A.H. Reed to H. O'Brien, 20th October, 1959 (DO 35/8640).- External URL
- Correspondence Details
-
Sent From (Definite): A.H. ReedSent To (Definite): H. O'BrienDate: 20 Oct 1959
- Current Holder(s)
-
- No links match your filters. Clear Filters
-
Sent fromA.H. Reed
20 Oct 1959
Description:'[Dear O'Brien,]
When I wrote to you on the 7th October about Dr. Lane-Petter's proposed visit to India I had not, as I explained at our meeting, appreciated that you were still in the country. Since I am not clear if you will be in Delhi by the time this letter gets there I should record, for the benefit of any third party who may wish to take action on it, that you explained to me that there was a considerable hostility on the part of Indian officials to the whole export trade in monkeys. You said that any change in the arrangements for their transport could only be achieved if they were changes for the better so far as the monkeys were concerned. You asked that copies of the B.S.I. recommendations should be sent out well in advance of Dr. Lane-Petter's visit so that preliminary examination might be given to them by the Indian authorities.
...
We have had a very quick look at the B.S.I. recommendations and they seem to differ from the Government of India's own rules, to the extent of being less strict, in the following places:-
(a) Page 5. The shipment of pregnant monkeys is permitted when specifically requested by the importer, whereas the Indian rules prohibit this absolutely.
(b) Page 6. This recommends that not more than twelve monkeys should travel in the standard cage, while the Indian rules limit the numbers to eight for small monkeys (4-6 lbs.) or six for large monkeys (over 6 lbs.).
(c) Page 7. The recommendation is for three ounces of food per monkey per day, while the Indian rules recommend 1/2 lb.
(d) Page 7. The recommendation is that sick animals, as opposed to injured ones, should not be removed from their travelling cages, while the Indian rules recommend their removal to separate cages.
You may wish, before passing copies of these new rules to the Government of India, to consider whether there are any parts of them which would provoke immediate and unfavourable reactions, or whether there is any further clarification that Dr. Lane-Petter might be asked to provide.'
-
Sent toH. O'Brien
20 Oct 1959
Description:'[Dear O'Brien,]
When I wrote to you on the 7th October about Dr. Lane-Petter's proposed visit to India I had not, as I explained at our meeting, appreciated that you were still in the country. Since I am not clear if you will be in Delhi by the time this letter gets there I should record, for the benefit of any third party who may wish to take action on it, that you explained to me that there was a considerable hostility on the part of Indian officials to the whole export trade in monkeys. You said that any change in the arrangements for their transport could only be achieved if they were changes for the better so far as the monkeys were concerned. You asked that copies of the B.S.I. recommendations should be sent out well in advance of Dr. Lane-Petter's visit so that preliminary examination might be given to them by the Indian authorities.
...
We have had a very quick look at the B.S.I. recommendations and they seem to differ from the Government of India's own rules, to the extent of being less strict, in the following places:-
(a) Page 5. The shipment of pregnant monkeys is permitted when specifically requested by the importer, whereas the Indian rules prohibit this absolutely.
(b) Page 6. This recommends that not more than twelve monkeys should travel in the standard cage, while the Indian rules limit the numbers to eight for small monkeys (4-6 lbs.) or six for large monkeys (over 6 lbs.).
(c) Page 7. The recommendation is for three ounces of food per monkey per day, while the Indian rules recommend 1/2 lb.
(d) Page 7. The recommendation is that sick animals, as opposed to injured ones, should not be removed from their travelling cages, while the Indian rules recommend their removal to separate cages.
You may wish, before passing copies of these new rules to the Government of India, to consider whether there are any parts of them which would provoke immediate and unfavourable reactions, or whether there is any further clarification that Dr. Lane-Petter might be asked to provide.'
