FERRET-SEARCH Archives

Searchable FML archives

FERRET-SEARCH@LISTSERV.FERRETMAILINGLIST.ORG

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Ferret McDuff <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 29 Jun 1996 21:57:58 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
In this particular case (mentioned Mr. Johnston) the two most obvious
remedies are:
 
1).  Seek compensation for the property loss under the rules of eminant
domain.  This is a tactic with a growing success rate.  You might also want
to check to see if the PH person responsible (and I use the term loosely) in
any way overstepped their authority, such as by not doing a risk assesment.
We have had luck in the past with bringing a civil action not only against
the person in his official capacity but also against them as an individual
because their actions were outside what would be considered reasonable
excersise of their duties and in violation of basic scientific principles.
 
2).  Second, and possibly more interestingly, if the kit(s) involved were
indeed of an absolute closed history you might want to contact the breeder.
At this point I am assuming it is either MF or Path Valley.  In either case
they are federally licensed and inspected breeding facilities and the
allegation that one of the kits from them was rabies suspect should be
enough to get them rolling as it could jeopardize their licensing.  I know
this worked once before with Path Valley.
[Posted in FML issue 1617]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2