Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SATURDAY, May 21, 1994 TAG: 9405230172
SECTION: NATIONAL/INTERNATIONAL PAGE: C5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: Associated Press
DATELINE: WASHINGTON LENGTH: Medium
The Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Humane Society of the United States and two individuals lacked legal standing to sue on behalf of lab animals, ruled the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
A federal judge in January 1992 had ordered the U.S. Department of Agriculture to reconsider its 20-year-old policy exempting rats, mice and birds from rules that require humane research conditions.
The Humane Society said such animals make up 85 percent of animals used in research.
``In effect, this decision legalizes inhumane treatment of eight out of every 10 animals in U.S. laboratories,'' Humane Society Vice President Martin Stephens said in a statement.
Animal Legal Defense Fund attorney Valerie Stanley said, ``Animals cannot speak for themselves. If animal protection organizations are denied the right to represent animals' interests in court, then animals truly have no voice.''
The animal welfare groups sued in 1990, saying the government was wrong in determining that rats, mice and birds could be excluded from the definition of ``animal'' under a federal animal welfare law.
U.S. District Judge Charles R. Richey ruled in their favor in 1992, saying that excluding such animals sends the message that they could be subjected to cruel and inhumane conditions.
On Friday, the appeals court voided that ruling and ordered the case dismissed.
Judge David Sentelle wrote that the two animal rights groups did not have legal standing to sue, nor did a member of an animal research oversight committee or a biologist who is a former animal researcher.
Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson concurred, while Judge Stephen F. Williams said in a partial dissent he believed the biologist did have standing.
by CNB