Celebrating the 30th anniversary of the Animal Welfare Act and
the 10th anniversary of the Animal Welfare Information Center.
Since its passage in 1966, the Animal Welfare Act has had a profound impact on the lives of both animals and people. In the 1960s, Congress received more mail about animal care issues than both civil rights and the war in Viet Nam. As the Act celebrates its 30th year, it continues to generate philosophical, economic, and regulatory discussion among government regulators, commercial interests, and humane groups. This symposium takes a retrospective look at the development and effectiveness of the Federal animal welfare regulations since 1966. Leaders from government, including those directly involved in writing the regulations of the original act, industry, and humane groups offer their views of the history and impact of the act and their visions for its future. The symposium was held at the USDA Center in Riverdale, Maryland on September 26, 1996. It was the first time a celebration has been held for either the AWA or AWIC.
The National Agricultural Library (NAL) established the Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) in 1986 as mandated by Congress in the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act of 1985. AWIC helps those who must comply with the Animal Welfare Act by providing information that will reduce, replace, or refine experimental techniques that cause pain or distress to animals in research, teaching, and testing.
The morning sessions were moderated by Dr. Dale Schwindaman, then Deputy Administrator of APHIS/AC. After welcome speeches were made by the host organizations (NAL Deputy Director Keith Russell represented NAL), Christine Stevens, founder and President of the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI) gave the historical background that lead to the 1966 Act. Mrs. Stevens is widely regarded as the Mother of the AWA as she has been active in raising public and Congressional awareness of problems in animal care from before passage of the AWA and through all its subsequent amendments.
The next talks related to the government perspective on the 1966 AWA and its four amendments. The speakers were former APHIS administrators or staff members who were intimately involved in enforcing the Act as well as writing its regulations. One of the speakers was AWIC's own Dr. Richard Crawford. Before coming to AWIC, Dr. Crawford was Assistant Deputy Administrator for Animal Care. He sifted through 36,000 public comments on the 1985 amendments before writing the regulations, some of which define the roles of AWIC.
Following the morning break, Dr. Lewis Smith of the USDA Agricultural Research Service (ARS) discussed ARS policy on farm animals used in research. Jean Larson then gave a 10-year retrospective of AWIC. Jean has been AWIC's coordinator sinceits inception.
The lunchtime speaker was Michael Dunn, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, Marketing and Regulatory Programs. Mr. Dunn expressed USDA's commitment to improving animal care. He also discussed the APHIS/AC strategic plan which will improve enforcement of the Act even during times of fiscal constraint.
AWIC staff member Tim Allen moderated the afternoon session which featured speakers from animal industry and humane groups. Representatives from animal industry groups affected by the AWA were American Zoo and Aquarium Association, International Air Animal Transport Association, American Veterinary Medical Association, Pet Industry Advisory Council, and National Association of Biomedical Research. Animal protection groups that were represented include the Animal Welfare Institute, American Humane Association, Animal Legal Defense Fund, and the Humane Society of the United States. Despite their diverse and sometimes polarized views of the necessity of the legislation and what should be regulated, all speakers expressed a desire to work together and with APHIS on future regulatory issues. They also pleaded for APHIS/AC budget increases and better enforcement of existing regulations.
Following a panel discussion with the organization representatives, APHIS/AC field inspectors discussed their perspectives and future directions based on what they experience when visiting animal facilities. The inspectors covered animal exhibitors, dealers, carriers, researchers.
Over 150 people attended the symposium representing a broad spectrum of philosophical views and general interests. The attendees included laboratory animal researchers, animal protectionists, students, philosophers, zoo and aquarium staff, government and non-profit organizations. Well-known figures in the development of the AWA were present in the audience and were asked to address the group. Anne Cotrell Free, a nationally- syndicated columnist in the 1950s and 1960s, covered general animal welfare issues that exposed deplorable conditions for laboratory and pound animals. Her writing helped create the climate that motivated Congress to pass an act protecting pets and laboratory animals. Former Senator (and veterinarian), John Melcher was also in the audience. Sen. Melcher was responsible for helping to pass the 1985 amendments to the Act which included the formation of AWIC. He is credited for making psychological well-being of nonhuman primates and exercise for dogs legal requirements.
A free half-day version of the AWIC workshop Meeting the Information Requirements of the Animal Welfare Act was offered at NAL the morning after the symposium with optional tours of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center or the National Wildlife Visitor Center offered in the afternoon. The workshop attracted 50 participants.
The final anniversary event was an exhibit at NAL on 30 years of the Act and 10 years of AWIC. Artifacts including newspaper articles from the 1960s, life-size photostats of the AWA and Amendments signed by Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush, photographs, laboratory animal enrichment devices such as toys, a transport crate for rodents, and other materials filled two showcases. The exhibit was photographed and videotaped for possible future use as an interactive module about the history of the AWA which will be put on the AWIC website. Contributors of the historic information and artifacts include AWI, WARDS, AAALAC International, Charles River Laboratories, Anne Cotrell Free, New Jersey Association for Biomedical Research, National Archives, National Institutes of Health, Dr. Viktor Reinhardt, and R.W. Johnson Pharmaceutical Research Institute.
A hundred years from now, someone will write a book about the history of animal welfare in the United States. The symposium from September 1996 will leave a written and video testament in the words of those who have been involved in what is now still a recent social and regulatory issue.
The symposium is a collaborative effort headed by AWIC and USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service/ Animal Care (APHIS/AC). Both groups funded the 1-day event. Non-government groups that were instrumental in the passage and development of the Animal Welfare Act also supported the symposium. WARDS (Working for Animals Used in Research, Drugs, and Surgery), Inc., paid for refreshments at the two breaks. WARDS, Inc., the publisher of these proceedings, funded this publication with additional funding provided by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC) and the Animal Welfare Institute (AWI). AWI also funded travel expenses for Dr. Frank Mulhern, the first APHIS Administrator and under whose watch the Animal Welfare Act was born.
I want to welcome everyone here this morning. We appreciate you being here to help us with this celebration. I want to thank everyone for your patience with the security. This is a secure building and we have extra security on this morning.The time that we're going to be spending here today is very pleasing to me and I think it's very appropriate that it's being presented as kind of a joint celebration: the enactment of the Animal Welfare Act and the establishment of the Animal Welfare Information Center. Most of today we'll be discussing the Animal Welfare Act, but tomorrow the AWIC or Animal Welfare Information Center will have a very nice program. Information exchange really is a factor that's central to both of our agencies. Perhaps back 30 years ago, if one had a crystal ball when the Animal Welfare Act was first passed, I think we could surely have predicted that there would come a day when we would need to have the Animal Welfare Information Center. So although the mandated purpose for the Animal Welfare Information Center is to facilitate literature searches of the literature for research alternatives, its development has had broader effects on bringing the extensive resources of the National Agricultural Library (NAL) to the attention of the growing public segment interested in animal welfare research.
We are very pleased to have the leaders of the two agencies: APHIS (Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) and the National Agricultural Library in the Agricultural Research Service. Mr. Terry Medley is the Administrator for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service and Mr. Keith Russell is the Deputy Director of the National Agricultural Library.
It's a real pleasure for me this morning to introduce our Administrator from the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Mr. Terry Medley. Mr. Medley comes to us fairly recently as the administrator, but this certainly does not mean that he's new to Animal and Plant Health inspection activities. He is an attorney and received his law degree from the University of Virginia. He has spent some time with the Office of General Council with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and, more importantly, he had a six-month tour as the Acting Administrator of the Food Safety Inspection Service and spent several years as the acting associate administrator for the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service before becoming the Administrator. It's a real pleasure for us and a real pleasure for the Animal Care Program to have Mr. Medley as the Administrator. Please help me welcome Mr. Medley.
Terry Medley, Administrator, APHIS:
Thank you Dr. Schwindaman. I have spent the last 20 years working on agriculture issues in the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, the Forest Service, and FSIS. I spent the last 13 years setting up regulatory programs for the new products of biotechnology, genetically-engineered organisms, including new veterinary biologics. More specifically, I developed programs about psuedorabies and all the rabies vaccines which, when you look at the impact that can have on wild animals and also our companion animals and humans, you get a very fascinating development area which I think can help us deal with some of our wildlife management problems.This morning, I'm pleased to be able to welcome you and I hope you enjoy your day at Riverdale. We have been classified as a Category 4 building. We do have a day school here. There is heightened security, but our employees are very thankful about that especially after the tragedy against them that occurred at the Murry Federal Building that killed seven APHIS employees.
We're here to celebrate the thirtieth anniversary of the enactment of the Animal Welfare Act and the tenth anniversary of the National Agricultural Library's Animal Welfare Information Center, AWIC. Dr. Schwindaman started off welcoming you here, but, like any good birthday party, it brings together many people who have been close to the honorees throughout the years. It gives them an opportunity to share their very insights and their perspectives to let us know just what the AWA and the AWIC has meant to them. Through this process we'll be able to take a look at our past achievements in animal welfare and also explore our goals for the future. I'd like to begin our retrospective by providing a very brief overview of AWA's history. Dr. Schwindaman is going to talk more in depth.
He and I had a very good conversation the other evening when we talked about his long tenure in this program starting in 1966. It really was a fascinating trip for me and I hope he shares some of that with the group this morning. As we know, in 1966 the original Laboratory Animal Welfare Act was passed setting the main standards for research animals housed on the dealer's premises or in laboratories. The Act was strengthened in 1970 to cover the animal's entire stay in laboratories and require the use of appropriate pain-relieving drugs. At that time, the AWA was also expanded to include exhibit animals and animals in commercial breeding operations. In 1976, amendments to the AWA established specific provisions for animals in transport and was expanded and prohibited most animal fighting ventures. In 1985, Congress passed the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act which again strengthened the AWA provisions by providing laboratory animal care and aimed to reduce unnecessary duplicative animal research experimentation. The amendments also establish a center at the National Agricultural Library, what we know today as the AWIC, to provide information on alternatives to the use of live animals in research. Finally, in 1990, Congress passed pet protection provisions for holding periods of random source dogs and cats.
As you can see, the AWA has been continually evolving and improving our ability to protect regulated animals. A little later, the panel that Dr. Schwindaman talked about will provide a more in depth perspective on USDA's regulatory responsibilities under each of the AWA amendments. However, I would like to note that one of the legislators who was instrumental in achieving this reform was Congressman George Brown from California. A primary sponsor of the 1985 amendments commonly known as the "Brown-Dole Amendments". Mr. Brown was planning to join us today, but it was necessary for him to join President Clinton on the campaign trail in California who is in Congressman Brown's district. So I'm sure, at this point in time, you can understand his having to fulfill that commitment. Had he been able to join us, Congressman Brown would have provided us with a congressional perspective on the history of AWA. If time permits, we will be able to share with you some of those thoughts. But we do know that it wasn't easy and we are certainly grateful to Congressman Brown's efforts and to all those individuals and groups who fought for this legislation.
Of course there are many others who should be recognized. Far too many for us to mention individually. The APHIS officials who spent countless hours researching and writing AWA regulations, the inspectors who enforce AWA regulations in the field, and the Regulatory Enforcement officials who are helping to bring AWA violators to justice. Today, we particularly want to highlight the contributions of the AWIC staff who work closely with our Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care personnel in promoting the exchange of information relating to the humane care and use of animals and the AWA requirements. And then, there are those of you who are here today. Each of you, whether in government, humane groups, or in industry, have contributed in some very special ways to all of these achievements. I know that we've come a long way form the time when it was acceptable to sell identified animals to research, when research animals did not have to be anesthetized, and when none oversaw the treatment of animals at breeding facilities, zoos, and circuses.
We are proud of the work we've done, but we also realize there are a number of challenges ahead. How do we improve? How do we enhance our enforcement and our commitment to the goals of the Animal Welfare Act? I think today we have an opportunity to share with one another as we look at our retrospective and as we look to the future and the goals we want to achieve. As we recognize our successes, it is important that we recognize our shared goals and work together in our collective interest and responsibilities. That's really one of the main purposes of this meeting. It's to set the groundwork for an ongoing dialogue on these issues and to create new and effective partnerships.
At a time when we hear words like "improved streamlined government", we talk about the National Performance Review Initiative; it's all aimed at efficiency. But a cornerstone of all those efforts is cooperation between the government and diverse entities. Here at USDA, we've made it a primary goal to solicit public input on all of our regulatory efforts. In the area of the AWA for instance, through public meetings we've held earlier this year on commercial breeders as well as meetings we've held to solicit comments for our activities on the Horse Protection Act. It's by working together like this that we are going to be able to ensure enhancement of animal welfare and of our animal welfare activities.
Our goal is to make the best informed decisions. To do that, the operative word is "informed". To allow us to be thus informed, we must have this dialogue. We have to provide venues, opportunities to exchange information to receive the spectrum of views on an issue be they supportive, be they in opposition, be they critical, we need the entire perspective to make the best informed decisions.
When we talk about informed decisions, that leads me to information. Information is very critical. We talk about enhanced compliance. Another aspect of enforcement is also education. It's training. It's reaching out. It's communicating. It's saying, "Let's look at our objectives. Let's look at our goals and how do we best achieve them? How do we maximize our resources? How do we perform as efficiently as possible?" Education is the key.
At this time, it's my pleasure to introduce our next speaker. Mr. Keith Russell who is the Deputy Director of the National Agricultural Library. Mr. Russell has been with NAL for 12 years, serving as Associate Director for Public Services before being appointed Deputy Director in May of 1995. During his years at NAL, Mr. Russell was closely involved in the initial establishment of the Center and he has been a strong supporter its truly innovative activities and programs. He is also a very firm proponent of AWICs educational sessions on Meeting the Information Requirements of the AWA. This is a two-day workshop designed to assist the regulated community in examining alternatives to certain research procedures. I'd like you to join me now in welcoming Mr. Keith Russell.
Keith Russell, Deputy Director, National Agricultural Library:
Thank you Mr. Medley. Good morning. I am delighted to see so many of us turned out for this important celebration. On behalf of Pamela Andre, the Director of the National Agricultural Library, my primary purpose is to welcome you to this event. As Mr. Medley mentioned, I have been involved with the Animal Welfare Information Center since its beginning. The Center was created in the mid-eighties during a period of tremendous and significant growth for the library. During that period, we created several information centers to help us improve access to information in agriculture and the related sciences and social sciences.Although Animal Welfare Information Center is not our oldest center, it is one of our two largest and it has set many standards for other information centers and other library activities. The center's training program, for example, is our best developed and most extensive one. It serves as a model for other training programs, other bibliographic instruction programs, and other user education programs.
A few years ago, we had a special consultant work with us on developing an overall strategic plan and relate it to providing education and training to our users. The primary role model for the development of that plan was the work that the people in the Animal Welfare Information Center had done.
The center is also one of our best known activities on the international scene and, a few years ago, the center received a very prestigious award for its outreach efforts. Jean Larson, the coordinator of the Animal Welfare Information Center will mention these as well as other achievements in her presentation later this morning.
In closing, I will just repeat my welcome and hope that you have a wonderful day of celebrating not only the center, but also other animal welfare activities that have been going on for a long period of time. Thank you.
Thank you Mr. Medley and thank you Mr. Russell. Before we get started, there is a person here that I would like to introduce and that is former Senator John Melcher. Dr. Melcher, and I say Dr. Melcher because Senator Melcher is a veterinarian, has done much to support animal welfare. He may not be prepared, but I would like to call him up and see if he has any comments.
Senator Melcher:
Thank you Dale. You're right, I'm totally unprepared. But as a former senator, I'm never at a loss for words. When I learned of this meeting, I was very pleased and very delighted. I think within all of us, there's an instinctive desire to be kind to animals and to treat them with the respect, the compassion, and the humaneness that they deserve from us.You're going to hear from Christine Stevens very shortly and she will give you the real history of the Animal Welfare Act because she and Roger Stevens were involved with the Animal Welfare Act since its infancy and worked very diligently to make sure it became law. It's been my privilege as a congressman and a senator to be able to work and do the right thing for animals. For that opportunity, I've always been proud, delighted, and thankful.
What I say to you is this, renew your interest and your faith and your determination to be humane and take care of animals and maybe respect that we use them, that we employ them, that we participate with them in life's journey to make life better for all of us. Thank you.
Dr. Schwindaman:
Thank you very much Senator Melcher. Before we begin with this morning's agenda, I want to take a few moments to make a few additional introductions. First of all, I want you to know about the members of the committee that have worked so hard in putting this together. When Jean Larson and her staff contacted me a number of months ago to see what the germination of this idea of this celebration might be, I was very pleased to say, "I think it's a wonderful idea. Let's go forward with it!" So in going forward with it, there were members from APHIS and from the National Ag Library, AWIC, who worked very diligently in bringing it to fruition today.If you look at the last page of your program, you will see the individuals listed. I would like to read their names and have them stand, so in the very beginning, we can give them a round of applause for their work. From APHIS, Joy D'Arce, Dr. Debra Beasley, Cindy Eck, and Colleen Yates. From the National Agricultural Library, AWIC, there's Tim Allen, Dr. Richard Crawford, Ruth Criscio, D'Anna Jensen, Mike Kreger, and, of course, Jean Larson. These are the people who worked very hard to put this together and let's thank them.
I do want to make some additional introductions before we continue on. There are so many people who played a role in the animal welfare regulations over the past 30 years and before 1966. I want to introduce some of those who were very instrumental in the passage of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966. Of course, as Senator Melcher mentioned, Mrs. Christine Stevens is a presenter today and one of those who needs to be recognized.
This certainly didn't appear on the horizon as a full-blown piece of legislation without quite a history before it. If I can use a Biblical metaphor, I'd like to say that 1966 was one of those moments in history when the seeds of change had found fertile ground, this time in an awakening public consciousness about animal welfare issues. The focus of that original legislation was on animals used in research, although since then we have seen the same pattern. Legislative response to an aroused public awareness brings about changes in many other areas of animal use. Some of those who sowed the seeds that produced the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966 are here today. And some mentioned one of those pioneers is Mrs. Christine Stevens, President of the Animal Welfare Institute. Anne Cottrell Free has written extensively about animal welfare and for her journalistic work in bringing experimental uses of animals to public attention, she was awarded the Albert Schweitzer Medal from the Animal Welfare Institute in 1963.
There are many others who have made contributions, and I want to mention a couple of these people who have passed on, and with whom I, and others of you in the room, have worked with personally. Fay Briske was one of these individuals who was a long-time fighter against animal abuse. I'll always remember Fay for her efforts in improving conditions for animals in transportation. Fay knew Washington, and she knew Washington politics. She used her network skillfully to work for the humane treatment of animals. Fay received the Albert Schweitzer Medal from AWI in 1975. And there's Frank McMann. Frank was the Chief Investigator of the Humane Society of the United States. He was with the group that took the Life photographer along on a raid to a dealer's premises here in Maryland. That event resulted in the article "Concentration Camp for Dogs" which you will hear more about today. There are many representatives of humane organizations here today as presenters and as part of the audience. We welcome their participation in this celebration.
I came to work on the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act in 1966 when the effort was underway to write the first regulations and standards which would make enforcement of this landmark piece of legislation possible. Dr. Earl Jones was one of the first individuals to head the new Animal Care staff. Earl was quite a character. He and I struggled through many long nights writing those first regulations and standards. We were facing a lot of opposition to the proposed rules, but we did have a lot of support and leadership from our boss, who is also here today and is one of the presenters. That was Dr. Frank Mulhern who was then director of the Animal Health Division of the Agricultural Research Service. The Animal Health Division was the predecessor of Veterinary Services which is part of APHIS, and Dr. Mulhern was the first administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
I haven't seen him yet, but I understand that Mr. Frank Germaine is going to be here today. He was on the staff in those early days. Frank deserves a lot of credit for helping to develop enforcement procedures for the Animal Welfare Act.
I see a number of former members of the Animal Care staff who have joined us today for this celebration. We want to welcome all of them. I do want to take a moment to recognize an individual who I have worked very closely with over the past several years, and that is Dr. Morley Cooke. Dr. Cooke has just left the Animal Care program to begin a new assignment in Veterinary Services and we're really going to miss Dr. Cooke's expertise and broad experience on the Animal Care staff. Dr. Richard Crawford that I mentioned before, and there are people within the staff who are still with us today; some who have spent as much as 17 years continuously in the staff and have really made tremendous contributions.
When Animal Care started this business in 1966, it assumed the high standards of dedication and service for which the Animal Health Division had a reputation in animal health, disease eradication, and control efforts. That value is one I've tried to continue in my own career with APHIS in Animal Care and in other areas throughout the years. And now, 30 years later, I can see how that tradition of honest even-handed dealing has shaped the progress of animal welfare regulations. I believe that trust in the fairness of the regulating agency is the foundation on which cooperative and collaborative efforts such as, most recently, the IACUCs (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees) are built. Many of you would agree that partnerships like that hold much promise for progress in the future and you will hear more about them in today's program. For me, it is critical that honesty, integrity, and open communication characterize the activity of participants in these coalitions. That is the only way they will survive as lasting approaches to animal welfare regulation.
It is easy to respond positively to change when it brings about a condition you want or when you are engineering that change such as we were when we first started enforcing the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act and then the Animal Welfare Act, but it's a different story if you're the subject of that change. I want to say to all of you here today from the scientific community, the biomedical community, I have a great admiration for the real transformation that has occurred over the last 30 years. There are people here today, Dr. Harry Rozmiarek and several others, who really represent that wealth of experience and assistance in this transition. People who are here today from the National Institutes of Health, OPRR, Dr. John Miller, Dr. Nelson Garnett, and others are names that are also very important in this period of evolution.
When the Animal Welfare Act was first passed, there were many laboratory animal veterinarians, such as the ones I've mentioned, who were fighting a lonely battle for better facilities and conditions for animals maintained for research purposes. The support of those professionals was important to us in those early years, and it continues to be gratifying to me to see that, in turn, the Animal Welfare Act has made their voices better heard in their own facilities.
In the beginning, researchers and their representative organizations were almost exclusively opposed to anything proposed under the Animal Welfare Act. In meeting with these groups, I was keenly aware of deeply-held beliefs that underlay this negativity. It was a resolute dedication to freedom of inquiry that motivated a bunch of the opposition, and that concern is still one that deserves our consideration today. But in the succeeding years, we have found common ground in which animal well being and freedom of research can coexist. I know this has come about from our growing awareness of our stewardship and responsibility to earth and its creatures.
I think there was an assist from organizations such as the Scientists Center for Animal Welfare that made a great contribution to finding this common ground. Dr. Barbara Orlans, for example, is here as one of the initiators of SCAW. Lee Krulisch, who currently is the executive director of SCAW, has been a very important individual. Under Lee's leadership, SCAW has sponsored forums and programs that have confronted many contentious issues in the welfare of research animals. These open exchanges have contributed a great deal in identifying that common ground and clarifying disputed areas. And there other organizations that have also been involved.
We've come a long way in 30 years toward being able to piece things together. This was demonstrated recently when we sat down together to have the formal negotiated rulemaking for upgrading the marine mammal standards. We reached consensus on many of the contentious issues. That consensus will be a great boost toward speeding implementation of rulemaking dealing with marine mammal welfare. With the benefit of 30 years behind us, we can see now that the passage of the 1966 Laboratory Animal Welfare Act was just a forerunner of things to come. The variety of points of view and interests in the program today demonstrates that animal welfare legislation has expanded to additional species and to several additional areas of use other than research. This has brought many more voices into the scene and we are receiving great benefits from that. You'll be hearing from several individuals representing these various groups- exhibitors, pet trade, transportation.
There are many people here from our own Animal Care field and headquarters staff and from other organizations for this occasion. I want to welcome all of you and we're very grateful for your efforts in the work and your presence today. As a broader definition of animal well being has taken hold, the Animal Care staff has expanded to include additional areas of expertise. Who would have imagined 30 years ago that we would be publishing rulemaking on "Swim With the Dolphin" and developing training for handlers of exotic animals? Those are the things that we will be dealing with today. To those of you who are here on your own because of a special interest in animal welfare, a very special welcome. I think that we need to take stock of what we have accomplished so far and find a vision of the future in which our diversity energizes us to greater progress. As Senator Melcher said, "I think we can do better."
Congressman George E. Brown, Jr.:
[Congressman Brown represents the 42nd District of California and has been instrumental in passage of animal welfare legislation in the U.S. Congress. He was unable to attend the symposium, but sent his remarks which were read on the following day at the Animal Welfare Information Center workshop. The speech was published in Animal Welfare Information Center Newsletter (Spring, 1997, 8(1):1-2, 23).]
I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Animal Welfare Act. The Animal Welfare Act is this nation's primary federal law regarding animal care, and it sets standards for the treatment of animals by breeders, exhibitors, and transporters, as well as research facilities using animals in research. The passage of the Animal Welfare Act was a monumental achievement, and it has been improved upon through subsequent amendments. However, all of us who work on these issues know that more still needs to be done in the next 30 years.Advocates of a humane ethic for animals are gaining momentum in this country. This movement gains its strength from a very basic philosophy regarding the sacredness of life. While recognizing the role that animals have traditionally played in society as food sources, companions, and research models, we have to always remember that animals are sensing, living beings capable of feeling fear and pain, and that they must be respected as such.
There are few issues confronting Congress where the advocates hold such an emotional commitment. Promoting proper care and protection of animals has been a priority of mine throughout my public career. Several issues were being brought before the California State Legislature when I was a representative close to forty years ago. And to be quite frank, these issues are, more often than not, low on the overall political agenda of our policy makers, and are not regarded as the most critical issues of the times.
As you know, politicians are fairly slow to propose controversial changes. To be too far in the forefront of our changing culture, is to commit political suicide. Because of the lack of political motivation and the unfortunate opposition which many times accompanies efforts to improve the treatment of animals, changes made regarding animal welfare laws have been gradual changes over time, designed to keep abreast, or at least to minimally address, changing views in our society. The Animal Welfare Act and the subsequent amendments, therefore, represent important, but moderate, changes made in response to the growing concern about the welfare of animals.
In October 1981 we held hearings in the Science Subcommittee reviewing current practices of laboratory animal care, use, and treatment. The two days of public hearings centered on testimony by representatives from federal agencies, animal welfare societies, and research and educational institutions.
The hearings were a result of an individual's claims to police a month before and the subsequent arrest of a researcher and his animal caretaker on charges that 17 monkeys were being mistreated at a Silver Spring, Maryland research facility.
The subcommittees review also provided grounds for additional Congressional hearings that focused on the Animal Welfare Act. Senator Bob Dole conducted hearings in 1983 and I held hearings in 1984. The testimony presented at those hearings were, by and large, the basis for legislation that we sponsored in 1984 and 1985- the "Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act." The purpose of the legislation was to amend some provisions of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) in light of allegations that the U.S. Department of Agriculture was not adequately enforcing the standards established for the care and treatment of laboratory animals.
This legislation addressed the legitimate concerns which arose from well-publicized accounts of substandard research facilities which had neglected animals and grossly violated animal care regulations. It was basically another step to bring our laws a little closer to the growing concern about the care of laboratory animals. At the same time, the legislation was moderate and did not place an unbearable burden upon research institutions.
The 1985 amendments strengthened standards of animal care by requiring the use of pain killers and presurgical and postsurgical care, requiring animal care training for personnel who work with animals, requiring euthanasia of an animal upon completion of an experiment, and provided for exercise for dogs and a physical environment to promote the psychological well being of nonhuman primates. The amendments also required the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to inspect facilities at least once a year, and to inspect federal agencies' facilities. It also established a national information service [the Animal Welfare Information Center] on alternative research procedures, as well as on ways to reduce unintended duplication of experiments.
Ideally, it would be nice if we could develop sufficient alternative procedures to be able to eliminate the use of live animals altogether, through the use of tissue cultures, computer programs, and other models. I strongly support the development of alternatives to the use of live animals wherever possible. While Chairman of the Subcommittee on Science, Research, and Technology, I held hearings on the use of animals in research and on alternative research methods. In this subcommittee, I had the opportunity to work on legislation providing for the humane care of laboratory animals and which encouraged the development of alternatives to the use of live animals in research.
In addition to the issue of the care and treatment of animals, the problem of lost or stolen companion animals being used for research was also a major motivation for the original enactment of the Animal Welfare Act.
Unfortunately, the Animal Welfare Act has not had great success in preventing lost or stolen pets from entering the research animal trade. This is mainly because the statute allows individuals who gather animals from random sources to be licensed by the USDA to provide these animals to research facilities. These dealers, known as Class B dealers, routinely buy and sell stolen family pets, purchase animals without records from public auctions and "adopt" animals from pounds and families under false pretenses.
For many years, I have been deeply concerned that the pet theft provisions of the Animal Welfare Act are not being adequately enforced. It has been revealed, through the media and through USDA's own Inspector General, that inspectors have knowingly ignored repeated violations of federal laws, including the falsification of records of animal origins, the only way to ensure that stolen animals are not entering the research animal trade.
As Chairman of the Department [of Agriculture] Operations, Resources, and Foreign Agriculture Subcommittee, I held a hearing on the Pet Theft Act during the 100th Congress. This measure was designed to protect household pets from being stolen and sold to research laboratories. This legislation had passed the Senate, but failed to reach the House floor before Congress adjourned.
In April of this year [1996] I joined Congressman Charles Canady in introducing H.R. 3398, the Pet Safety and Protection Act, which would amend the Animal Welfare Act to ensure that all dogs and cats used by research facilities are obtained legally.
Adequately addressing the problem of pet theft is one of many challenges that APHIS and the Animal Welfare Act will face in the coming years. In the areas of animal care and treatment the Animal Welfare Act needs to be strengthened and improved upon. This may require USDA coming to Congress and requesting legislation that will grant them greater authority to effectively enforce the Act.
The USDA Inspector General's January 1995 report--Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act--stated, "APHIS does not have the authority ... to effectively enforce the requirements of the Animal Welfare Act." I am deeply concerned with the agency's ability and willingness to adequately monitor and reasonably ensure the humane care and treatment of animals.
Lack of adequate resources is part of the problem associated with APHIS's ability to adequately monitor and inspect animals and facilities and to enforce the pet theft provisions of the Animal Welfare Act. In the past I have testified before the Appropriations Committee in favor of increased funding for enforcement of the AWA. Members of Congress concerned about the funding levels for APHIS had to be particularly diligent during the Reagan Administration, when repeated attempts were made to eliminate entirely funds to enforce the Animal Welfare Act.
In addition to fiscal constraints however, the Inspector General's report indicates that APHIS has been neglecting its statutory obligations and has renewed facility licenses even when cited violations - past and present - had not yet been corrected. Additionally, APHIS is not inspecting research facilities before issuing the initial registrations, therefore noncompliance with the Act may go unnoticed until APHIS' first inspection up to a year later.
It was clearly the intent of Congress that facilities should come into compliance before being issued the initial registrations. Section 2.3 of the Animal Welfare Act, among others, implicitly gives APHIS the authority to conduct inspections and to deny renewals.
I hope that the advances made through the Animal Welfare Act and other legislation aimed at protecting animals can be improved upon in future years. Much more needs to be done to ensure that the animals in our care are treated humanely. This should not be seen as a threat to the research community. It is simply a reaction of the growing concerns of society, and should be accepted as such. And, it is in the best interest of those who rely on animals to accept this growing change and work with policy makers to develop legislation which addresses the concerns of the animal welfare movement while, at the same time, developing regulations which do not cause unreasonable burdens.
A large portion of Americans feel strongly that animal care laws are important and should be enforced. The Animal Welfare Act has provided a baseline of humane care that is necessary and just. I am hopeful that we can move forward from here and provide a more meaningful level of protection for the thousands of animals under the current jurisdiction of APHIS. I look forward to seeing us move forward into the next 30 years of the Animal Welfare Act building on past successes and with a progressive approach toward rectifying the remaining problems associated with the enforcement of the Act.
Dr. Schwindaman:
It's my pleasure to introduce Mrs. Christine Stevens who will give us a historical background and historical motivation. I think everyone knows that Mrs. Stevens is President of the Animal Welfare Institute.
Mrs. Christine Stevens, President, Animal Welfare Institute:
I am very happy to be here to celebrate with you and congratulate the many inspectors and supporting staff who have made such a difference in the lives of so many animals over the 30 years since the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act was signed into law. The Department of Agriculture was wisely selected by the Congress as the agency to enforce the statute, but it was touch and go back in 1966 as to whether the National Institutes of Health might snatch jurisdiction away from you. The biomedical establishment is still trying to make USDA inspectors over in their image in the form of the Preceptor program, and it has spent much time and money on weakening the regulations USDA has proposed and, even more importantly, on trying to undermine your resolve to achieve effective enforcement and the decent treatment of animals which is its plain objective.How did it all happen? And why did it take so infernally long for our country to adopt a civilized approach to the treatment of laboratory animals? Legislation to regulate experimental use of animals was introduced in Congress in 1880 following the lead of the 1876 British Cruelty to Animals Act, but the medical establishment crushed it immediately, and for the next 80 years the animals suffered in silence. No legislation to protect them was even proposed, though their numbers grew and grew.
A war of attrition between anti-vivisection societies and medical research interests went on and on. The Hearst press brought laboratory cruelty and suffering to light repeatedly, but no practical help for animals resulted. It was rumored that Hearst planned a campaign to obtain legislation like the British Cruelty to Animals Act, but he died before accomplishing his aim, and the sterile anti-vivisection debate raged on. On one occasion, Irene Castle, the famous dancer, tried to carry off a pitiful dog from the University of Chicago, but Dr. Andrew Ivy ran after her and wrestled the dog away.
Dr. Ivy was the Treasurer of the National Society for Medical Research (NSMR). Best known for his claim that apricot pits would cure cancer, he was a fierce defender of the unrestricted use of research animals. "It's your baby or your dog" and "Laboratory animals are more pampered than pets" were typical claims of the NSMR as they promoted animal seizure bills throughout the country. The bills forced humane society shelters to give dogs and cats to laboratories. In a stealthy move in Minnesota, they had engineered enactment before animal protective organizations were aware that an animal seizure bill had even been introduced.
My father, Dr. Robert Gesell, head of the Department of Physiology at the University of Michigan Medical School, shocked the American Physiological Society by taking the microphone at the annual meeting for a short unscheduled speech in which he said: "The National Society for Medical Research would have us believe that there is an important issue in vivisection versus anti-vivisection. To a physiologist there can be no issue of vivisection per se. The real and urgent issue is Humanity versus Inhumanity in the use of experimental animals. Anti-vivisection is their indispensable bogey which must be kept before the-public at any cost."
A widely distributed correspondence with Dr. A.J. Carlson, President of the NSMR, followed. My father included a two-page reprint from The Lancet, Britain's leading medical journal, which had published a joint letter from seven distinguished scientists citing painful animal experiments conducted in-the United States and Canada. They invited other scientists to join them in asserting that these experiments were to be "condemned as shocking to a normal human conscience."
Professor Golla described an experiment in which dogs were subjected to 74 strong electric shocks through the metal screen floors of their cages, day in and day out for six months, to study chronic fear. The Lancet editorial responding to these letters stated that the British Act of 1876 requires "that an animal suffering from severe pain which is likely to endure should forthwith be painlessly killed whether the main object of the experiment has been attained or not." The editorial went on to say, "Charles Darwin held that to inflict any pain which is not absolutely necessary deserves 'detestation and abhorrence' and all research workers of integrity subscribe to this judgment."
But the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology was unmoved. It stated, "Certainly the great majority of experimental biologists and medical research investigators do not want the counterpart of the laws and regulations that the English have imposed, and are entirely behind the Medical Research Pound Bill pending in the New York Assembly." This was an animal seizure bill which was passed, then repealed a few years later.
In 1952, when the newly formed Animal Welfare Institute was denied exhibit space at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology meeting, we were told, "The Federation is unequivocal in its points of view and is not interested in any compromise position." My father's circular letter commented, "The Executive Committee of the Federation categorically denies its members the usual courtesy of acquaintance with facts by refusing to admit an educational display by the Animal Welfare Institute." Parenthetically, I should tell you that AWI has just been denied exhibit space by AALAS, the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science, which is apparently just as unequivocal in its point of view."
At my father's suggestion, I paid personal visits to many distinguished English physiologists, considered the best by my father. Sir Alexander Fleming showed me the window sill on which he had discovered penicillin. I remember his rabbits in spacious cages with room to hop about and sit up.
As I went from one institution to another, I asked each physiologist what he thought of the law under whose strictures he worked, and was much encouraged to learn that none objected and several spoke of the value of the Act in establishing a strong sense of responsibility toward experimental animals in young scientists beginning research.
The Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW), under the leadership of Charles Hume, circulated a letter asking three questions about the views of British scientists on the 1876 Act. He got an impressive response and very interesting contents from a large number of distinguished scientists. Typical were those of Dr. C.A. Keele, professor of pharmacology: "Our Home Office control of animal experimentation is in my view highly successful in preventing irresponsible persons inflicting-unnecessary cruelty and in no way impedes legitimate research. We have always had cordial relations with the Home Office inspectors and have been only too glad to benefit from their advice on animal welfare. The present system of control works in such a way as to create the right attitude towards animal experiments so that research workers come to realize that only by treating animals properly can results of scientific value be obtained. In my opinion lack of control leads to much worthless experimentation which is not only inhumane, but obstructive to scientific progress."
AWI published excerpts from these letters to try to persuade American scientists that a law based on the principles of the British Act should be passed, but the courageous individuals in research institutions were drowned out by the clamor instigated by the National Society for Medical Research and, later, the National Association for Biomedical Research, which replaced it. The bill sponsored by 14 highly regarded U.S. Senators was based on the principles of the British Act, but it never had hearings because Senator Lister Hill, a loyal servant of the National Institutes of Health, never allowed it to come to hearings. There was no mechanism in those days, when Committee Chairmen had absolute power, to discharge the bill, so it languished from one Congress to the next. But in 1965 and 1966, a series of events took place which led to the enactment of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act.
In April 1965, the Littlewood Report was completed and delivered to the British Parliament. The book-sized report found that "Animal experiment is a complex and highly specialized subject. It is also a moral and social problem of the first magnitude and one that does not exclusively concern the expert." We provided a copy to every Member of Congress.
Later, Members of Congress received by hand a copy of the 1966 Life article about dog dealers. The skeletal dog, whose cringing photo led off the story, was bought by AWI's Laboratory Animal Consultant Dorothy Dyce for $3.00. Stan Wayman's powerful photograph brought home the horrors of this commerce. Henry Luce published the article after I took him the information Dorothy had collected about the dog dealers. He looked at the photographs that documented what she had found, but he said Life would get its own. He certainly knew what he was doing. Others at the magazine grumbled that the old man had lost his marbles, but so far from that, Life received more mail on "Concentration Camps for Dogs" than any story in the history of the magazine--more letters than Life got on Vietnam.
NIH and its parent agency, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW), decided to prepare a report for the Secretary on existing policies and practices on humane treatment of experimental animals and a comparison of these standards with interested national and international associations. Two senior staff of HEW's Division of Operations Analysis in the Comptroller's Office were assigned to the task, which they took seriously and addressed completely. They asked animal protective organizations to submit information. AWI and its companion organization, the Society for Animal Protective Legislation, made two of the three submissions. They were explicit and fully documented. AWI's was presented under ten headings:
- Cages Too Small for Animals to Stand or Lie in Normal Position
- Failure to Administer Pain-Relieving Drugs After Surgery
- Failure to Destroy Suffering, Moribund Animals
- Failure to Supervise Animals After Surgery
- Failure to Provide a Comfortable Resting Place for Animals
- Repeated Use of the Same Animal for Painful Procedures
- Failure to Provide Water
- Failure to Identify Animals
- Immobilization of Unanesthetized Animals
- Filth
When the powers that be at NIH saw the carefully prepared 230-page report, they hurriedly thrust the multiple copies that had been reproduced into storage. No one was to see the report they had paid for because it clearly acknowledged the grim facts about the treatment of the experimental animals financed by NIH. However, Senator Joseph Clark, sponsor of the bill which had not been granted hearings by Committee Chairman Lister Hill, learned of the report's existence and demanded a copy, which we circulated.
But it was the excesses of the random source dog dealers themselves that made it possible to pass the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act in 1966. Many of you know the story of Pepper, the Dalmatian whose photograph in the local paper shocked her owner, who was in the hospital recovering from a heart attack. Pepper was photographed with 17 other dogs and 2 goats temporarily unloaded from a dog dealer's overcrowded truck, and held overnight by the local humane society.
Fay Brisk, a tremendous worker for animal protection, called us for help in restoring Pepper to her family, and Sara Ehrmann, Senator Clark's assistant, knew what to do. She phoned Congressman Resnick, in whose district the big dog dealer Nersesian had a "'dog farm" to which Pepper supposedly had been taken by the Pennsylvania dog dealer. Though they had driven all night, the wife and children of Pepper's owner were denied admittance to Nersesian's premises. Resnick, a brilliant freshman Congressman, decided then and there to introduce the bill that bypassed the Health Committee.
Poor Pepper was never found. Montefiore Hospital had put out the call for Dalmatians to dealers rather than to breeders, and by the time the State Police extracted the admission from the Pennsylvania dog dealer that he had taken his load directly to Montefiore, the Dalmatian had died on the operating table and the body was incinerated.
On September 2, 1965, Chairman W.R. Poage of Texas held hearings on the Resnick bill and 20 other bills which had been introduced on the subject. Poage was the author of the Humane Slaughter Act, and he was equally determined to put a bill protecting laboratory animals out of his Subcommittee. Poage's hearings brought about peculiar action in the House Health Subcommittee. The bill, based on the principles of the British Act, had long languished there unheard, but now Congressman Rogers called a hearing for September 30th and 31st on this bill and a much weaker, NIH-approved bill of his own.
Two distinguished British scientists, who had long worked under the British Act, presented highly effective testimony. I testified, too, and was mercilessly grilled by the Chairman. After Dr. Shannon, Head of NIH, testified, the second day of hearings was abruptly canceled, and the record was never published. It appears that the opponents had hoped to discredit and suppress our testimony. Sir Graham Wilson, former Director of the Public Health Service, and Dr. Lawrence Abel, former Vice President of the Royal College of Surgeons of England, who had flown to Washington to testify, were shocked by this arbitrary and unprecedented action. We published their statements in full in the Animal Welfare Institute Information Report, but it was hardly the same as the Congressional hearing record.
Quoting from my testimony of September 2, 1965, in favor of H.R. 943:
"Other witnesses will report fully on the infamous Dierolf Farms of Boyertown, Pennsylvania; but I would like to report on our observations of animals in New York laboratories which come from Dierolf. A major client is the Downstate Medical Center of the University of the State of New York whose veterinarian has repeatedly stated that he regularly buys twice as many cats as he actually expects to have requisitioned for research because he counts on a 50 percent mortality of these animals."In 1961, I somewhat naively wrote to Mr. James Fendrick, whom we knew when he worked for Smith, Kline & French and who I understand is now executive head of Dierolf, noting a 'complaint to us from one of the laboratories to which Dierolf supplies cats. They say the cats are very thin, that they are often sick, and in the summer they are laden with fleas.' I suggested that the price of the cats be raised so that they could be provided in a good state of health (the laboratory was paying $4.50 per cat but spending $4.00 more on each cat to give them temporary protection against cat distemper). I never received an answer to my letter. The laboratory which had asked us to complain was the New York Eye and Ear Hospital. In the course of one of our visits there, we insisted that water be supplied to the animals, little realizing how desperately they needed it. The animal caretaker, angry at being forced to give the cats a bowl of water, roughly seized a large cat and shoved it down in front of the water bowl shouting 'Drink!' Those who know cats will realize that these animals are not naturally obedient and that they resent rough handling. I fully expected to see the cat rush away. On the contrary, when it saw the water, natural feline behavior ceased. It sat there and drank and drank more like a horse than a cat, so extreme was its need for water. Other cats joined it. I hope I shall never again see cats as thirsty as these. They came from Dierolf Farms.
"However, it would be wrong to blame Dierolf Farms alone for this great thirst. The laboratory, just as much as the dealer, should have provided that least expensive but most essential of all necessities for animals, water."
A second set of hearings before Chairman Poage's Subcommittee resulted in House passage of the Committee bill. The Senate Commerce Committee, under Senator Magnuson's chairmanship, held hearings in March and again in May. Senator Monroney offered an amendment to restore laboratories to the bill, which had been amended by Senate Commerce Committee staff to cover animal dealers only. The National Institutes of Health tried hard to transfer jurisdiction to themselves, but in June the Senate Commerce Committee reported the bill, including the amendment, and in a roll call vote of 85 to 0, the Senate passed the bill. The conferees combined the strongest provisions from both the Senate- and House-passed bills, and the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act was signed into law by President Johnson in the summer of 1966.
The times we are living in now are only a pale reflection of the decisive 1965 and '66, but we have the advantage of being a part, however small, of the establishment, and we have the institutional memory of Congress's action embodied in the distinguished Congressman George Brown, cosponsor with Bob Dole of the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals amendments.
You will soon be hearing from Dr. Frank Mulhern. I remember that he was jubilant, but surprised that the law's enactment brought so little media attention. He and Dr. Earl Jones, whose untimely death was a blow to the enforcement of the new law, were jointly awarded the Albert Schweitzer Medal for their dedicated work in implementing the Act despite a total lack of funding.
When the law was passed, the Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, whose Congressional district included an especially notorious Trade Day, decreed that no funds at all were needed to enforce the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. Appropriations, slowly rose from zero to $300,000; then into the low millions as inspection sites increased in number under the 1970 and 1976 amendments passed by Congress.
Congressman Tom Foley and his wife Heather were devoted to their Belgian shepherd, who outranked all other Congressional companion dogs as Mr. Foley rose to Agriculture Committee Chairman and finally Speaker. However, when Senator Dole became Majority Leader, his wife Elizabeth presented him with a schnauzer who needed a home and named him Leader. His small portrait in oils adorned a table in Bob Dole's waiting room where petitioners from the Society for Animal Protective Legislation often waited in the course of the long struggle to pass the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals amendments to the Animal Welfare Act. These most important of all the amendments since 1966 created the Animal Welfare Information Center at the National Agricultural Library which has grown in stature and dedication to the Congressional determination that created it.
To trace the historical motivation back to its original source, we must look to English scientists again. W.M.S. Russell and R.L. Burch, working together under a grant from the Universities Federation for Animal Welfare, wrote the book, The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, in which the "Three R's" first made their appearance: Replacement, Reduction and Refinement, as applied to animal experiments, put emphasis on finding alternatives to animals, reducing the numbers of animals, and reducing pain and distress when animals are used.
I would like to close by reading you some of the testimony I submitted in favor of the legislation in those watershed years 1965 and 1966, for it makes clear that the basic motivation for enactment of the Animal Welfare Act came from the shocking mistreatment of animals by dog and cat dealers.
"Today the Congress is considering legislation to put a final end to the use of random source Class B dealers who have visited so much hideous suffering on dogs and cats sold to laboratories. It is clear that suffering is not only completely unnecessary but seriously counter-productive to biomedical research. Let's hope that the Congress will come full circle and remedy the cruelty which inspired the enactment of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act.
On March 7, 1966, I testified:
"While it is indeed a crude way to measure suffering, mortality of the animals involved is, at any rate, a definite one. Mortality on the order of 30 percent or 40 percent has been reported by laboratories receiving monkeys. For example, at the 1964 meeting of the Animal Care Panel in New York City, Dr. R.L. Miller, veterinarian at the Bionetics Research Laboratories, Inc., Falls Church, Virginia, told about his problems in importing pregnant female monkeys. He didn't want to wait a year, which it would take if they bred their own, so he imported pregnant monkeys. It regularly happened that one-third of the monkeys would die in transit because of their handling. As for the infants of the remaining monkeys, half were born dead, and many were born prematurely."Mortality of dogs and cats purchased from dealers is reported at 40 percent and 50 percent. It would seem almost incredibly wasteful to continue with such a system; but I was informed by Dr. Shaffer of Downstate Medical College of the University of the State of New York that he had no complaints about the 'clinical appearance' of the cats supplied to him by Dierolf Farms (the big dealer, notorious for his resilience in brushing off convictions for criminal cruelty to animals and continuing business as usual). Dr. Shaffer telephoned me expressly at the request of Dierolf Farms, who, he pointed out, had approached him at the last meeting of the Animal Care Panel in Philadelphia and requested him to call me about a letter in which I referred to cats from Dierolf Farms as 'ill, dehydrated, and in some cases dying' and pointed out that lit has been the policy of Downstate Medical Center to purchase 50 percent more cats than are actually needed because the mortality is so high.' Dr. Shaffer stoutly maintained that this mortality has 'nothing to do with the dealer' and that purchase of cats from a dealer or animal pound would bring the same risk. He stated categorically that there is 'no choice between them'. Dr. Shaffer said he could see no way of controlling cross-infection which kills the cats and that it has 'nothing to do with how a man keeps his cats.' That, he said, was the reason, after Dierolf approached him at the Animal Care Panel, that Dr. Shaffer decided to telephone me. I challenged Dr. Shaffer on his assertions, asking him what data he had to back him up so far as laboratories other than his own are concerned. He said such data would be impossible to obtain because, as he put it, 'The fact is, they don't keep records. The thing is, these animals die, and that's the end of that.'
"Another report on deaths of animals purchased from Dierolf Farms came in the course of a radio program on which Dr. Levowitz of Brooklyn Jewish Hospital appeared last month [February 1966]. He stated that the Institution had 40 percent "attrition" on the dogs purchased. Or, in layman's language, 40 percent died before they could be used for experimentation.
"The extent to which sickness which does not actually kill the animal, nevertheless, affects the outcome of the research, is not easily measurable. However, an instance was reported by the veterinarian in charge of animals at a commercial laboratory in which a product was condemned as dangerous and unsaleable because all the dogs which were given it died. Two years later, the same test run on healthy dogs indicated that there was no danger at all. All the dogs survived, and it was then learned that the first group of dogs had succumbed to distemper. It would have been too bad if the material being tested had been a long-sought curative drug discarded because it was believed to be poisonous. Such a scientific error could mean that an important discovery could be lost for years or even forever if no one suspected that the animals had been sick.
"Yet, general sickness originating with the animal dealers is often tolerated in laboratories. On one visit to the Berg Institute at New York University, we complained about the coughing and sneezing and running noses in the rabbit colony. We were curtly told that the rabbits in New York laboratories were sick.
"When I complained to Mr. Berton Hill about listing the names of cruel and insanitary animal dealers in the Directory of the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources (National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council), he told me of a case in which one of the suppliers of rats had such excessively dirty conditions that a new and previously undiscovered disease of rats apparently developed on his premises. Such diseases can be transmitted to whole colonies of animals when sick animals are purchased. It may mean an epizootic, destroying long-term research projects. However, Mr. Hill said he had no authority to omit from the NAS-NRC listing the names of dealers who had animals for sale, regardless of the conditions under which they were kept.
"Thus, it may be seen that the health and well-being of animals on dealers' premises is intimately tied in with those in the laboratories themselves and that it is of prime importance, both for the welfare of the animals and the proper conduct of research, that minimum standards be set and enforced throughout. The unaccountable reluctance of scientific groups to act with firmness to stop abuses means that it is up to the Congress to supply the mandatory standards and inspection.
"Breeders, dealers, scientific institutions and manufacturers of equipment for sale to laboratories all have a vested interest in animal experimentation, whether or not it produces results beneficial to humanity. It is beyond their powers to police themselves, for there are too many pressures preventing them from doing an honest and effective job.
"Therefore, we earnestly request the Congress to enact this Poage bill, H.R. 12488, which can, through inspection and licensing, promptly bring an end to the widespread abuses in the handling and housing of animals by those who sell and those who buy experimental animals and which will prevent theft of pets -for sale to laboratories."
Dr. Schwindaman:
Dr. Frank Mulhern was Director of the Animal Health Division at the time the first Animal Welfare Act was passed and became the first Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. We are very pleased this morning to have Dr. Mulhern.
Frank J. Mulhern, D.V.M., APHIS Administrator, Retired:
Good Morning, I have had many challenges in the past when speaking before groups but this will be a new one so bear with me. I have to tell about four years experiences that happened 30 years ago and do it in 15 minutes.Mrs. Stevens presentation provided the background to appreciate why such an Act was needed. Can you imagine how strong public opinion about cruelty to animals was at the time when she said, Life Magazine, one of the most popular pictorial magazines of the time, received more letters from its readers on the article depicting an emaciated dog in an article headlined, "Concentration Camp for Dogs" than it did on any of the articles published about the Vietnam War? Can you imagine that this Act was passed during the time that other movements, such as civil rights, contamination of the environment, pesticide residue in the food supply, and fear of a nuclear attack were taking place.
At that time, the Animal Health Division was very involved in the eradication of brucellosis in cattle, goats, and swine; hog cholera, sheep scabies, and scrapie, and screw worms that affected all warm-blooded animals and, if not treated, could kill them. We also had responsibility for the enforcement of the 28-Hour Law pertaining to the interstate movement of livestock. My first contacts with members of the Animal Welfare Institute were during the 1950s when Mrs. Stevens was trying to upgrade the humane slaughter of animals in meat processing establishments.
They were meeting with the Meat Inspection Division which was part of the Bureau of Animal Industry. She demonstrated that she had the ability to get things done in the bureaucracy and not accept the status quo.
I was pleased that those responsible for passing the Laboratory Animal Act of 1966 made sure that the veterinarian must supervise care of animals in research laboratories. I was really pleased that USDA delegated the responsibility for its implementation to the Animal Health Division, even though we had done nothing to seek it.
Back in the 60's, there were some people who were real advocates to see changes made in the laboratories that used animals in research and the dealers and markets that provided them. There were some who thought the advocates for the changes were extremists. Others couldn't care less about the whole issue. Undoubtedly, the enforcement of the Act over the years and the amendments to it have changed a lot of minds in our society but I'm sure that there are some who think that we have gone too far.
During those times, we could get active support from the livestock industry, USDA, Congress, and the public when we stressed the eradication of diseases, but the reaction to animal welfare was like asking for a fringe benefit. It was amazing how far some people would go to block requests for funds for animal welfare.
At the Division level, we would ask for a needed amount to enforce the Act. However, by the time it got through the budgetary process within USDA and OMB (Office of Management and Budget) it could be substantially less. Then the real challenge to me was to go before a congressional committee and defend the lesser amount. However, some congressmen who knew the process, like then Congressman John Melcher and now Senator Melcher who is in today's audience, would ask how much did your division request initially?
The passage of the Act really shook up the research community. They were saying, "No, it's impractical, will hinder research, will add increased costs due to overhead etc." Some called the animal welfare supporters the so-called, "Do gooders" in a derogatory sense. Research had its own AAALAC (American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care) to see that these responsibilities were met, so according to many of its members, the law was purely duplication of responsibilities as far as they were concerned. This problem with the research community gave me quiet a dilemma since my roots were in the old Bureau of Animal Industry and the Agriculture Research Service (ARS) and we always had good working relationships with our peers in NIH (National Institutes of Health) and other research organizations.
There were many research laboratories that complied fully with the requirements of the Act. However, there were some that outwardly were opposed it being in USDA. At the same time, I was impressed with the dedication, sincerity, self sacrifice, tenacity, commitment, and personal involvement of many of the animal welfare representatives that were eager to see that the law be enforced. Mrs. Stevens mentioned some of those I have in mind in her presentation.
Over time, many of the major differences between research interests and animal welfare workers were reduced or resolved but it took a while. I had tried to rationalize why the research community was permitting some of the conditions to exist that people like Mrs. Stevens and others found. I thought maybe they saw this Act as being detrimental to lab animal research due to added costs such as overhead. I knew that within USDA, ARS always had to compete with other research units for their share of the budget. Requests for improved facility funds that would replace those for specific research needs were not given top priority. Maybe the same was true within NIH or other research institutions.
Later, some researchers told us they had to defend their facilities because there wasn't enough money in their budget within their organization at the time to upgrade them. Others, said because of the Act, they got upgrades that they had been requesting for some time. However, one could only conclude that some of the conditions found, simply indicated an insensitivity on the part of some research workers or those in charge as to the pain being inflicted on the animals or the unsanitary conditions in which some of the animals were being held. This was especially true when our people checked the practices of those engaged in the marketing and transportation of animals to the research establishments.
There were numerous challenges in that there wasn't research to support some of the changes that we were trying to implement. We couldn't draw conclusions about animals experiencing pain from the expressions or behavior of the animals during research. Perhaps those supporting the changes were ahead of their time. I was really impressed with the presentations of those today who were reporting on the current studies relating to the physiological and psychological effects on certain systems within the animal's body as they endured stress of various types.
Since the 60's, there has been greater empathy with the feelings of the animals probably related to the humanization of animals by the Walt Disney characters and animal welfare supporters. I was pleased that there were leaders within our Division involved in the implementation of the Act like Earl Jones and after Earl's untimely death, Dale Schwindaman. The implementation of an Act like this one is always the most difficult during the early years of its implementation. I think that Dale has done an outstanding job as well as Bob Whiting and Richard Crawford and those that reported to them such as Frank Germanic and all those in the various states that were dealing with the problem at the grassroots level.
Because of our experience in combating animal diseases, we knew to get action at the state level, and we had to get the animal health officials involved. So the United States Animal Health Association established a Laboratory Animal Welfare Committee which I chaired in 1967 and 1968. In 1967, the committee proposed that there be a model state law involving shelters, pounds, and pet shops. The following year, the committee drafted such a law to be sent to the Council of State Governments to get uniformity of such laws throughout the country.
Dr. Grant Kale, state veterinarian of New York then took over as chairman of the committee and did an outstanding job. He was personally motivated to implement an effective program of animal dealer control due to his experience with some unscrupulous dealers in his state. He was very effective in having the Association understand the seriousness of the problem and to take action to correct it.
We in APHIS, a regulatory agency, had a unique experience in implementation of the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. We didn't have to depend solely on our employees to determine how the Act was being implemented. The follow-through by those who got the law passed was terrific and they pursued their interest relentlessly whether it pertained to the laboratories, dealers, market owners, the Animal Health Division, the Secretary of Agriculture, OMB, or Congress.
In conclusion, there were some tumultuous times but looking back at the 60's, most of the major differences were reduced if not resolved. We are indebted to all those who were involved and it was not done by a few. We represent the many in all the states that made it possible both in and out of governments. That's how things get done in our democratic system.
One question asked during the question and answer session was why was the responsibility of the Act placed in USDA? My answer is the people who were mentioned earlier, who were responsible for getting the Act passed, were frustrated trying to get the medical research community to correct the situation. They then used their influence to have Congress place the responsibility within USDA. I should have also stated that USDA did nothing to acquire it.
That is my recollection of what happened in the 60's relative to the Act. Even though we were proud of what was accomplished we know we left a lot to be done. Thank you very much.
Dr. Dale Schwindaman, Deputy Director, APHIS, Animal Care:
The first Laboratory Animal Welfare Act was very restrictive in its coverage. It essentially revolved around the use of dogs and cats that were purchased by dealers, or sold by dealers, for research purposes. They had to cross state lines and there had to be government funding involved before the research facilities had to register and the dealers had to be licensed. Because it revolved around dogs and cats, they were the two principle species. If you were licensed as a dealer or registered as a research facility then four species came under USDA's jurisdiction. Those were dogs, cats, non-human primates, guinea pigs, hamsters, and rabbits.Another important element for us to recognize in this evolutionary process is that this very first act limited USDA's authority within the research facility. We only went up to the laboratory door, so to speak. Where the animals were located, that was our jurisdiction as far as humane care and use standards. In 1970, there were a series of amendments to the Animal Welfare Act which changed it considerably and expanded USDA's jurisdiction tremendously. I will just take a minute to identify some of these.
Number one, it no longer depended on animals crossing a state line. There was a term placed in the statutory language that said "affecting commerce." This gave us jurisdiction within the state, as long as the activity had some impact on interstate commerce. That was a very important distinction. Another was an expansion of the definition of animal. I mentioned two key species with four additional species in the original Act, but now it was expanded to all warm-blooded animals that were going to be used for research, exhibition, or as pets at the wholesale level. So you can see that there was a tremendous expansion of responsibility as far as USDA was concerned. Adding all these users of animals to the regulations and requirements really increased the USDA responsiblilty and need for field enforcement.
In the 1970 amendments there were a few things that were perceived at the time to be relatively minor but that I think are important. One was that USDA had to supply an annual report to Congress covering the use of animals for research purposes. That annual report to Congress was first sent up in 1972. It required the research facilities to report on their use of animals to USDA. We compiled this data and put it in the form of a report to Congress. This information then became available when Congress released the report.
Adequate veterinary care was one of the eight requirements for which we had to develop standards back in 1966 and where we commissioned the Institute for Laboratory Animal Resources [ILAR] to get expert committees together to assist us in drafting those first standards that were published under the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act. Part of my responsibility was to work with the ILAR committees and come up with some minimum standards, because remember, this statute required that they be minimum standards. That was a very exciting time for me, a very challenging time to work with these people, because you really did not have any scientific data. I personally reviewed all the literature that I could find, some 225 articles, in preparation for this. Because there was some concern as to whether, according to regulation, exercise for dogs should be required. I reviewed all those articles, did not find any scientific evidence to support that. I reported in my report to Dr. Mulhern at that time that although there was not any physiological justification for requiring exercise for dogs, I felt that there was a thread running through many of these scientific articles that we were going to have to look at the psychological well-being, the behavioral aspects of dogs at some time in the future. It took a long time to come, but I did recognize that in reviewing the literature at that time. That to me is just a personal thing that I thought was very interesting.
In developing the regulations and standards under the 1970 amendments, again that seemed to fall on me as the chief in the research area on the Animal Care staff and it was quite exciting. Not having very much information available, which we do now through AWIC, made it that much more challenging in working with the scientific biomedical community and humane interests in trying to find the balance. What should be the minimum requirements for the care and use of these animals? I remember not having that scientific justification and trying to maintain this balance. There were a number of issues that I felt were very important in writing these standards. I went in and told Dr. Mulhern that I really didn't justify what I was writing on a scientific basis, but that I felt what I was proposing was right for the animals. When Dr. Mulhern heard this, what he said to me was, "You are not going to be able to find scientific justification for all these things that you are going to have to propose. You are just going to have to remember that you are going to have to play God for these animals at this time." That's kind of an interesting thing for Dr. Mulhern to recognize in 1971. So those were the things that occurred with the 1971 amendments.
I would like to show the slide so that you have an idea of how the 1970 amendments expanded for the USDA people that were involved with the program because of the expanded requirements for the users of animals and the definitions of 'animal'. Our interested public evolved from dog and cat dealers and research facilities that had to be registered to covering the circuses, carnivals, exhibitors, zoos, pet owners became very interested, breeders of animals. We covered all warm-blooded animals, however, we did exempt through Secretarial discretion, certain species at that time. The walking horse industry became involved because in 1970 there was another piece of legislation passed which became the responsibility of the USDA and Animal Care program, and that was the Horse Protection Act of 1970 which also was amended in 1976.
We will now continue with this historical perspective on the governmental regulations. Our next speaker is going to cover the Animal Welfare Act of 1976. Dr. Bob Whiting. Bob was on the Animal Care staff at that time and is the principle author of the transportation standards. He is retired from USDA and is currently with the Virginia Department of Agriculture. I'm glad to see Bob back because he really worked hard. In my archives I must have about three to four inches of things I've kept relating to the things that we developed in 1976. So Bob, it's a pleasure.
The 1976 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act addressed several important but very different aspects of animal care -- namely, transportation of animals and animal fights. Several graphic incidents of death in animals being transported both on the ground and in the air were found to be caused by a lack of sufficient ventilation and/or extreme temperatures. These became the clarion call for changes in the Animal Welfare Act.The badly mangled dogs, the survivors of organized dog fights, as well as the bodies of the dogs who paid the ultimate price as a loser in such fights, angered veterinarians and the caring public. Thus a move to outlaw animal fighting ventures found new support for legislative change.
With respect to animal transportation, the 1976 amendments did several things:
- It defined a carrier as any enterprise transporting regulated animals for hire and required them to be registered. This included airlines, railroads, motor carriers, shipping lines and other enterprises. As a carrier, all the facilities where animals are kept or held are regulated, including terminals and freight storage.
- It also defined an intermediate handler as any person (with some exclusions) who is engaged in any business in which animals are received in connection with their transportation in commerce.
- Directed the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate standards to assure humane treatment of animals during transportation. The standards were to include requirements for shipping containers, feed, water, rest, ventilation, temperature and handling.
Creating these standards was not an easy task and the law set a deadline of nine months after enactment of the law (April 22, 1976) for the Secretary to promulgate regulations relative to carriers and intermediate handlers.
In particular, very little scientific work had been accomplished relative to the minimum and maximum temperatures tolerated by the covered animals. Except for the experience of manufacturers of animal shipping containers which were then available, data for determining construction and ventilation requirements was not available from the research community. Information was gathered from all sources and fortunately subsequent experiments verified the construction and ventilation requirements set by the Department.
In connection with transporting animals covered by the Animal Welfare Act, especially puppies, the practice of shipping such animals "COD" (collection on delivery of costs for the animals and their transportation) too often ended in disaster. The animals had already suffered the stress of transportation and then, when not accepted at destination as a COD delivery, such animals were left in limbo with no one willing to take responsibility for the costs of returning the animals to the shipper. The 1976 amendments would not allow the shipment of covered animals where the cost of the animal and/or its transportation was to be paid on delivery to the consignee unless the consignor guaranteed the payment of transportation charges for any animal not claimed within 48 hours after notice of arrival to the consignee. Any additional costs for feeding, care, and storage of such COD delivered animals were also to be paid by the consignor.
The other major part of the 1976 amendments which dealt with animal fighting ventures was overwhelming supported by all interested persons. Staged dog fights, bear or racoon baiting, and similar animal fighting ventures were prohibited with stiff penalties for connected sponsors and promoters. Cock fighting was more controversial and some States had no law against them. Consequently, the amendments outlawed fighting ventures involving live birds only if the fight was to take place in a State where it would be in violation of that State's laws.
The amendments took particular aim at dog fighting. It was unlawful to knowingly sell, buy, transport or deliver or receive for purposes of transportation in interstate or foreign commerce, any dog or animal for purposes of participation in a fighting venture. Even use of the mail service to promote animal fighting, except outside of the United States was unlawful. Because of the dangerous nature of the animal fights and the people involved, the Secretary was authorized to obtain the assistance of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of the Treasury, and other law enforcement agencies of the United States, State and local governments. Seizures of involved animals under duly executed warrants was authorized.
On a lighter note, when the Department was trying to estimate the costs of administering the 1976 amendments, especially for the animal fighting ventures, cost of bulletproof vests and track shoes (for quick retreat) for APHIS employees was considered. It was an area for which APHIS employees had no experience and for which there was some reluctance to be included in such a dangerous venture.
The 1976 amendments to the Animal Welfare Act targeted some very controversial issues and provided a legal mechanism to correct them. The law obviously did not solve all the problems but it made a large and important impact on the campaign to provide a better life for animals.
Dr. Schwindaman:
To discuss the very important 1985 amendments, the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals Act, we have our Assistant Deputy of Animal Care from our organization, Dr. Richard Crawford.
Richard L. Crawford, D.V.M., Former Assistant Deputy Administrator, APHIS/AC:
1978 through 1990 was a time of considerable change for Animal Welfare. The first major change occurred in 1978. At the urging of the Marine Mammal Commission of the National Marine Fisheries Service, the marine mammal industry, and others, proposed standards for marine mammal care and housing were published. In 1979, final marine mammal standards were published and marine mammals were brought under regulation.At this time, as in the past, all regulations were developed by the individual staffs and were usually quite specific. This type of regulation has since been termed "Design" or "Engineering" standards. The marine mammal standards are a good example of this type of regulation. However, marine mammals do have more stringent needs and requirements than most other regulated animals so this type of regulation was appropriate. The Department had not previously been involved with marine mammals so regulation required a lot of new training and learning on behalf of all of us in Animal Care.
During the first three or four years of marine mammal regulation about four or five of the poorest facilities closed and went out of business due to failure to comply with regulations. Thus there was a general overall improvement in the facilities and care of the animals due to the regulatory impact.
In 1984, at the request of marine mammal experts, the marine mammal standards were revised so as to better reflect the needs of the animals and to include additional information that had been obtained on marine mammals. The listed sizes of some marine mammals were changed, some space requirements were increased and other minor changes were made to further improve the care and housing of these animals.
From 1984 through 1985, the Animal Care Staff started a review and revision of Parts 1, 2, and 3 of Title 9 Code of Federal Regulations (9CFR). Many of the regulations were published between 1967 and 1978 and were in need of updating. This work was going on during most of 1985.
The second change came in December 1985 when The Farm Bill with the Improved Standards for Laboratory Animals amendments to the Animal Welfare Act was passed. This made major changes in the research area and established new concepts in the regulation of research facilities. Things such as: IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee), relief of pain and distress, limiting survival surgeries, exercise for dogs, psychological well-being for nonhuman primates and the establishment of an information center at the National Agricultural Library (Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC)) were required by law. AWIC was established in 1986 and has become a very valuable resource for the Animal Welfare program and the research community. It has the possibility of doing much more and, hopefully, it will continue to grow in the future and to expand its data base and resources, particularly in the area of farm animals, alternatives, and unnecessary duplication of research.
By 1987, the first proposal for the 1985 amendments, plus other revisions, were published in the usual "Design" or "Engineering" format with specific requirements which also included a pain classification system. This proposal was developed and written in the Animal Care (AC) staff. Approximately 8,000 comments were received on this proposal - mostly negative.
Then things really started changing! After the first proposal Dr. Glosser stopped by the Animal Care staff and was not pleased with what he saw -- 8,000 comments stacked on a table with one person going through them. This resulted in the establishment of a team review/analysis of the comments and the regulation writing being transferred to the Regulation and Policy Development staff, which resulted in both apprehension and relief by the Animal Care Staff and has worked very well since then.
Next, The White House, Office of Management and Budget, and everyone else came down on the Department for publishing "Engineering" standards and demanded that the regulations be redrafted as "Performance" standards. In this manner we all became aware that the Administration wanted all regulations done in the "Performance" format. Thus USDA was the first agency required to implement this concept. We were also informed that all rulemaking had to have an economic analysis and that an Economic Impact Statement had to be prepared which caused further delays in rulemaking.
A bigger change occurred in 1988. Animal Care was removed from Veterinary Services and REAC (Regulatory Enforcement and Animal Care) was formed to give Animal Care more visibility and importance. This made major changes in program operations, reporting procedures, lines of command, methods of inspection, etc. and further slowed the regulatory process and field enforcement for awhile. The benefits, however, were full-time people that had an interest in the program, inspectors that could stay current on the regulations and could develop a better rapport with the regulated industries, and they made better inspections. There still are not enough inspectors to do the job but things are better than they were.
The last change occurred from 1988-1990. Close consultation was finally begun between
NIH (National Institutes of Health) and APHIS and a second proposal for the 1985 amendments, in the "Performance" style, was published in 1989. Through continued consultation with NIH, the final "Performance" standards for the 85 amendments were published and became effective.Almost 36,000 comments were received and reviewed on the two proposals and the final rule for the 1985 amendments and one unexpected impression stuck in my mind. After reviewing most of the comments, it became very obvious that the majority of the people involved in the research community, from the investigators to the CEO or Deans, were totally unaware that their research animals had been under regulation by the USDA for the previous 20 years. They thought that this was something new and unnecessary. I believe that by now, this unfortunate misconception has been corrected and most people in the research community are well aware of the requirements of both NIH and USDA.
The performance standards appear to be working in most instances, with a few exceptions here and there, and things seem to improve each year. One unexpected result of the 1985 amendment is the carryover of environmental enrichment efforts to species that are not required to have it by regulation. Many species of research animals are benefiting from the environmental enrichment requirement. Also, investigators and research facilities are becoming more adept at searching for alternatives, reducing pain and distress,, and implementing the three R's -- Refinement, Reduction, and Replacement. I look forward to continued improvement in these areas to the benefit of all animals used in research. The changes still continue and, although some of them do not seem to make much sense at this time, I am sure they will be of benefit in the future. Thank you.
Dr. Schwindaman:
The next piece of legislation was the Pet Protection Act of 1990. Here to bring us up to date and discuss this is Dr. Debra Beasley who is currently with the Animal Care staff.
Debra Beasley, D.V.M., APHIS, AC:
Good morning and welcome to our distinguished guests, former and present USDA employees, and all other interested individuals. Thank you for taking the time to share this opportunity as we reflect on the history and envision the future of the Animal Welfare Act as mandated by Congress. I would like to briefly speak on the historical occurrences that led to the establishment of the fourth and most recent amendment to the Animal Welfare Act, better known as The Pet Theft Act of 1990 or Protection of Pets.The United States Congress listed three items under Section I (b) of the AWA that serve as a framework for the laws and regulations that provide for the welfare of animals when they are used for regulated activities. The three items are:
- to insure that animals intended for use in research facilities or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and treatment.
- to assure the humane treatment of animals during transportation in commerce and;
- to protect the owners of animals from theft of their animals by preventing the sale of animals which have been stolen.
Between 1976 and 1988 the public perception of stolen pets, especially for use in research, was quite significant in many parts of the country. There were reports, some which were substantiated, of individuals referred to as "bunchers" in nondescript vehicles entering residential areas followed by the disappearance of pet animals. It was believed by some that the missing animals were taken to auctions and sold to B Dealers destined for unknown locations but eventually to be sold to research facilities. The literature contains reports of a couple of documented instances where apparently stolen dogs were retrieved by their owners from research facilities. In addition, there are also documented instances of pet theft by deception. Owners of dogs and cats would advertise "free to good home" and the animals were actually obtained by individuals who sold them to B dealers who in turn sold the animals to research facilities.
On March 31, 1987, the USDA published in the Federal Register that there was a problem with the acquisition of animals by dealers and to some lesser extent research facilities. The Federal Register says, "In the past few years there have been several instances of dealers buying and selling obviously stolen animals and of a few research facilities obtaining animals under questionable circumstances." This particular issue of the Federal Register was published to address the development of proposed regulations associated with the 1985 Amendments to the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and not the specific topic of Pet Theft.
In 1986, Senator Wendell Ford of Kentucky became concerned with the issue of stolen pets in his state, especially with the presence of out-of-state dealers and bunchers, purchasing animals from Kentucky auctions and the perception of stolen animals being channeled through these auctions. In April 1988, as stand-alone legislation, Senator Ford introduced the Stolen Pet Concern bill S.2353 in the Senate which passed unanimously following negotiations. This bill would have: (1) limited the sources of animals available to B Dealers (cannot acquire dogs from other B dealers including auctions), (2) required at least a 7-day holding period of random source animals by certain entities, (3) certification requirements, and (4) specific enforcement measures.
Senate hearings were not held on this bill. However, a hearing was held in the House of Representatives on September 28, 1988. At this hearing the Department of Agriculture testified that, "the intent of S. 23 5 3 is consistent with the intent of the original Animal Welfare Act, we believe that achieving the objectives of the Animal Welfare Program requires us continually to examine our regulations and recommend alternatives through the rulemaking process that will continue to meet program objectives. Mandating by statute, requirements that are better developed administratively, will hamper our ability to use the regulatory process to make changes that may enhance our enforcement effort." In this case, the Department opposed legislation that would limit the Secretary's regulatory authority. Even though this bill was not passed by Congress, it was unique in its origin. It was a piece of potential animal welfare legislation that was not initiated by an animal concern group.
In spite of the death of the Pet Theft Act of 1988, the issue of Pet Theft or Protection of Pets was not a dead issue. It was dusted off and brought back to life in an abbreviated form by the Senate as part of the negotiations for the 1990 Farm Bill. There were no additional public hearings in the House of Representatives or the Senate on Protection of Pets or Pet Theft.
The Senate held discussions with interested groups including those concerned with animal welfare, the animal use industry, and the Department. The outcome of the discussions and negotiations was passage of Protection of Pets legislation that was included in the 1990 Farm Bill and was signed into law November 28, 1990. It required that dogs and cats be held for at least five days at pounds and shelters (both government or private) and licensed research facilities before they can be sold to a dealer. This 5- day holding period is designed to allow pet owners and prospective owners the opportunity to claim or adopt the animals before they are sold for research. There are also requirements for record keeping and certification and specific provisions for enforcement. The legislation does not include the requirement that the animals be held to include a Saturday, but the Conference Report of the approved Farm Bill (Oct 22, 1990), contains the wording " the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to urge pounds, shelters, and other entities holding dogs and cats to keep animals for at least one Saturday in order to provide individuals a reasonable opportunity to recover lost pets or to adopt new pets".
On November 15, 1991, APHIS published for public comment proposed regulations for implementation of the Protection of Pets legislation. At this time, APHIS also acknowledged that the implementation of the proposed regulations did not constitute a major rule because it did not have a major effect on the economy and would not cause a major increase in costs for consumers, individual industries, Federal or local governments, geographic regions, and would not affect the ability of US industries to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets. The proposed regulations included the 5-day holding period for specific entities to include a Saturday, specific certification and record keeping requirements, and a definition for pound or shelter. Pound or shelter is defined as a facility that accepts and/or seizes animals for the purpose of carrying for them, placing them through adoption, or carrying out the law enforcement, whether or not the facility is operated for profit.
Forty nine comments were received from the academic and research communities, biological supply companies, municipal animal holding facilities, humane organizations and other members of the general public. The final rule was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, July 22, 1993, effective date August 23, 1993. Based on the comments, the final rule was modified to make it clear that the proposed rules only applied to live animals that were being sold or in any way provided to a dealer by a government, private or contract pound, or licensed research facility dealing in random source dogs and cats. The proposed rule was also modified to require that mix breed dogs be identified by the two most dominant breeds or types.
In review, Protection of Pets began as The Pet Theft Act of 1988 as the result of a United States Senator's concern about the theft of pet animals for use in research. That particular piece of legislation was not passed by Congress. However, they believed it was important for pet owners to have the opportunity to claim their missing animals from pounds or to adopt a new one before they are sold to research. Congress also acknowledged it was important for USDA inspectors to have the use of mandatory certification and record keeping documents to trace animals back to the source. These concepts were used as the basis of the Protection of Pets legislation of 1990 to prevent the use of stolen pets for research. The Protection of Pets amendment is located in Section 28 of the Animal Welfare Act.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you.
We will continue on with Dr. Lew Smith who is with the Agricultural Research Service (ARS). Dr. Smith is the National Program Leader for Animal Nutrition.
Dr. Lewis Smith, National Program Leader for Animal Nutrition, USDA, ARS:
Things have changed slowly, and in some cases things have not changed at all. I can remember back in the sixties, because I was with the Agricultural Research Service then. There was considerable concern among the scientists about the impact of how all those changes were going to affect farm animals. I need to point out that the majority of our research is with production farm animals, and as of yet, they are outside the Act although we do research and accept grants from agencies within the Act. I am only going to talk about the last ten years within the Agricultural Research Service because that's when things started to happen related to humane care in farm animals and how the we dealt with some of the concerns and issues.I joined the program staff in 1987. Previous to that time, I was a manager of research in Beltsville at what was then called the Animal Science Institute. At that time we decided that it would probably be to our advantage to implement a uniform policy regarding how we dealt with the administrative aspects of humane animal care in research animals. We made a decision that farm animals were going to be dealt with just like those animals that were covered by the Act in the agency so that there would be no differences between the two. We took this one step further and made that cover all vertebrate animals that we were doing research on, so that our aquaculture research was dealt with the same as research that is biomedically oriented. We established the institutional care and use committees consistent with the Public Health Service and others so that all of our research deals with the same policy.
I'd like to make some further comments then, and I'm sure Dr. Horn would too, government reorganization and restructuring of USDA brought the National Agricultural Library into ARS several months ago. We are pleased with that as NAL is extremely important to our research effort and the Animal Welfare Information Center is also important to that effort. I need to compliment that group on the outstanding job that they are doing. I had their training a number of years ago, and I heard comments from others who have had their training or gotten information from them. They are extremely responsive and I think they are doing an outstanding job.
I'd like to cover a few examples of how the Agricultural Research Service has supported scientific and educational efforts on animal well-being, and this is going to be in the context of farm animal well-being. I've selected these because these are activities I have been personally involved in, although I think it would have been appropriate for Dr. Horn to talk about the same ones because they have had agency wide impact and sometimes even broader than that. The first time I became involved in an opportunity to support an effort on animal well-being was in 1980 when I first came to National Program Staff. There was an effort going on to write a document called a Guide for the Care and Use of Agricultural Animals in Agricultural Research and Teaching. In addition to having the opportunity for editorial input, the Agricultural Research Service also had major financial input into that document as did so many other organizations too numerous to mention. That's been very important in establishing a baseline for care of agricultural animals in research and teaching across the United States. The Federation of American Societies of Food Animal Sciences (FASFAS) is in the review process of revising this guide.
Another opportunity related to supporting an effort about farm animal well being was one organized at the University of Maryland and held in when we supported the International Conference on Farm Animal Welfare: Ethical, Scientific, and Technological Perspectives. It was probably one of the first opportunities in the United States that brought people from all different perspectives to talk to each other. I attended that conference and ARS supported it financially. The proceedings were published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics.
As you can see, ARS has collaborated with others in promoting animal well being. More recently, in 1992 the Food Animal Integrated Research, FAIR 95 as it's known, was supported financially by the agency and also through expertise of scientists throughout the United States. I'd like to point out the goal 6 of that effort says, "development of applied scientific measures to assess food animal well being throughout the food production cycle." There are two objectives under that; one dealing with scientific measures and the other dealing with management practices based on those findings. That national meeting was supported by professional societies of the animal sciences, commodity groups, state universities, and other government agencies.
I've experienced some of the same things Frank did in getting anything out of the department in terms of budget. I've tried to write similar measures into the ARS budget for funding and initiating new research. Although unsuccessful to date, we've discovered there is another way to do it; that's by collaboration. When we learned that Purdue University was interested in starting an initiative like that in collaborating with CSREES led by Glen Grey, who is sitting in the audience, we sponsored a symposium in animal well being that Purdue University was a cooperator in. At the same time, we learned that there was a new appropriation for animal well being research through Congressman John Meyer in Indiana. That was successful and we have a research unit doing farm animal well being research in West Lafeyette --ARS in cooperation with the Purdue University. I'd like to turn this session over to Julie Morrow-Tesh who will talk about what they are doing at Purdue.
Dr. Julie Morrow-Tesh, Director, ARS Livestock Behavior Research Unit:
Thank you Dr. Smith. What I'd like to do today is fill you in on some of our objectives at the ARS Livestock Behavior Research Unit. Dr. Smith told you how we got to be at Purdue University and our cooperative effort. We have a large number of collaborators in the School of Veterinary Medicine, the Animal Science Department, and the Psychology Department. We hope we can enhance this collaborative effort because it really is a team that is needed to address some of these developing issues.Our objectives are two-fold. The first is to identify objective measures of animal well being. We've taken a 4-prong approach to this. They are behavior, immune response such as disease resistance, physiology and other biochemical markers like stress hormone levels, and also productivity. None of us in the unit, or for that matter the U.S. or the world, believe that there is one indicator that can be used to assess animal well being so we've taken this broad approach. This is why we need a team effort in addressing some of these issues.
Our second objective is to better understand perception and information processing in food-producing animals. You might wonder why this is important. We don't understand basic biology of how farm animals process information. To know what good well being is to these animals, we have to know what is important in their environment. How do they relate to their environment? How do they learn about management systems they are placed in?
At the more basic level, some of the projects we have ongoing is looking at frustration in a pig model, identifying neurochemical markers that are altered during stress, genes that may be up or down-regulated during the stress response. Again, these may relate back to the behaviors the animals show. We're looking at how Interleukin 1, which is a cytokine, is altered during stress. Interleukin 1 is probably related to a lot of things we see when animals are exposed to stress, for example, feed regulation, reproduction, and probably growth. We're also looking at taildocking in dairy cattle. We know this is an emotional issue for the public. Is it good or bad? We need scientific info