two animal protection organizations based in Washington, DC, that have lobbied for the Pet Safety and Protection Act for years, presented powerful evidence of a system that exposes dogs and cats to abuse. Perhaps the most compelling admissions however, came from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the government agency that enforces the AWA regulations. The Committee Chair, Stephen Barthold, shared his conclusion in the February 2010 Science article, saying, “USDA is supposed to ensure compliance but they’ve done a bad job.”
federally funded research. A committee was formed by the respected National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The NAS Committee gathered information from leading experts. Representatives of the Animal Welfare Institute and the Humane Society of the United States,
NIH CONCEDES Although the NAS Committee’s report was issued in 2009, NIH took some time making a public acknowledgment of the findings and recommendations from the report, but finally they implemented two new policies. First, on March 18, 2011, NIH issued a formal notice that it was phasing out the use of dogs from random source dealers, to be fully in effect no
cumbersome, and ineffective. The Committee felt strongly that this is unacceptable.” page 94 “The relationship of these small businesses [Class B dealers]to local pounds, shelters, and small volume breeders as sources of animals for research is a complicated tangle of trade.” page 26 “... the acquisition and resale of animals by dealers, bunchers, and individuals is profit-driven, and thus may foster corrupt practices and less attention to animal welfare issues.” page 85 “In summary, based on the limited available evidence, random source dogs and cats used for research probably endure greater degrees of stress and distress compared to purpose-bred animals. This conclusion has implications both for the welfare of random source animals and for their reliability as research models. (NRC 2008; Reinhardt 2004).” page 63 “... over the past two decades a trend has emerged among research institutions to move away from the use of dogs from Class B dealers or to require justification for their use.” page 77
later than 2015. Then, on February 8, 2012, it issued a notice that NIH would no longer fund the use of cats from random source Class B dealers, effective October 1, 2012. The American Physiological Society’s website seems to indicate that lobbyists for the animal researchers have accepted the outcome. It’s hard to argue with this painstakingly objective process from a committee composed of their peers. The NIH’s jurisdiction only extends to those researchers who receive grants from them, but these new policies are an important milestone because they signal a new era. The NAS Committee also served as a model for examining the ‘necessity’ of animal use in research a couple of years later when the NAS was asked to look at chimpanzee use. Future studies will likely take advantage of the template for blending science and humane concerns. AV Sue A. Leary, MS, is the President of AAVS.
“It is therefore not necessary to continue to obtain random source dogs and cats for NIH research from Class B dealers, provided that alternative sources of animals with similar characteristics can continue to be assured.” page 95
SOURCES OF DOGS AND CATS FOR CLASS B DEALERS A review of 2008 acquisition data provided by the USDA revealed the following numbers specific to Class B dealers (Figure 4-1; see Chapter 1 for the AWR definition of eligible sources): • 4,643 dogs acquired by Class B dealers in 2008: o 49% from individuals (e.g., hobby breeders) o 31% from other licensees or registrants (e.g., other Class B dealers) o 20% from government pounds or shelters • 378 cats acquired by Class B dealers in 2008: o 61% from government pounds or shelters o 21% from other licensees or registrants (e.g., other Class B dealers) o 18% from individuals (e.g., hobby breeders) page 78
AV MAGAZINE
11