Chimp Haven: What's the Story?
This will address the issues raised by the writers who have recently written to our the blog about (a) about Chimp Haven in Shreveport, Louisiana, and (b) the recent movement of certain chimpanzees to that site.
First, some background of the situation in Texas.
A terrifying raid took place on the 13th of October at Primarily Primates. Horses, ponies, and birds who had acres on which to roam were soon rounded up and taken away from the refuge. People have asked about individuals who were taken away — like Peanut. And they’ve received no answers.
This was followed by an equally frightening event just one month later.
People with vans showed up on Thursday the 16th of November. By the next day, they’d taken away seven chimpanzees who had just arrived in San Antonio earlier this year. These people claimed to have legal permission to just pack them up and take them to Louisiana.
Thus, even though there is now a court-ordered stay against moving more of the nonhuman residents out, seven chimpanzees have in fact just been sent to Chimp Haven.
How did this happen, we would ask, with a court-ordered stay in place?
Well, the people who showed up with the vans had some kind of document, and they defended what they were doing by calling this a “temporary” move. And they got away with the chimpanzees. Stephen Tello of Primarily Primates tried in vain to stop them. Government authorities believed the people with the vans.
A temporary move?
Taking nonhuman great apes from their private sanctuary home and shipping them off to Chimp Haven is no small matter. No one knowledgeable about nonhuman apes readies them for an interstate move (with the tranquilizing and stress that involves) unless they mean business.
All of this was done, remember, under a court-appointed receiver who has the duty to uphold the mission of the charity, Primarily Primates. The receiver flagrantly contradicted that mission by allowing the chimpanzees to be moved to Chimp Haven. It contradicts the mission of Primarily Primates to do this thing.
Media reports discussing this move, and one of the guests here at the blog, are referring to Chimp Haven as a “new sanctuary.” Upon examination, we find that the truth is quite different.
Chimp Haven is an illusory haven indeed, for by law it must serve as a holding area for the National Institutes of Health. The NIH’s primary function, with regard to nonhuman primates, is regulating and facilitating their use.
Readers ought to be given a clear understanding as to the dynamics and consequences involved when deciding whether to support such a critical refuge as Primarily Primates. What happens with this case will, without question, say much about whether the people of the United States will support true sanctuaries, or instead condone the continued control of government agencies and biomedical research firms over nonhuman great apes.
What’s Chimp Haven? Here’s the real story
In November 1999, Republican Representative James Greenwood of Pennsylvania introduced a bill called the “Chimpanzee Health Improvement, Maintenance and Protection Act.” Senator Bob Smith, a Republican from New Hampshire, soon followed with the Senate version of the Act.
The bill’s goal was to create a congressionally chartered holding area for some of the approximately 1,500 captive chimpanzees in laboratories in the United States. Many were not being used in active testing protocols, so they were viewed as a substantial money drain on the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
A prominent blood researcher, Dr. Alfred Prince, testified in support of the law to establish the holding area. Prince explained the long periods needed for chimpanzees to show symptoms of the diseases for which they are used. The bill set out to cut costs for the government’s research sector by having charitable donations make up a part of the funding that’s needed for their upkeep.
On December 20, 2000, it happened. President Clinton signed the CHIMP Act. The new law assigned federal funds to store chimpanzees deemed surplus to immediate experimental needs, and mandated a flow of private funds as part of the maintenance money — while chimpanzees remain under the legal control of the National Institutes of Health. In all aspects, the bill was seen as benefiting those who use chimpanzees in experiments.
Moreover, under the CHIMP Act, experiments involving these selected apes may continue through the NIH. Apes exposed to diseases with long latency intervals, such as those in hepatitis or AIDS research, are likely candidates for recall. Even if certain apes are accepted with an understanding that they will not be used, a government-declared public emergency could change everything.
Under the law, nonhuman apes are simply items of property, belonging to humans. This is why it is so very important to have private sanctuaries, separate from institutions that carry out animal experiments.
In early 2001, a public notice went out. The notice explained that the NIH wanted to award a contract to a nonprofit interested in serving as a contractor to the government under the CHIMP Act — meaning housing chimpanzees, allowing the NIH to keep their titles, and helping the NIH further by generating 25% of the yearly operational expenses.
The notice added that the chosen contractor would need “willingness to work with members of the animal protection community, NIH, and a wide variety of other interested parties.” In short, a collaboration between the charity fundraising world and the experimenter’s world. This idea was packaged to the public as a sanctuary effort.
But existing sanctuaries declined to participate in the CHIMP Act’s implementation. To do so would have put them in the disturbing position of having to express willingness to supply apes to biomedical research, if asked.
Chimp Haven receives support from individual donors, non-profits, the federal government, the pharmaceutical industry, corporate partners, and zoo and veterinary professionals. The virology testing company Bioqual, Inc. is a sponsor. Bioqual is a Rockville company that tests vaccines on nonhuman primates.
Chimp Haven’s chair is on the Council on Accreditation for the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAAALAC). Chimp Haven itself is an accredited member of the AAAALAC.
Chimp Haven is also sponsored by the Louisiana Office of Culture, Recreation and Tourism. As Chimp Haven’s site advertises:
“Become involved in a highly visible partnership with Chimp Haven - one of the Louisiana’s most unique assets and a destination for thousands. Your Chimp Haven sponsorship will bring you into association with a beloved national organization where families come together for fun and hands-on learning as well as environmental and conservation education.”
Unbelievable. Gawking at chimpanzees stuck thousands of miles from their natural habitats after being used in every imaginable laboratory experiment is now called fun.
Dear readers, that is the model for the future. Chimp Haven intends to store up to 900 chimpanzees, possibly with branches in addition to its Shreveport site. The ramifications are surreal, when one notes that the advocacy community is enabling this.
But not everyone has been quiet during this weird process of substituting zoo-research complexes for real refuges. In January 2002, The Association of Sanctuaries (TAOS), the American Sanctuary Association (ASA), Friends of Animals, and several primate advocacy groups faxed to Congress a request for repeal of the CHIMP Act. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and some other national animal-protection groups backed the NIH’s CHIMP Act, but they aren’t sanctuary groups and they won’t be taking the responsibility to house the apes themselves. Sadly, they were and still are willing to go along with the propaganda that presents Chimp Haven as though it were a true sanctuary.
On October 1, 2001, the NIH issued its formal request for proposals from organizations wishing to operate the system of sanctuaries called for by the CHIMP Act. Responding was Linda Koebner, who had ties to the research community, and had founded the non-profit called Chimp Haven, Inc. in 1995. Chimp Haven received a $10 million grant from the federal government for building. Chimp Haven began construction to hold its first 200 chimpanzees in late 2003. It’s still looking for the chimpanzees, and currently is running a drive called “150 in 2006”.
So now Chimp Haven wants PPI’s chimpanzees.
Like the apes who had been used in cognitive experiments in an Ohio lab and finally got to Primarily Primates, where they could live in privacy and benefit from Primarily Primates’ strong record of care for chimpanzees. The refuge provides lifetime care for many chimpanzees, up to the age of 60. The sanctuary’s first chimpanzee, Rudy, arrived in 1983, and is thriving today.
Will Rudy be next?
Primarily Primates’ desire to continue operating as a refuge has the support of donors who have been dedicated to Primarily Primates for many years. Unlike institutes that use nonhuman great apes or work in liaison with entities that do, Primarily Primates does not breed, sell, display, or trade animals, or agree to use animals commercially in any way. As long as they are at Primarily Primates, chimpanzees and other primates have the maximum assurance that they can live out the rest of their lives in peace. It is inherently part of Primarily Primates’ mission to support the continued existence of refuges operated as private charities, distinct from the government or the biomedical research industry.
At Friends of Animals, we maintain that nonhuman apes were put on the planet for reasons of their own. For that, we don’t expect to be welcomed with open arms by everyone in the media, but we do expect accuracy and transparency within the animal advocacy movement. And we will not accept an NIH storage site being called a sanctuary.
Lee Hall
Legal director, Friends of Animals
Post your comment
Comment Guidelines: We welcome your expressions of opinion on this subject. Please avoid false commentary about individuals or groups. Facts must be verified by the person posting. Off-topic comments, and comments inappropriate for a readership of all ages, may be deleted. E-mail addresses will never be published. Only comments with valid e-mail address will be published.
31 Comments
On November 22, 2006, Noah wrote:
Thanks for laying all of this out so clearly, Lee.
When I hear about Chimp Haven, I think “bird flu” (or “commercial poultry flu” to be more accurate) and wonder how long it will be before the place is cleared out to experiment on the chimpanzees. So I am disturbed to see on Bioqual’s website that they do NIH-contracted flu research on nonhuman primates: “Contract to study various reassortant influenza viruses…with a primary objective of developing and evaluating candidate vaccines to treat these afflictions.” What kind of “sanctuary” has an animal experimentation corporation as a corporate sponsor?
I also see that chimpanzees die at Chimp Haven, but when it happens there, it’s called “natural causes.”
On November 22, 2006, laura wrote:
This whole thing sickens me!
On November 22, 2006, Jack L. Cooper wrote:
What the hell is going on, and where is the Texas Attorney General in all this crap? Does the state of government of Texas not follow the law anymore?
On November 22, 2006, Jennifer G wrote:
Just another example of PETA being the oppressor rather than the protector. First they advocate the killing of dogs & cats in shelters; now this?
Don’t give up on protecting these chimps, FoA; they sure deserve better than they’ve gotten so far!
On November 22, 2006, C Bishop wrote:
A very moving PBS Nature program recently aired, Chimpanzees: An Unnatural History, that showed the rescue of chimpanzees from research and a generally heart rending story of the misuse and purported rescue of these animals. When i inquired of PBS as to where to send funds to help “Save the Chimps” which is how it is named in the documentary, i was told Chimp Haven.
PBS needs to know what is really going on!
Why isn’t this in the news?
On November 22, 2006, Patricia Traub wrote:
I greatly appreciate your detailed and accurate information. This finally has given me a more indepth understanding of this very complex situation. It is finally very clear in my mind what is very important for the chimps. The true meaning of the word sanctuary is clearly defind. Yes, lets continue to keep terminologies straight and for everyone to understand the laws concerning their welfare. Something the larger part of America is not aware of or will think about.
This very merciless treatment of this great ape for medical research to benefit humans. There has to be another way!
Support of Friends of Animals,
Patricia Traub
On November 22, 2006, Rita J. Hopkins wrote:
Thank you for this very enlightening article. I have been trying for quite a while to get clear in my own mind just what is really going on and who I should be supporting. I now believe that I have a pretty good idea of who really cares for these animals welfare and happiness … and who cares only for how they can be used.
Rita J. Hopkins
On November 22, 2006, Melody wrote:
How sad and unbelievable that this is happening to these precious creatures. How can anyone call themselves an animal advocacy (like PETA does) and do these things to PPI. I hope and pray, for the animals sakes that this issue is resolved soon and PPI can continue with their mission to care for and love all of God’s creatures in their care.
On November 22, 2006, Katherine Ryan wrote:
Why do we always have to protect animals that just should naturally be protected? We all live on this planet together and should have an obligation to live as peacefully as we can together. Why do animals always have to get the short end of the stick? They can’t talk to protect themselves and their fate too often is left in the hands of uncaring humans. Enough.
On November 22, 2006, Steven wrote:
Thank you for your detailed article that was very enlightning. I support PETA equally as they do more good than harm, depending on your view point. But in this case I support your position whole heartfully. Chimpanzees should be placed in a “True Sanctuary” where they can live their life in peace … not in a storage facility where they can be called upon for experimentations.
Keep up your good word. I salute you.
Steven.
On November 22, 2006, Deb wrote:
PETA is way off base with this one…..
On November 22, 2006, Elizabeth Enger wrote:
I’m confused and not sure why PETA would go along with moving these animals to an NIH facility. There are enough people in this world harming animals, I can’t understand why animal welfare organizations are actively working against each other. I am very troubled by all this …
[Blog editors’ note: To clarify, FoA didn’t fight or sue anyone. Nor has FoA had any designs on the sanctuary or any reason to harm any party. FoA is not a party on either side of the case. What FoA wants to do is help a sanctuary and the animals who live there survive.
Primarily Primates is one of the pioneers in the U.S. sanctuary movement. We’ve seen advocacy groups support the NIH through Chimp Haven — against the will of the major sanctuary associations — rather than form a coalition to protect the health of sanctuaries. When will the advocacy community see that sanctuaries — not major institutions and experimenters — are part of our community?
Once again — FoA did not fight, did not sue, and has never asked for this challenge. It’s here now; FoA can help, and will help, to the best of our power.
As you said, so many institutions use animals in so many ways. A sanctuary should be the beneficiary of help. This circus-like conduct that has unfolded instead is terribly ill-placed, and is an embarrassment to a movement, and a tragedy for nonhuman animals. Friends of Animals will not sit on the sidelines and tolerate this destruction.]
On November 22, 2006, dave wrote:
lee thanks for the clear explanation about chimp haven, isnt it illegal to create a fasle charity like this to get people to donate money to them. i think the legal term is fraud.and after seeing all the stupid decisions that come out of PETA, is it posssible that PETA is also a fake charity. i know they dont do anything to really protect animals, their way of protecting is killing them, and it sounds like there just sucking money out of people’s wallets and not giving them there real position on the planned fate of the animals that there saying there trying to help. could they be getting the same financial backing as chimp haven. and just frauding doners out of there donations.if this is so, somebody should hit them with a class action suit, and make them pay restitution back to all the doners they falsely convinced that they are a legal charity working for the best intrest of the animals they say they are trying to save. i do a back ground check on the charities i donate to, but most people here a sad animal story and donate to that charity with out checking them out. chimp haven and peta fit that charity which give a false image of how your donation will be spent.i can’t believe people like this exist. they abuse the animals then they have the nerve to come to the people that want to save the animals and ask them to finance there stupid actions by falsely saying there helping the animals. THAT’S JUST LOW.
On November 22, 2006, Blog Editors wrote:
Earle Holland, Asst. Vice President for Research Communications, Ohio State University, writes:
“…Recent comments on this blog suggest that some of those commenting are simply ill-informed of the facts. Maintaining ignorance in the presence of facts is a personal choice poorly made….”
For the full post, please see The Struggle to Save a Sanctuary and a Movement (21 Nov 2006), comment number 7.
On November 23, 2006, dee wrote:
i cant beleve that there are people this insensitive to animals! they could have at least showed a paper signed by the law or who ever instructed them to take away the animals. it would break my heart if they are hurting those poor things!
On November 23, 2006, Derek Johnson wrote:
It is inaccurate to say that Primarily Primates does not breed animals. I’m a former caretaker. I personally witnessed a number of animal births there. There were births of patas monkeys, tamarins, kinkajous, and gibbons in the year and a half that I was there.
Thanks,
Derek Johnson
FoA comments:
Your observations are not evidence of “animal breeding” by PPI. Some animals may have arrived at the sanctuary already impregnated, and others pregnancies may have occurred through failed surgical procedures for birth control.
On November 23, 2006, Eric K wrote:
I am a die hard supporter of PETA. But this will really make me think about donationg to PETA. I always liked their aggressive style of defending animal rights. Did they change their agenda? Cannot wait for MOTHER NATURE to destroy earth as we know it and move only all the innocent animals on a different planet.
Eric K.
On November 23, 2006, Ruth Bierman wrote:
I agree whole heartedly with all the comments on this horrible act on these defenseless animals. but….comments are of no use, what is it we can all do to save them and avoid any future events like this from happening again
( another sleepless night)
Ruth Bierman, New York Nov.23,2006
On November 23, 2006, paula garcia wrote:
You need to give us addresses or phone numbers to call & complain.
FoA comments:
The Honorable Greg Abbott
Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
P.O.Box 12548
Austin, TX 78711
(512) 463-2100
On November 24, 2006, mary williams wrote:
What are you planning to do?
On November 25, 2006, Norma Goodrich wrote:
This is cruel, and the animals need to be protected, they need our love and mercy. Stop to abuse the animals, they are speakless, but they also have rigths.Norma Goodrich
On November 25, 2006, sallie wald wrote:
I was one of those people that almost made the terrible mistake of donating to Chimp Haven. Originally I bought into the alleged “deplorable conditions” at PPI. I was duped into believing that Chimp Haven was a “true” sanctuary. Then I went to their site. To my surprise (and horror) I discovered that nearly every person on their board of directors is either a researcher (past or present) or has some relation to NIH. Chimp Haven is funded by NIH and bio-labs including pharmaceutical companies that want to continue using these animals for experiments on an “as needed” basis. Chimp Haven is NOT a sanctuary! It is a “storage” facility. How dare they delude unsuspecting donors who honestly believe that they are helping these chimps into paying for their overhead costs??? Donors are unknowingly contributing to research costs by supporting a facility that is already being funded with millions of dollars from the government and bio-labs. In an effort to cut their costs, they are appealing to sympathetic animal rights folks, like us, to donate!!! I really don’t understand how they can do this legally. It is fraud. They are misrepresenting themselvs as a “permanent” retirement facility…but it is anything but. Its a cost-saving device for pharmaceutical companies (or other research labs) who have devised a clever (albeit deceptive) way to reduce the costs of housing and maintaining their test victims. More profit for them and, at the same time, making themselves appear compassionate. And what better way to do that than by appealing to our sympathy by pretending to be something they are not. Its diabolical. We simply cannot let them get away with this. If we can’t help these chimps by appealing for compassion, perhaps we can do it by legally by exposing the fraud being perpetrated on the public. Does anyone know if we have such a recourse and how we might act on it?
On November 26, 2006, Claudia Lindsley wrote:
Evil wins again. In thirty years of learning the truth of how
American institutionalized cruelty opperates I thought I had seen it all. There are few things that surprise me anymore. I was stunned again. The truth will win someday and the lies will cease to have power. Until then the truth must be told.
On November 27, 2006, Cindy wrote:
I wish they would let these special creatures live their lives in peace. I recently saw a program about how traumatic moving them to and from different places is. Give them lots of green land, food and love. Obviously, they don’t know how to survive in the wild, but give them as much freedom as can be!
On November 28, 2006, Dave wrote:
“Even if certain apes are accepted with an understanding that they will not be used, a government-declared public emergency could change everything.”
Isn’t it the case that chimps can only be taken from Chimp Haven if they already belong to NIH? That’s the way I understood it. If that’s the case, then the OSU chimps couldn’t be taken away from Chimp Haven by the government because they belong to Chimp Haven now, not NIH.
[Blog editors’ note: Thank you for writing, Dave. These apes will probably not be called into invasive research, as they don’t fit the standard for that kind of use that’s set out in the CHIMP Act. Generally, the apes who will be taken back to labs will have been used in testing protocols already. In the case of some sort of public emergency, the situation of any apes at Chimp Haven could be changed, because the the NIH exerts legal and financial control over Chimp Haven. It contradicts the mission of Primarily Primates, and, by extension, the donors’ intentions, to remove apes from a private refuge and hand control of them over to an institution connected with the exploitation of apes, which is precisely the function Chimp Haven fills.]
On November 29, 2006, Laurie wrote:
I have heard a great deal about Chimp Haven which greatly disturbs me. I have also heard considerable defense of (and defensiveness from) Primarily Primates. What I have not heard, perhaps because I have come late to the situation, are what the concerns about Primarily Primates are. Comments about disgruntled workers, possible financial problems, condemnation by such groups as PETA; these are alluded to but not really explained. I would love to see some objective commentary, preferrably by those making the claims, but at least honestly stating their allegations. Again, I am much clearer - and disgusted by - what I have learned about Chimp Haven. I am not so comfortable about what I have heard, or not, about Primarily Primates.
On November 29, 2006, Lyda King wrote:
You state that on November 16th chimpanzees were taken by people in vans who “claimed to have legal permission” and had “some kind of document.”
Does this actually mean that these individual were acting illegally? Did they have documents allowing them to take the animals or not. Someone can “claim” to have something they actually do have. Tell me, was this a legal or illegal action? Were documents forged?
You responded to another commenter who was concerned about animals being born in the sanctuary: you claim such observations are not proof of breeding, the births “may have” resulted from existing pregnancies when the nonhuman residents arrived at the facility, or “may have” resulted from botched birth control surgery.
I don’t want to know about maybe and possibly. I want to know what happened. The sanctuary should be able to account for every single animal there. So was every animal there the result of a prior pregnancy or botched sterilization? How many surgeries were botched? How many animals were born in the sanctuary? Don’t tell me what “may have” happened, tell me what really happened.
Please address the graphic video circulated by Peta. Was this video staged? Why were the animals kept in conditions like those? What is going on in that video? I have not yet heard a decent explanation for that.
Sincerely, Lyda King
FoA comments:
1. The legality of the removal of the OSU chimps is to be decided by the courts. A final ruling has not yet been given.
2. As there has been no documentation that PPI was engaged in the breeding of animals, it is impossible to refute or prove any alleged incidents of breeding.
It is reasonable then to consider the possibilities, but absurd to demand certainties when no specific proof has been presented.
3. It is impossible to comment on the Peta video as Peta has not — not too surprisingly — offered any documentation about it — or any explanation of it as you now demand. Where, when, how and by whom was it taken.
Contrast that to the video available on the FoA website. It was taken by an independent videographer, admitted into evidence in the current court case, and the videographer gave sworn testimony on its contents.
On December 1, 2006, Shelley wrote:
I am absolutely appalled at what I just read about Chimp Haven. To me it just proves what the government is REALLY all about. This has got to stop…period! I am shocked at the news of PETA as well. I have always wondered if they were a “shady” organization thirsty for money. Sounds like my concerns of this have been cleared up. My advice to everyone is take action. Call these companies who test on animals & anyone else involved. Take a stand! Keep in mind that their are many sanctuaries that truly care about the well being of our beloved primates.
On December 1, 2006, Krista Perry wrote:
In response to Lyda King:
Two open letters from PPI are published on this website.
One letter is to a PeTA representative and the other to the readership of this website. In each, Stephen Tello makes direct, detailed statements about the conditions at PPI and the invasion of this sanctuary.
Further information from PPI can be found on the Ohio State University website in the form of an open letter from PPI’s former executive director, Wally Swett.
To the best of my knowledge, the statements have not been publically addressed by PeTA.
The truth we all want is ours but not without effort. We need to require both orangizations to provide factual reports without spin. PPI has, in my opinion,done so in these letters to a far greater degree than PeTA.
Please read what PPI has to say - then contact PeTA and ask for specific responses - not news stories or fundraising pitches. Ask them to address PPI’s claims one by one in an open letter. If you find that PeTA has already done so, please share PeTA’s response or tell me where I can find it.
On December 4, 2006, Donna Stevens wrote:
My God what is happening ? Follow the money is a clue !!
God please save these precious creatures.
On December 12, 2006, John Smith wrote:
You people need to get your facts straight. PPI was deemed unfit to care for their animals BY THE COURTS. It was taken over by a COURT APPOINTED staff which then sent 7 chimps to CH.
[The blog editors note that this receivership was installed by a county probate court, headed by an elected judge, Guy Herman. The case in the Third Court of Appeals is still pending a final outcome; the probate court did come in to this in the middle of an active case in which the outcome was not and is not yet settled. The Third Court of Appeals serves the Austin, Texas area. It consists of six Justices hearing cases from the twenty-four counties. There is a significant distinction.]
I can personally tell you that all the chimps at CH are very well taken care of. They live better than many people do.
They have access to indoors or out, their choice, 24/7. They have “enrichment” daily. For those who dont know this is usually an interesting toy, yummy treat or combination of the two. They are personally checked on every four hours around the clock and seem very happy. They have clean bedding and blankets and they live in natural groups. THESE ANIMALS ARE EXTREMELY WELL CARED FOR AT CH.
[The point is that they are now in an institution of use. Of course it looks good. One of the sponsors is the state tourist board. What the public does not see is that this pretty thing opened its doors to nonhuman apes after getting involved in a contract that allows ape research to continue to be affordable to biomedical researchers. Thus, John, some apes pay a huge price for the pretty grounds that others may see - if they’re called lucky. Really, none are lucky. They shouldn’t be under human control at all.]
Contrast this with them living in a closet sized brick room for months, or becoming ill and being attacked by fire ants until a staff member chose to shoot one to end its misery-THIS was PPI.
[The blog editors note that this allegation has already been covered on 19 Oct. 2006. As Stephen Rene Tello wrote, “It’s ironic that the individual who shot Betty, Minchew, is the same person who complained in her sworn statement about Betty’s death. How convenient that she forgot to say she was the one who killed Betty. What offends me the most about this situation is that there was a more ethical alternative.” As for closet-sized brick rooms, are you referring to Ohio State University? The enclosures at PPI do not fit your description; moreover, more space was being built when the receivership interrupted the construction.]
Some redneck clown with no oversite was being allowed to keep a menagerie in squalid conditions.
[“Redneck clown”? Perhaps you might benefit from thinking about respecting members of your own species.]
PETA warned OSU not to send the chimps there in the first place. The Chimp Act is written to give NIH a back door to take the chimps back IF NECESSARY. Like if one grew an extra head or something really extraordinary. The odds of them EVER going back into active research is very very very slim. These animals were hand picked by NIH as being no longer suitable for research. THEY DONT WANT THEM BACK. Get a clue people. PPI’s issue is one of ego and money.
[The blog editors urge you to carefully read the language of the CHIMP Act, and become familiar with its legislative history and testimony.]