Federal judge overrules NIH veterinarians about lab chimp retirement
science.org
science.org
Regardless, on a more personal note, I wouldn't want to subject my cat to the kind of transportation and relocation they're talking about, regardless of health or age. And I believe chimps are much more self-aware and intelligent than cats; I expect they'd find it much more stressful.
I think this is a case where the law was well-intentioned, but didn't provide any escape hatches for situations not considered by the law.
I do wonder about the social ramifications of moving them; this part in particular is key:
> Then they would face a world of strangers and uncertain social groupings—intensely stressful to old chimps with established conspecific and human families
I think on balance it’s probably misguided to move chimps like this. Better to regulate the quality of care in situ and only move them if it’s deemed to be sub-par.
If you start a chimp colony you should be on the hook for ensuring they have a good life in perpetuity, in my book. The great apes have moral value closest to humans of all the animals.
It seems like we do this to humans all the time and don't batt an eye. I'm not saying we should not extend this courtesy to chimps but it seems like there's more care taken here for these chimps than we give to humans.
It is also the case that people involuntarily placed in close confinement for long periods quite often do not start fighting among themselves even when they have no clear understanding of what is going on or what the future holds.
With chimps, we are not asking them what they want; we're making the decision for them. Therefore we carry all of the burden of responsibility that would usually rest with the individual making the decision for themselves.
Indeed the only reason they are in this captive environment is because we kidnapped/bred them and put them there. So that's another layer of responsibility that we have for their situation that doesn't apply to normal human decisions.
Not for children, members of the military, incarcerated people, people served evictions, etc.
So it's more like forcibly relocating humans.
Which we've historically done, but generally try to not do now, Russia aside.
The vet was about as kind and compassionate as I could possibly wish: she even hydrated him so his last moments would be more comfortable. So I don't think it's an easy call for a judge to overrule the vets, who most likely love these animals.
Chimps are vicious to each other, and especially to older chimps, as far as I know.
"Yeah, it's pretty rad," said Joseph, 22, male, originally from San Francisco. "I was paying $4000/mo in rent and when a friend of mine told me about Chimp Haven, I was like 'Yo, def gotta check out that place.'"
Congress didn’t want the NIH to have the discretion to refuse to send retired chimps to the haven.
NIH is now saying it knows best. Maybe they do, but it’s not their call.
Thank you Congress for making a clear law!
It's really hard to figure out what to write in legislation. It is also somewhat hard to update the legislation to accord with new but subtle understandings, especially considering how much attention Congress members can possibly have as compared to how much law is in the books (go to a law library, look at a copy of the United States Code without the annotations, and consider how long it would take to read it, and that is only the beginning). But it is better when courts apply the law as written than making stuff up to suit their preferences, constrained by their prior precedents (assuming you are still at a law library, look at a copy of the United States Reports -- all the Supreme Court opinions ever -- and consider how long it would take to read that, and that is only the beginning).
They’re very good at their jobs. Wisconsin laws are very clear, and rarely overturned by courts.
Of course, there’s a downside.
In 2008, the Democrats won a strong trifecta: control of legislature, governorship, and Supreme Court.
In 2009, the Democrats ordered the LRB to draft legislation to gerrymander the state, locking in Democratic rule.
In 2010, the Democrats lost control of the legislature and governorship in 2010. After the census was finished, the Republicans used that legislation for its intended purpose: one party rule.
Now the Republicans have total control of the legislature, and the LRB pops out conservative policy after conservative policy, all at tax-payer expense.
Considering this law was passed, I have to doubt their judgement.
1. What's the difference in care between where they are at and the sanctuary? That doesn't appear to be stated so we can only make assumptions.
2. The facilities that want to keep them are the ones that experimented on them. They may also be the ones employing the vets. Is there something they don't want others to see? As a place that experimented on animals you have to wonder if they did things they don't want people to generally know about.
These questions aren't answered. How we fill in the blanks depends on our own assumptions or outside info we may be aware of.
As a reader I'm left wondering and don't really have enough information to make an informed assessment.
/28 days later
Why do we get to elevate chare givers feelings over the well being of those chimps and claim such elevation meets law requirements?
Part of the problem here is that the law seems to say "they will be moved to the Federal sanctuary," not "they will be cared in [list of appropriate ways]". To fully comply with the law, you need to move them even if they're sick, have social bonds in their current place, or are perfectly happy.
Disclaimer: I've visited one of the non-federal facilities and I've seen retired chimps that looked content. I have zero experience in animal welfare.
Where are you reading this? The current caregivers are professional veterinarians and believe the chimps are too sick/elderly to be moved. The law requires the chimps to be moved regardless of their well-being. The judge has followed the letter of the law, but not the intent (because the intent wasn't codified in a way that was clear). Congress wrote a shitty law; the judge is following it.
> regardless of how good said experimenters claim the chimps had it.
Had is not the operative word here: have is. The veterinarians at the lab claim that they currently receive as good or better care than they'd receive at the sanctuary. Certainly that claim should be evaluated by an independent third-party, but, frankly, the chimp's quality of life in the past (such as when they were experimental subjects) isn't particularly relevant now. All that matters (ethically) is the level of care they get now, and the likely negatives to their well being that moving them would cause.
Sure, one can reasonably disagree with the lab vets' assessment. But I don't think any of us here are in the position to have an informed opinion on that.
All of it is pretty moot, though, as the law doesn't seem to provide any exceptions. If that is indeed the case (and the NIH either chooses not to appeal, or does and fails), they'll be forced to relocate... assuming they live that long, anyway.
Some people decided to make laws with hard and specific rules without considering the downstream ramifications.
It's a social failure to adapt to the situation. We must ignore the experts because the rules say so. We must kill the chimps from stress by moving them because what the caretakers have to say has no standing in the legal world.
If "the law" is on your side there is no slope too slippery that can't overcome pesky constraints of morality or reality.
While this may be legal, whether it is ethical is a more important question. Seems to me it’s time to update the laws that describe living beings the same way as pencils.
[1] https://m.facebook.com/daytondailynews/posts/101554813469405...