USDA.gov National Agricultural Library
Animal Welfare Information Center
HomeAbout AWICPublicationsWorkshopsServicesNews and EventsHelpContact Us
Search AWIC
Search all of the United States Department of Agriculture
Advanced search
Browse by Subject
Research Animals
Farm Animals
Zoo, Circus and Marine Animals
Companion Animals
Government and Professional Resources
Alternatives
Literature Searching and Databases
Pain and Distress
Humane Endpoints and Euthanasia
 
You are here: Home / Publications / Bibliographies and Resource Guides / Information Resources on the Care and Welfare of Dogs   / Regulations  Printer Friendly Page
Publications
 
Information Resources on the Care and Welfare of Dogs: Animal Welfare Information Center
<< Table of Contents << Previous |  Next >>

 

Regulations

Anderson, D. (2004). Revision of Council of Europe Convention ETS 123 guidelines for the accommodation and care of animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. ATLA, Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 32(Suppl. 1A): 183-185. ISSN: 0261-1929.
NAL Call Number: Z7994.L3A5
Abstract: Within the 43 Member States of the Council of Europe, Appendix A of Convention ETS 123 provides guidance on the standards of accommodation and care to be provided for animals used for experimental and other scientific purposes. At a meeting of the Parties to the Convention in 1997, a resolution providing additional guidance on accommodation and care was adopted. At the same meeting, it was agreed that, as scientific knowledge and experience had progressed since adoption of ETS 123 in 1986, a Working Party should be convened to consider the revision of Appendix A. The Working Party first met in January 1999, and since then, there have been a number of Working Party meetings, and a number of meetings of Expert Groups, who are tasked with producing guidelines incorporating species-specific needs. The Expert Groups have drafted proposals for the accommodation and care of rodents, rabbits, dogs, cats, ferrets, farm animals, birds, amphibia, reptiles and fish. These proposals will complement the general principles of accommodation and care included in the general section of Appendix A. This comprehensive review has provided an opportunity to incorporate new ideas on housing and care based on scientific data and on best contemporary practises. It is expected that these revisions will be used throughout the scientific community to inform accommodation and care practises for animals used for scientific purposes.
Descriptors: animal housing, animal testing alternatives, animal welfare, guidelines, reviews.

Bayne, K.A. (2003). Environmental enrichment of nonhuman primates, dogs and rabbits used in toxicology studies. Toxicologic Pathology 31(Suppl.): 132-137. ISSN: 0192-6233.
Abstract: The increasing emphasis on the provision of environmental enrichment to laboratory animals, vis-a-vis the USDA Animal Welfare Regulations, the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (NRC 1996), and a potential forthcoming policy from the USDA on the subject, can be difficult to accommodate in a toxicology research environment. A summary will be provided of current requirements and recommendations. Then, strategies for meeting regulatory requirements will be described for non-rodent animals used in toxicology research. These strategies will address methods of both social enrichment, such as pair or group housing, as well as non-social enrichment, such as cage furniture, food enrichments, and toys. In addition, the value of positive interactions with staff (e.g., through training paradigms or socialization programs) will also be discussed. Apparent in the discussion of these strategies will be an overarching recognition of the necessity to avoid introducing confounding variables into the research project and to avoid compromising animal health. The roles of the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) and the attending veterinarian in helping scientists balance animal well-being, the scientific enterprise and the regulatory environment will be described.
Descriptors: environmental enrichment, laboratory animals, legislation, regulations, requirements, recommendations.

Briese, A. (2002). Die tierschutz-hundeverordnung vom 2. Mai 2001. [The dog welfare directive of 2 May 2001]. Deutsche Tieraerztliche Wochenschrift 109(2): 63-68. ISSN: 0341-6593.
NAL Call Number: 41.8 B45
Abstract: As of 1 September, 2001 existing legislation regulating outdoor dog husbandry is replaced by the domestic dog welfare directive of 2 May, 2001. The new directive applies to details of housing and breeding of dogs kept indoors and as domestic companions. Thus, minimum requirements for housing, care and feeding now apply to the great majority of private dog owners. However these requirements do not apply to animals in transit, in individual veterinary treatment or to those used for scientific experimentation whose goals justify deviations from these standards. Additional regulations apply to dog breeding and showing. Puppies may not be separated from their mother and litter before eight weeks of age. "Prohibition of breeding for agressiveness" cited in Paragraph 11b of the animal welfare law is defined, and includes various breeds and hybrids. The directive includes an index for the care and treatment of dogs by commercial breeders. After a transitional period no dogs which have been subjected to amputations at the expense of the animal's welfare in order to achieve specific features may be shown publicly. The author provides critical commentary on the regulations of the domestic dog welfare directive and points out areas which will continue to be of concern.
Descriptors: animal care, government and law, breeding, domestic dog welfare directive, housing.
Language of Text: German.

de Aluja, A.S. (2002). Animales de laboratorio y la Norma Oficial Mexicana (NOM-062-ZOO-1999). Gaceta Médica De México 138(3): 295-298. ISSN: 0016-3813.
NAL Call Number: R21
Abstract: This article concerns animal experimentation and official Mexican norm Nom 0062-Zoo-1999 entitled Technical specifications for the production, care and use of laboratory animals. The history of animal experimentation is briefly resumed. During the nineteenth century, doubts arose as to the right to expose animals to experimental procedures that frequently cause pain and suffering. The first law which protected animals against cruelty was passed in Great Britain in 1876; subsequently, other nations approved similar legislation. During the second part of the twentieth century, opposition to animal experimentation grew. Other groups, mainly scientists and pharmaceutical concerns, defended the right to use animals in research. New knowledge concerning the neurophysiology, cognitive capacity, and the animal faculty to experience pain is briefly mentioned. Guidelines on care and use of animals used in research published in several countries are listed. Finally, the recently published Mexican legislation (Norm) referring to production, care and use of laboratory animals is discussed and its benefits are stressed.
Descriptors: laboratory animals, Mexico, history, legislation, guidelines, pain, care and use.

Fillman Holliday, D. and M.S. Landi (2002). Animal care best practices for regulatory testing. ILAR Journal 43(Suppl.): S49-58. ISSN: 1084-2020.
NAL Call Number: QL55.A1I43
Abstract: Best practices result from a partnership between law, science, and the people working with the animals on regulated studies. In an ideal setting, people working with animals observe and study animal behavior as influenced by different housing and handling paradigms. These observations are published to create a body of science, and laws are promulgated based on the science. The ideal world does not exist, but there are certain components of best practices common to all species. These components include study design, housing, social contact, diet/feed, enrichment devices, and human interaction. This paper outlines how the forces of law, science, and people work to create best practices for species in regulated studies, specifically mice, rats, rabbits, dogs, and nonhuman primates.
Descriptors: best practice, legislation, regulation, laboratory animals, regulated species.

Gauthier, C. (2004). Overview and analysis of animal use in North America. ATLA Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 32(Suppl. 1A): 275-285. ISSN: 0261-1929.
NAL Call Number: Z7994.L3A5
Descriptors: Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), United States Department of Agriculture, animal use, category of invasiveness, three Rs, reduction, refinement, replacement, animal experiments, animal testing alternatives, animal welfare, correlation analysis, trends, cats, dogs, guinea pigs, hamsters, rabbits.

Hampshire, V.A. (2003). Regulatory issues surrounding the use of companion animals in clinical investigations, trials, and studies. ILAR Journal 44(3): 191-196. ISSN: 1084-2020.
NAL Call Number: QL55.A1I43
Abstract: Laboratory animal veterinarians sometimes encounter animals with rare conditions and may subsequently become involved in the performance of related animal research outside the laboratory, in homes, in veterinary clinics, or in universities to which owners have donated their animals for study. Similarly, veterinarians may monitor animal companion vaccination studies, performed to optimize preventive health care or minimize physiological variability and research confounders associated with a preventive medicine program for dogs and cats utilized for research procedures. These nontraditional uses of dogs, cats, and other companion animals in research have spurred the establishment of regulations to ensure that the animals benefit from clinical veterinary products and techniques. Included and described are the 2002 Public Health Service Policy, the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and the regulations of the US Department of Agriculture in response to the AWA. The complexities of clinical research with companion animals outside standard biomedical research facilities are discussed.
Descriptors: clinical research, companion animals, beyond laboratory settings, special concerns, vaccinations, preventive health care.

Kieffer, J.P. (2002). L'agressivite des chiens, aspects comportementaux, cadre reglementaire et legislatif. [Canine aggression, behavioural aspects, regulations and legislation.]. Bulletin De La Societe Veterinaire Pratique De France 86(2): 114-118. ISSN: 0395-7500.
Descriptors: aggression, aggressive behavior, bites, legislation, dogs.
Language of Text: French.

Kulpa-Eddy, J.A., S. Taylor, and K.M. Adams (2005). USDA perspective on environmental enrichment for animals. ILAR Journal 46(2): 83-94. ISSN: 1084-2020.
NAL Call Number: QL55.A1I43
Abstract: This article provides a brief historical background of the events and circumstances that led to the 1985 Animal Welfare Act (AWA) amendments. It describes the development of the regulations promulgated by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) in 1991 as a result of these amendments, the reasoning given for the proposals, and the revisions that were made during the process. Information is included on USDA implementation of the regulations regarding exercise for dogs and environmental enhancement for nonhuman primates. Also mentioned briefly are the requirements for socialization of marine mammals and space requirements for certain other regulated warm-blooded species. These requirements apply to animal dealers (breeders and brokers), exhibitors, commercial transporters, and research facilities. The standards for exercise and environmental enhancement were different from any others previously contained in the AWA regulations, and required more research and understanding of species-specific needs by the regulated community. Finally, this article describes some of the initiatives being undertaken by the research community and USDA-Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS)-Animal Care to provide the necessary education and guidance indicated by the violation history data.
Descriptors: dogs, primates, exercise, environmental enrichment, regulations, standards, species specific needs.

Marston, L.C., P.C. Bennett, and G.J. Coleman (2004). What happens to shelter dogs? An analysis of data for 1 year from three Australian shelters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 7(1): 27-47. ISSN: 1088-8705.
NAL Call Number: HV4701.J68
Abstract: Annually, welfare shelters admit many dogs, including those whose caregivers surrender them or dogs who are strays. This article analyzes admission data from 3 metropolitan Australian shelters. The study collected data for a 1-year period and analyzed them to identify the characteristics of the typical shelter dog; patterns of relinquishment, sales, reclamation and euthanasia; and duration of stay and reasons underlying euthanasia, relinquishment, and postadoptive return. The study tracked more than 20,000 admissions during this period. To facilitate reclamation, the local Code of Practice requires a mandatory holding period for stray dogs; assessment for suitability for rehoming then occurs. Dogs failing the assessment are euthanized. Surrendered dogs can be assessed immediately. The Code of Practice also recommends that unsold dogs be euthanized 28 days postassessment. Typically, shelter dogs in Melbourne are strays, sexually entire, adult, small, and-usually-male. The majority of admissions are reclaimed or sold. Most reclamations occur within 4 days, and postadoptive return rates are low. That current desexing messages do not appear to have reached the owners of stray dogs to the same extent as they have other dog owners is a major finding, suggesting that a targeted education campaign may be required.
Descriptors: animal care, code of practice, desexing message, euthanasia pattern, postadoptive return, reclamation pattern, relinquishment pattern, sales pattern, welfare shelter.

Mertens, P.A. (2003). Welfare implications of dangerous dog legislation. In: Scientific Proceedings Veterinary Programme: British Small Animal Veterinary Association 46th Annual Congress, April 3-6, 2003, Birmingham, UK, British Small Animal Veterinary Association: Quedgeley, UK, p. 101-102. ISBN: 0905214773.
Descriptors: aggression, animal welfare, bites, dog breeds, legislation, dogs.

New Zealand. Animal Welfare Advisory Committee. (1998). Code of Recommendations and Minimum Standards for the Welfare of Dogs., Code of animal welfare, 1171-090X; no. 20, Animal Welfare Advisory Committee, Ministry of Agriculture: Wellington, N.Z., 35 p. ISBN: 047807459X.
NAL Call Number: HV4890.4.A3C63 no.20
Descriptors: codes of recommendations, minimum standards, care, welfare, housing, nutriton, surgical procedures, euthanasia.
Notes: "May 1998.".

Pereira, S., P. Veeraraghavan, S. Ghosh, and M. Gandhi (2004). Animal experimentation and ethics in India: The CPCSEA makes a difference. ATLA Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 32(Suppl. 1B): 411-415. ISSN: 0261-1929.
NAL Call Number: Z7994.L3A5
Descriptors: Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA), India, government and law, Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960, animal care guidelines, animal experimentation, animal welfare, laboratory animal care.

Prescott, M.J. (2004). Refining dog husbandry and care. Eighth report of BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW Joint Working Group on Refinement. Laboratory Animals 38(Suppl.. 1): 1-94. ISSN: 0023-6772.
NAL Call Number: QL55.A1L3
Abstract: Abstract: An estimated 140 000 dogs are used worldwide in research and testing every year. Although there is a growing trend of providing more complex environments for laboratory dogs, worldwide much dog husbandry and care fails to incorporate what is known about their natural behaviour and their behavioural and welfare needs. With this in mind, the BVAAWF/FRAME/RSPCA/UFAW joint Working Group on Refinement set out to identify and document ways in which dog husbandry and care can be refined to make significant reductions in suffering and improvements in animal welfare. The Working Group's report contains recommendations on housing and on physical environment, food and feeding, environmental enrichment and exercise, health and hygiene, identification and record keeping, breeding, balancing supply and demand, grouping, transport, handling and restraint, procedures, long-term use, rehoming, staff training, and areas for future research for refining dog husbandry and care. Advice is also given on interpreting dog signals, preventing and managing aggression, and controlling noise in dog facilities. Particular emphasis is placed on providing an enriched environment for dogs which permits them to express a wide range of normal behaviour and to exercise a degree of choice, and on combining this with a socialization, habituation and training programme. Together these measures should significantly reduce and/or eliminate fear-elated behavioural responses and stereotypic behaviours. They will also have a positive effect on the behavioural development of the dogs, helping to ensure that calm, confident, and well-adjusted individuals are issued to the end-use areas. This in turn will assist in the collection of reliable and accurate experimental data from dog studies and will avoid unnecessary wastage of life. The report represents a valuable resource for staff training. It should be read and thought about, and the recommendations acted upon, by all those involved with the management, care and use of dogs bred and used for research and testing. Where standards fall below those detailed here, a programme of improvement should be put in place. This should aim to achieve a proper balance between conspecific and human social interaction for dogs, and provide pens and other environments developed with an understanding of the natural behaviours of the dog, and empathetic personnel trained and competent to care for them. Employing a canine behaviour specialist can help to achieve these aims. It may be necessary for managers of facilities to rethink the way that dog husbandry and care has been practised in the past in order to allocate the time, staffing and funding required to implement the programme. Only through sincere commitment, adequate resources and sufficient will to change can significant reductions in suffering and improvements in animal welfare be guaranteed.
Descriptors: history, behavior, housing, husbandry, legislation, research, pen construction, pen design, stocking density, single housing, outdoor runs, lighting, temperature, humidity, noise.

Pritt, S., J.F. Nostrant, P. Samalonis, B. Lotocki, and R.M. Harrison (2004). Clinical blood draws: when do they require IACUC approval? Lab Animal 33(1): 17-21. ISSN: 0093-7355.
NAL Call Number: QL55.A1L33
Descriptors: blood withdrawal, institutional policy, institutional animal care and use committee, regulations.

Rehbinder, C., P. Baneux, D. Forbes, H.v. Herck, W. Nicklas, Z. Rugaya, and G. Winkler (1998). FELASA recommendations for the health monitoring of breeding colonies and experimental units of cats, dogs and pigs. Report of the Federation of European Laboratory Animal Science Associations (FELASA) Working Group on Animal Health. Laboratory Animals 32(1): 1-17. ISSN: 0023-6772.
NAL Call Number: QL55.A1L3
Abstract: The report is in 8 parts: Introduction; Inspection of the colony; Monitoring procedures; Health monitoring report; Cat; Dog; Pig. Samples of FELASA-approved health monitoring report forms are included.
Descriptors: laboratory animals, animal welfare, cats, dogs, pigs.

Reinhardt, V. and A. Reinhardt (2001). Legal space requirement stipulations for animals in the laboratory: are they adequate? Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 4(2): 143-149. ISSN: 1088-8705.
NAL Call Number: HV4701.J68
Descriptors: animal experiments, Beagle, cage size, floor space, laboratory animals, space requirements.

Shiranee, P., V. Prema, G. Sonya, and G. Maneka (2004). Animal experimentation and ethics in India: the CPCSEA makes a difference. ATLA, Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 32(Suppl. 1B): 411-415. ISSN: 0261-1929.
NAL Call Number: Z7994.L3A5
Abstract: The Committee for the Purpose of Control and Supervision of Experiments on Animals (CPCSEA) is a statutory body formed by the Act of the Indian Parliament under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act 1960. Formed in 1964, it was revived in 1998, under the committed chairpersonship of Maneka Gandhi. In the last two years, the CPCSEA has bettered the life of the animals in laboratories across India. This committee is composed of members of the scientific community, regulatory authorities and animal activists. The CPCSEA functions with a brilliant network of volunteers who liaise with the laboratories. For the first time in India: over 665 laboratories are registered with the CPCSEA; Institutional Animal Ethics Committees (IAECs) are constituted in every laboratory, which are only empowered to approve research project proposals that use rats, mice, guinea-pigs or rabbits; every project that uses canines, ovines, bovines or non-human primates can only be conducted if approved by the panel of scientific experts constituted for this purpose; guidelines on laboratory animal care and practice have been formulated and enforced; a protocol for the production of immunobiologicals from equines has been formulated and ratified by the Supreme Court of India; the CPCSEA has been deliberating on alternatives and working out modalities to introduce alternatives in basic/regulatory research and education, in keeping with the international arena; the CPCSEA, to date, has rehabilitated and homed over 300 dogs, 150 equines, 200 non-human primates and several cattle, cats, birds, rabbits and mice; the CPCSEA proactively trains and guides scientific and non-scientific personnel on issues of alternatives and laboratory animal welfare; and the CPCSEA has fought legal issues on laboratory animal care and use and have had verdicts that favoured alternatives and animal welfare.
Descriptors: animal experiments, animal husbandry, animal testing alternatives, animal welfare, bioethics, ethics, government organizations, laboratories, laboratory animals, regulations.

Smith D, Broadhead C, Descotes G, Fosse R, Hack R, Krauser K, Pfister R, Phillips B, Rabemampianina Y, Sanders J, Sparrow S, Stephan-Gueldner M, and Jacobsen SD. (2002). Preclinical safety evaluation using nonrodent species: an industry/welfare project to minimize dog use. ILAR Journal 43(Suppl.): S39-S42. ISSN: 1084-2020.
NAL Call Number: QL55.A1I43
Abstract: This review of the dog, the primary nonrodent species used in toxicology, and its use in the safety evaluation of pharmaceuticals, provides data on the number used in particular projects in an effort to establish a baseline from which some minimization can be measured. Opportunities for reduction and replacement, as identified by a European Industry/Welfare Steering Group, are discussed. The three distinct areas of potential approaches to minimize dog use are categorized as industrial cooperation/data sharing, achieving best practice in study design, and assessing the need for a particular study. The Steering Group prioritized the approaches based on the impact on the number of animals used, the impact on the welfare of the remaining animals, the potential for industry's acceptance of the scientific approach, the potential for regulators' acceptance of the validated approach, and the time/cost of evaluation or implementation. Examples of each category are presented, and the work needed to facilitate industry/regulatory change is discussed.
Descriptors: dogs, laboratory mammals, toxicity, tests, experimental design, UK, animal use reduction.
Notes: In the special issue: Regulatory testing and animal welfare. Proceedings of an International Symposium held June 21-23, 2001, Quebec City, Canada.

Smith, D., R. Combes, and G. Descotes (2003). Approaches to the minimisation of dog use in the safety assessment of pharmaceuticals: An industry/animal welfare initiative. Toxicology Letters 144(Suppl. 1): S48. ISSN: 0378-4274.
NAL Call Number: RA1190.T62
Descriptors: toxicology, industry animal welfare initiative, animal welfare, pharmaceutical safety testing, study design.
Notes: Meeting Information: 41st Congress of the European Societies of Toxicology EUROTOX 2003 ' Science for Safety', Florence, Italy; September 28-October 1, 2003.

Stasiak, K.L., D. Maul, E. French, P.W. Hellyer, and S. Vandewoude (2003). Species-specific assessment of pain in laboratory animals. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 42(4): 13-20. ISSN: 1060-0558.
NAL Call Number: SF405.5.A23
Abstract: Pain has been defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential damage or described in terms of such damage". However, the ability to describe the concept of pain is difficult largely because pain is an individualized and subjective experience. What one person finds painful, another may not; what relieves pain for one may not do so for another. Awareness of pain management has become an important health issue for humans and animals. To effectively manage pain, it is crucial to be able to identify it, and identification of pain in animals can be especially problematic. Recognition and alleviation of pain in animals used in biomedical research and teaching is an important goal, both from a humane and regulatory perspective. This paper will: 1) review current literature regarding pain assessment using pain scales and 2) describe how an institutional care and use committee (IACUC) has implemented an effective pain scoring system to allow for an objective, accurate, and humane assessment of pain experienced by animals used in biomedical research.
Descriptors: laboratory animals, pain scoring system, species-specific pain scales, pain.

Stephan Gueldner, M., D. Smith, and G. Descotes (2003). Approaches to minimising dog use in pharmaceutical safety assessment: An industry/animal welfare initiative. Toxicological Sciences 72(S-1): 220. ISSN: 1096-6080.
NAL Call Number: RA1190.F8
Descriptors: toxicology, drug formulation studies, pharmaceutical safety assessment, animal welfare, minimizing dog use, toxicology safety assessment.
Notes: Meeting Information: 42nd Annual Meeting of the Society of Toxicology, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA; March 9-13, 2003.

Swallow J, Anderson D, Buckwell AC, Harris T, Hawkins P, Kirkwood J, Lomas M, Meacham S, Peters A, Prescott M, Owen S, Quest R, Sutcliffe R, and Thompson K (2005). Guidance on the transport of laboratory animals. Laboratory Animals 39(1): 1-39. ISSN: 0023-6772.
NAL Call Number: QL55.A1L3
Descriptors: animal care, laboratory animal science association, animal transport, working group, standards.

Turner, P.V., K.L. Smiler, M. Hargaden, and M.A. Koch (2003). Refinements in the care and use of animals in toxicology studies: Regulation, validation, and progress. Contemporary Topics in Laboratory Animal Science 42(6): 8-15. ISSN: 1060-0558.
NAL Call Number: SF405.5.A23
Descriptors: animal experiments, animal housing, animal models, animal welfare, enrichment, group size, laboratory animals, regulations, toxicity, dogs, mice, monkeys, rabbits, rats.

 

 

Back to Top  
<< Table of Contents << Previous |  Next >>
Last Modified: Jan 23, 2014  
 
AWIC Home | NAL Home | USDA | AgNIC | ARS | Web Policies and Important Links | RSS Feeds | Site Map
FOIA | Accessibility Statement | Privacy Policy | Non-Discrimination Statement | Information Quality | USA.gov | White House