not have a relaxing mechanical lock, anchor swivel, and 

    

    
21

stop device to prevent the relaxing mechanical lock from 

    

    
22

closing the noose loop to a diameter of less than 2 1/2 inches 

    

    
23

(6.4 cm).


    

    
24

    (n) It is unlawful for any person to place, set, use, or 

    

    
25

maintain a cable restraint or one of similar construction that 

    

    
26


would reach any fence when fully extended.


    

    
27

    (o) It is unlawful for any person to place, set, use or 

    

    
28

maintain on land or in water a cable restraint that is attached 

    

    
29

to a drag or a movable object. It is unlawful to set a cable 

    

    
30

restraint on land without an in-line swivel between the cable 

    

    
31

restraint lock and the end swivel at the point of fastening.




    

    
32

(Source: P.A. 85-152; 86-1354.)

 

    

    
33

    Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon 

    

    
34

becoming law.


    

    Share
    					
    
		
		
	
    

				
					
	
    
		
    
						
    Research Animal Resources Letter to University of Wisconsin ACUC – July 10, 2003
    
			
						
    
				Posted on   by  			
    
			
						
    
				Reply			
    
					
    

				
    
			
    The University of Wisconsin Madison
    

    
To: Tim Mulcahy
    
Chair, All Campus ACUC
    

    
From: [REDACTED]
    
RARC
    

    
RE: Dr. Terasawa and Protocol G00146
    

    
Date: July 10, 2003
    

    
Enclosed please find my report of the review of the clinic histories of Dr. [REDACTED] animals on protocol G146 for the last three years. Also enclosed is a memo from Dr. [REDACTED] reporting the results of her own investigation of laboratory notebooks and clinical records.
    

    
As you can see, there have been a variety of deviations from her approved protocols over this period of time. There have also been more negative outcomes than expected for the animals on the push pull perfusion studies, especially for aged animals. I understand that the All Campus ACUC will decide whether she can continue to do animal research here at the university, and may allow the Graduate School ACUC to lift her suspension and approve her most recent protocol at their discretion. If this is the case, I submit the following ideas to prevent future reoccurrences of these types of problems.
    

    
First, the [REDACTED] veterinary staff should review the clinical records of all of her current animals on a regular basis and report to the Graduate School ACUC any events of concern (once a month or once every two months.) Second, someone should review her current laboratory notebooks and report to the ACUC as above (perhaps [REDACTED] from the [REDACTED]. Third, a letter should be crafted to Dr. [REDACTED] explaining to her that further serious violations will result in loss of ability to perform animal research at the university. Last, Dr. [REDACTED] should reply in writing that she understands and accepts these conditions.
    

    
I believe a period of one year of close observation should be sufficient to assure compliance and understanding by Dr. [REDACTED] and her staff.
    

    Share
    					
    
		
		
	
    

				
					
	
    
		
    
						
    Minutes of University of Wisconsin\’s Graduate School Animal Care Committee – May 12, 2003
    
			
						
    
				Posted on   by  			
    
			
						
    
				Reply			
    
					
    

				
    
			
    The University of Wisconsin Madison
    

    
Graduate School Animal Care Committee
    

    
May 12, 2003
    

    
Present: Bolton, Evans, Fechner, McCentee (n.v.), Sandgren, Schultz-Darken, Welter and Zhang
    

    
Absent:
    

    
Abbott
    

    
Guests: Dr. Kemnitz, Amanda Crumbaugh, Dr. Parks
    

    
Approval of April 14, 2003 Minutes
    

    
Sandgren/Schultz-Darken moved for approval pending minor corrections. Vote was unanimous.
    

    
Compliance Issues
    

    
Recently, two USDA investigators visited RARC and the Primate Center.
    

    
During this investigation the investigators learned that monitoring was not provided continuously for chaired animals as described in protocol [REDACTED]. During a 2-5 minute absence by a technician, an animal in the chair died. The fact that the animal died during the experimenter\’s absence was not provided to the Graduate ACUC at the time of the animal\’s death. It is clear to the committee that the lack of continuous monitoring constitutes a protocol violation.
    

    
[REDACTED] noted that the USDA investigators also raised a concern about the length of time needed between chairing episodes. The PI verbally reported to the investigators that she waits four weeks between chairing sessions, but the investigators found records from summer 2002 where only three weeks of rest was given between sessions. The length of rest time between sessions was not explicitly stated in the protocol. [REDACTED] will investigate this inconsistency.
    

    
Dr. Nancy Schultz-Darken noted that many of the concerns of the USDA investigators regarding this protocol highlight the necessity that the descriptions of the procedures be very clear, especially given the nature of the experiments. The AAALAC site visitors voiced many of the same concerns in March 2000.
    

    
In light of new information related to this protocol, it seems that the committee is not confident that the procedures are being followed as detailed in the approved protocol. Additionally, it seems that there are inadequacies in the protocol as it currently stands that could impact the animals\’ health.
    

    
Dr. Sandgren identified two issues for the ACUC to address:
    

    1 – The lack of continuous monitoring (the protocol violation); and
    
2- Increase the familiarity of the committee with the exact nature of [REDACTED] experiments.
    

    

    
It seems that critical information regarding this experiment was never made known to the committee. The committee discussed a response letter from [REDACTED] regarding the break from continuous monitoring. (See attached letter dated 05/07/03). [REDACTED] letter states that she will revise the protocol to re-emphasize that substitute lab staff will cover for any time when researchers take breaks so that continuous attendance is ensured. The committee accepted this proposal provided that the substitute must have visual contact with the restrained animals.
    

    
Welter/Schultz-Darken moved to suspend [REDACTED] and have the ACUC send a letter to [REDACTED] to included the committee\’s acceptance of her plan to include substitute monitors and contingencies under which protocol reinstatement could occur. (See attached letter dated May 13, 2003.) Voted was unanimous with Su-Chun Zhang abstaining.
    

    
In the course of studying documentation regarding the incident with protocol [REDACTED] the USDA investigators also inquired about [REDACTED] surgeries and asked to see the intraoperative records. It appeared that these records were not immediately accessible to the investigators. This was of high concern to the investigators.
    

    
Documentation of Monitoring During Surgeries
    

    
A concern was raised by the USDA investigators regarding the lack of consistent documentation of monitoring during surgeries. Dr. Sandgren distributed a draft policy for surgical monitoring and record keeping. The committee read the draft and made suggestions for clarifications and additions.
    

    
There do not seem to be specific requirements described in AWAR of the type of intrasurgical monitoring documentation. Dr. Parks is consulting with USDA and other agencies to get more information. \”Standards of Veterinary Care\” have been cited as the best guideline for surgical monitoring documentation, which is what Dr. Sandgren\’s proposed policy is loosely modeled upon.
    

    
Dr. Kemnitz left the meeting at this time.
    

    
Dr. Parks reminded the committee that the committee could adopt a minimum policy and then require more stringent monitoring documentation for invasive procedures described in particular protocols. Attending vets and PIs can also choose to upgrade the monitoring documentation.
    

    Share
    					
    
		
		
	
    

				
					
	
    
		
    
						
    Primate Freedom Project and University of Wisconsin in Fight Over Land Near University\’s
    
			
						
    
				Posted on   by  			
    
			
						
    
				Reply			
    
					
    

				
    
			
    Many weeks ago, Rick Bogle abruptly announced the cancellation of yet another Primate Freedom Tour in order to announce some Next Big Thing near the University of Wisconsin. It turned out that The Alliance for Animals and the Primate Freedom Project were in talks to buy land and sheds near the University of Wisconsin to set up an animal rights museum to protest the University\’s primate research. Hardly the earth shattering revelation Bogle had promised, but hey it might come to rival the Mutter Museum.
    

    
A gentleman named Roger Charley owns a parcel of land that is situated between two University of Wisconsin research labs. Bogle claims that Charly reached a binding agreement to sell his property for $675,000.
    

    
But the University Research Park, an entity which is independent of but closely aligned to the University of Wisconsin, has offered Charly $1 million for the property, and Charly has said he does not have a binding agreement with the activists and is leaning toward selling to the University. Charly told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that he fears the building might be used to stage attacks against the laboratories,
    

    The money is certainly a part of it. But I\’ve heard from various people at various levels, various informal and not-so-informal customers, neighbors, just giving their two cents. If something were to happen a year from now because I sold this building, I would feel pretty terrible. I feel terrible about the whole thing in the first place.
    

    

    
But someone like Bogle would advocate for or excuse violence, would he? Well, Bogle offered this statement to the Wisconsin State Journal on what might happen if the University of Wisconsin prevails and buys the property,
    

    If you don\’t allow civil discourse on a public issue to occur, then people become frustrated and they are going to act out. My fear is that more radical elements of the animal-rights movement will react in ways that are going to upset everyone. I think the researchers at the primate center would actually be safeguarded by having us there.
    

    

    
Hmmm, seems Bogle has an offer for the University that they just can\’t refuse.
    

    
Bogle\’s evaluation of the animal rights movement is pretty telling. If they\’ll react with violence if they lose out on a simple property transaction, this is a movement that isn\’t worth engaging at all until it renounces such nonsense.
    

    
Imagine the situation were reversed. Imagine if by chance a building near People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals\’ headquarters went up for sale, and the Consumer Center for Freedom made an offer on said property only to see PETA try to trump that offer with a much larger one. If CCF then said, \”If they don\’t sell to us I\’m afraid more radical elements of the anti-AR movement might react in ways that are going to upset everyone\” no one would be fooled into thinking this was anything but a veiled threat. Moreover, PETA and other activists would be justified in denouncing such an obvious appeal and encouragement of violence.
    

    
Apparently, if the animal rights movement doesn\’t get its way, it will take its ball and go home and then return in the middle of the night to vandalize and destroy the opposition. Yeah, that\’s certainly dedication to free speech and civil discourse there, Rick.
    

    
That said, Bogle\’s quite correct that if he has a binding contract with Charly that predates any offer or contract with the University Research Park, then that should certainly prevail, as it will in court if the contract he had with Charly is as airtight as Bogle claims. Charly, however, told the University of Wisconsin that his lawyer identified unspecified problems with the document he signed with Bogle.
    

    
Source:
    

    
UW wins round on disputed land. Karen Rivedal, Wisconsin State Journal, August 14, 2005.
    

    
Land between primate labs in dispute. Associated Press, August 11, 2005.
    

    Share
    					
    
		
		
	
    

				
					
	
    
		
    
						
    Has FDA Vascillation Effectively Killed Market for Cloned Farm Animals?
    
			
						
    
				Posted on   by  			
    
			
						
    
				Reply			
    
					
    

				
    
			
    The Associated Press ran a story this month outlining fears by the dairy industyr that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration\’s inability to come to a decision about the safety of food from cloned animals may have already doomed that market. It has already led to the failure of one company that was prepared to sell cloned farm animals.
    

    
In 2003, the FDA issued a draft safety assessment that found food from cloned animals was probably as safe as food from non-cloned animals. But it also effectively banned the sale of food from non-cloned animals until it makes a final determination.
    

    
Several additional studies have been published in the interim confirming the FDA\’s draft assessment that food from cloned animals is safe and indistinguishable from that produced by non-cloned animals, but the FDA\’s final determination of safety is still nowhere in sight.
    

    
One company, Infigen, has already went out of business thanks to the FDA waffling. In 2002 and 2003, Infigen made headlines for advances it made in cloning pigs that allowed it to produce cloned pigs with just one round of embryo implantation in a single pig compared to earlier methods which required multiple rounds of embryo implantation in multiple animals to produce viable clones. Infigen co-founder Michael Bishop told the Associated Press that the FDA\’s delay in approving food from cloned animals was the straw that broke his company\’s back,
    

    It\’s hard to find people who want to do business with you when a government agency could possibly regulate against the food products entering the food chain.
    

    

    
According to the Associated Press, Bishop believes that cloned farm animals will never be economically viable.
    

    
This sentiment is apparently shared by many dairy farmers whom would otherwise benefit the most from cloned animals. As the Associated Press notes, because cloned animals are so expensive its unlikely they would ever be used for slaughter. Instead they would be beneficial in things like a dairy operation where a farmers could clone particularly productive dairy cows.
    

    
But the FDA lack of a decision and the current ban clearly creates the impression that milk from cloned cows may not be safe. Susan Ruland, a spokeswoman from the International Dairy Foods Association, told the Associated Press,
    

    There\’s a strong general feeling among our members that consumers are not receptive to milk from cloned cows. This seems to be one of the things where technology seems to drop something in the lap of the food companies. It\’s not driven by the market or any benefit to the consumer.
    

    

    
There are currently farmers in the United States who have cloned dairy cows, but they feed the milk to family and employees rather than sell it for the moment. Wisconsin dairy farmer Bob Schauff, for example, tells the Associated Press that he had four clones of a prize-winning Holstein dairy cow made four years ago. Schauff calls the ban,
    

    . . . ridiculous. It\’s a phobia more than anything scientific. We need to get FDA to come along and say it\’s fine. They\’re as normal as any other animal. Common sense has to take over soon.
    

    

    
So when will the FDA finally resolve the matter one way or another? That\’s anybody\’s guess. According to the Associated Press, an FDA official said that the agency has no timetable for making a final decision.
    

    
The full text of the FDA\’s draft assessment can be read here.
    

    
Source:
    

    
Dairy industry skeptical about cloned cows. Frederic J. Frommer, Associated Press, August 11, 2005.
    

    Share