,. .Nfi§ONGER V , , A "I|||I|||||II| Pg;;?:svrY $ __ kfl M) £35‘ £32 Era 1318 731?? C1;:>.:> LC H. 1 59/2 -u'_'« .i L .3 3; RA RY Velsasahlnszinn I,lni‘versity QC .':5E1§fI£0~‘*‘.2’:?"."I‘;!ro -31-- Ex‘ #1‘ A; Q 1., ,_ {_.¢_ .,. 1 ,' -‘ 4 ll / _ . I. .3 !'5‘_.f‘.?‘;, ar11>,y'1(3'.xqD‘ P“ N ' . ‘_ v K.‘ ‘i "Q :‘ ‘ix’. , ,- . V -. -. 1 . _ _ . . _., _, . ‘ $- 5 _ , _ _ -':_':,;;' \..«,-- 11 I B ' NO*.f1?§389 ssue me HumiixiilflfiqimijxflfiIfliflpfiiflfliiimifiztrrm “RESEARCH SERVICE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS ANIflAL WELFARE \ ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB75053 AUTHOR: Randall, Blanchard IV Science Policy Research Division THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM DATE ORIGINATED DATE UPDATED lglg '4 Est. OOIUT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORHATION CALL 287-5700 0228 CBS- 1 IB75053 UPDATE-O2/26/80 }§Q§-2§El!l2!Q§ The concern in Congress about animal welfare (excluding wildlife) involves several related but separate issues, including: (1) the use of animals in biomedical research; (2) the use of animals in military research; (3) the transport of pets and other animals; (4) the need for improvement of conditions at zoos and aquariums; (5) the potential abuse of animals for sport or entertainment; (6) the explosive growth in the pet population and the associated dangers to public health; and (7) the humane care and treatment of animals in general. QRCKEROEND AND PQLl§Z.A-ALX§l§ ESTABLISHED LAWS At the present time, Federal laws relating to the humane treatment of animals (excluding wildlife) include the following: Title #6, U.S. Code, Chapter 15, paragraphs u66a and n66b. Rules and ’regulations pertaining to the accommodations for animals on ships.) (Act of may 28, 1928.) Title #5, U.S. Code, Chapter 4, paragraphs 11-7a. Rules and regulations rtaining to common carrier regulations for transport of animals. (Cruelty L4 Animals Act of June 29, 1906.) Title 7, U.S. Code, Chapter 48, paragraphs 1901-1906. Rules and regulations pertaining to the humane slaughter of livestock. (P.L. 85-765, (Aug. 27, 1958.) Title 7, U.S. Code, Chapter 59, paragraphs 2131-2154. Rules and regulations pertaining to the transportation, sale, and handling of dogs, cats, and other animals. (P.L. 89—5n4, the Animal Welfare Act of 1966, _and as further amended by P.L. 91-579, Dec. 29, 1970, and most recently by P.L. 9u—279, Apr. 22, 1976). Title 15, U.S. Code, Chapter nu, paragraphs 1821-1831. Rules and regulations pertaining to the "soring“ of horses. (”Soring" is the process of using any cruel or inhumane method or device on a horse, the action of which causes the animal physical pain when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving. The practice of "soring" is committed with the intent of affecting a horse's gait, and was commonly used to produce the elongated smooth running walk desired in the Tennessee Walking Horse.) (P.L. 91-540, Dec. 9, 1970, and as further amended by P.L.‘9u-360, July 13, 1976.) of more limited application is P.L. 93-365 (the Department of Defense k Appropriation Authorization Act of 1975 (88 Stat. 399), which provides, in Title VII, a general provision (section 703) placing certain restrictions, 1 not a complete prohibition, upon the use of dogs for chemical and other toxic substances research within the Department of Defense. The earliest animal welfare legislative efforts in the Federal Government were directed toward the humane treatment of animals, primarily work or food cns- 2 IB75053 UPDATE-O2/26/80 animals, shipped in interstate commerce and usually ultimately destined for V slaughter. This interest has become redirected over the years. ychanges have reflected the popular interest in the humane treatment of many "non-agricultural“ animals that are used for companionship, " showing exhibition, racing, and other recreational purposes. In addition, concern about the use of animals in biomedical research increased as Federal and State regulations were enacted that required proof of safety for man from the many chemicals and devices to which he becomes exposed. During the 95th Congress bills were introduced addressing all the various animal use and welfare issues; none were enacted into law. To date, in the 96th Congress, legislation has centered around finding alternative methods to the use of animals in research and the possibility of establishing a National Center to coordinate these efforts. so hearings have been held. There is a continuing conflict over the needs of the biomedical research community for test data, and the concern of some humane societies about the use of many species of animals for collecting these experimental data. Briefly, this conflict extends to the research investigators‘ claim that there is no satisfactory substitute currently available to replace the use of animals in the final stages of many investigations--short of direct human experimentation. This latter possibility is considered unacceptable, ethically, and is usually illegal in terms of current procedures ‘prescribed by the various regulatory agencies that are involved in approving the use of new drugs, food additives, medical devices, toxic substances, electronic products, and similar materials. Legislation, such as the Toxic Substances Control Act (P.L. 94-469), will increase the need for many types of testing which, in turn, will increase the use of animals in research. The opposite of this polar position is the view of some humane societies that (a) it is unnecessary to conduct many of these experiments with animals, since such experiments are repetitive in nature; (b) abuse of animals still occurs in many laboratories; (c) unnecessarily large numbers of animals are used in research; and (d) there are several acceptable procedures available that could be used instead of using animals in research investigations. . As regards this last point, the types of test generally referred to as alternatives are the increasingly available techniques of using plant and animal cell cultures, tissue cultures, organ cultures, central computer data bases to provide ready referral to experiments that have already been conducted, and computer-supported mathematical simulation models. At the present time, the general position of the biomedical research community and the regulatory agencies is that the alternative methods referred to by the humane groups, which advocate the elimination of animals from research and testing, are not yet suitable for obtaining all the data necessary. If.i.§-.Q.§§..£>.l-"..l.1‘!.I.!l.1.-§-§Q§.§ Q9.§1.\.$lQ.fi.A.L_E1l.BP.9§§§ Recently, more attention has focused on the use and misuse of vertebrat and other animals for educational purposes in secondary schools. Conferences have been held to discuss growing concerns expressed by both academia and animal welfare activists. some feel that, at the precollege level, teachers as well as students, are neither trained to care for their CRS- 3 IB75053 UPDATE-O2/26/80 animals nor to learn much from, them. Biology studies tend to emphasize {dissection of preserved animals, but some educators have proposed the use of live animals as being preferable for teaching. Others believe that the iinterventional, behavioral, and observational study of live vertebrates is more appropriate and further enhances a "humane attitude“ toward animals. Another concern in this area is the growing use of live animals in sophisticated science fairs held throughout the country. These fairs are highly competitive and the student winners are often awarded valuable scholarships for their efforts. Some argue that such monetary rewards act as incentives for students to create increasingly technical projects, requiring live or sacrificed animals, to demonstrate biological processes. Animal welfare supporters have expressed their concern that some projects appears as though they had been created with a lack of adult or parental supervision. As a result, many of these science expositions have implemented rules governing the use or display of animals in exhibits. This is essentially the same issue as the previous one, except that the research is conducted in support of military requirements and/or support of certain civilian agencies requiring research that military agencies can ,provide. In general, the military departments follow test protocols that are stipulated for similar types of research within civilian biomedical research agencies or that are required by regulatory agencies for proof of safety of Adrugs, devices, or other chemicals. This issue was highlighted in recent years by public discussion of the use or a standardized breed of beagle in certain military experiments. At that time, dogs were used by the Air Force Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory at Wright Patterson Air Force Base and the Army Chemical Warfare Laboratories at Edgewood Arsenal (it is of interest to note that much larger numbers of these same dogs are used by civilian Federal agencies as well as by many universities and private contractors conducting similar research). The challenge was that such research did not require the use of dogs, and that either alternative methods of research or alternative test species with which there is less public familiarity might be used. The purpose of the testing was to evaluate the potential toxicity to human beings of some of the toxic chemicals that might be encountered in the military environment, and to test a limited number of drugs. As a result of the public concern about this research, an investigation was conducted (at the Air Force facility--see reference list) by a special committee on toxicology appointed by the National Academy of Sciences. ,This committee reached the general conclusion that the research was being conducted in accordance with all existing regulations and legislation, and . that appropriate species of animals had been selected. Legislation was enacted during the 93d Congress that limited, to some A extent, the military use of dogs in research. The use of animals, particularly dogs, was the subject of specific questioning during the authorization hearings held on the Army budget request for FY76 funding. The i ue was also discussed during congressional consideration of the Toxic Substances Control Act (Aug. 23, 1976); a proposed amendment suggesting non-animal experimentation where feasible, was rejected. The Army indicated that all research was being conducted in accordance with the new legislative requirements. ~ cns- 4 1375053 UPDATE-02/26/80 $EAE§2Q3Ié1£Q!-QE-AEl!lL§ Because of many reports of abuse and general mishandling of animal- shipped by air and commercial carrier (often leading to the death of the animal), there has been an effort to establish stricter regulations to control all transport and handling of animals. The use of inadequate containers and the absence of facilities for food and water during transportation have been described as particularly undesirable conditions of current transportation procedures. Further, the absence of care for animals during layover, and the manner of their cargo loading has been described as unsatisfactory. Legislation in the past has been directed toward amending the Animal Welfare Legislation of 1966 and 1970 to expand the legislation to regulate all surface and air transportation of animals. The jurisdictional responsibilities for executive agency regulation of the various modes of transportation are not clear. Further, hearings identified a definite need for research to develop specifications for appropriate containers for the various modes of transportation. Cargo handling conditions, particularly in aircraft and at airports, seemed to be an area meriting special attention. The responsibilities of shippers and carriers, and the transfer from one carrier to another, also seemed to be areas warranting particular attention. a 2&3 EEED EQB.lflP3Q!§!§flI--E-§0°§-AN2_AQQ&§£E§§ 1 1 3:: 1} Ti Zoos and aquariums are facilities increasing in national importance because animals in the wild are becoming less accessible for public viewix and educational purposes. some persons have been concerned with the numberi of incidents that have been reported in some zoos which appeared not to be providing animals with adequate care. Part of the explanation for this lack of care was that agencies were not providing sufficient funds to maintain and upgrade the facilities. In addition, zoos have also been regarded as important, potential sites for animal health research. Objections to expanding public support for training of zoo personnel and modernizing facilities include the. view that such support might turn zoos into research centers thus making the animals accessible for the many types of biomedical research against which objections have been voiced. Issuance by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of its final rule on the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of aquatic animals or marine mammals, should have an important impact on the welfare of pthese animals as they are displayed in zoos and aquariums. §!!駧_IB§il!§§$.QE_AEl§i-§_E§§2-EQE-§£Q§I-A!Q_B§QB§A$LQ! Two principal areas of ‘concern have been identified in Congressional actions. The Horse Protection Act of 1970 was intended to prevent t’ inhumane training practices (such as soring) that were frequently being used for establishing the walking gait of the Tennessee Walking Horse. Since many of these horses move in interstate commerce from show to show, Federal legislation was enacted to provide for regulation and the prevention of such CRS- 5 1375053 UPDATE-O2/26/80 practices as soring. Hearings were held by the Senate Commerce Committee in 1973 to investigate the enforcement of this Act. These, hearings indicated that the existing legislation still has not achieved its purpose. On July ‘, 1976, the Horse Protection Act Amendments were enacted (P.L. 9a-350). In another area, there has been concern that dog-fighting (dogs fighting other dogs) results in inhumane treatment of these animals. Since many of these dogs apparently are shipped across State lines for dog-fighting competition, legislation to prevent interstate transport of dogs for fighting was incorporated into the Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976 (P.L. 9a-279). ‘iii?-.-P.E.I POPUI-£1.l'I0N-.E§.Q§.L.E! Reports from throughout the Nation indicate that pet over“population, primarily dogs and cats, has reached epidemic proportions. Abandonment of unwanted pets has placed heavy burdens on private and Government capabilities to relocate or destroy these animals through the animal pound systems. within urban communities, attacks from free-ranging dogs and fecal contamination have produced political confrontations involving extreme reactions from pet owners and non—pet-owners. In some rural sections of the country, feral cats and dogs pose a real dthreat to wildlife as well as to domestic animals and, in some extreme instances, even to man. when the public health hazards presented by the uncontrolled pet * pulations are considered, the problem may become one of serious proportion. Among the methods that have been examined for controlling pet populations are (a) research to develop birth control drugs for pets; (b) the establishment of spaying/neutering clinics; (c) enactment of stronger local laws as regards controlling animals in urban communities; (d) public education toward reducing the incidence of abandonment; (e) studies of the general ecology of stray dogs and cats in cities; (f) the use of humane euthanasia techniques; (g) and general actions related to regulation and enforecement of existing law. A number of proposals dealing with pet population problems have been made at the Federal level within the past few years. None of these proposals has been enacted. There hast been some concern that the indiscriminate sale or other distribution in interstate commerce of household pets might be a danger to public health if these animals were infected with some disease. since there are large numbers of pets transported by private breeders and by owners of small numbers of animals, and since there are a large number of diseases that can be transmitted to man, this proposal aroused considerable interest, although no action was taken on the specific legislation introduced in the 95th Congress. Regulations promulgated under the Animal welfare Act and subsequent amendments attempt to deal with this issue in part. Meanwhile, effective June 23, 1975, the sale and interstate transport of small pet t tles were banned by the FDA, because of a threat to public health. cns— 6 IB75053 UPDATE—02/26/80 H.Con.Res. 26 (Whitehurst) Pertains to methods used on animals in research. Introduced Jan. 18, 1979; referred jointly to the Committees on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and Science and Technology. I H.B. 282 (Drinan) Promotes the development of methods of research, experimentation, and testing that minimize the use of, and pain and suffering to, live animals. Introduced Jan. 15, 1979; referred to the Committee on Science and Technology. H.R. M479 (Weiss) Establishes a commission to study alternative methods to the use of live animals in laboratory research and testing. Introduced June 14, 1979; referred to the Committee on Science and Technology. 2en-292nleti9n-£r9nlem§ H.R. 4805 (Richmond) Establishes a National Center for Alternative Research to develop and coordinate alternative methods of research and testing which do not involve the use of live animals, to develop training programs in the use of alternative methods of research and testing which do not involve the use of live animals, to disseminate information on such methods, and for other purposes. Introduced July 16, 1979; referred jointly to the Committees on Interstate and Foreign Commerce and on Science and Technology. H.R. 1735 (St. Germain) Provides for loans for the establishment and/or construction of muncipal, low-cost, nonprofit clinics for the spaying and neutering of dogs and cats. Introduced Jan. 31, 1979; referred to the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Anine;§-in.§29r:-and.§eereeii9n 3.3. 2u27 (Duncan) Amends the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit the use of live animals as visual lures in dog racing and training, and for other purposes. Introduced Feb. 26, 1979; referred to the Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 4631 (Mr. Anderson of Calif.) Amends the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit certain transactions and activities involving sight hound dogs trained by the use of any animal as a live visual lure or involving animals used as live visual lures. Introduced June 27, fieaarzgg ‘T U.S. U.S. REPORTS . Congress. CRS- 7 IB75053 UPDATE‘02/26/80 1979: referred to the Committee on Agriculture. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1975. 1st session, on H.R. 5808 and related 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Congress. House. Livestock and Grains. Hearings, 94th Congress, bills. Sept. 9 and 10, 1975. 89 p. "Serial No. 94-2“ Commission on Humane Treatment of Animals. Hearings, 94th Congress, 2d session, on H.R. 11112. Sept. 30, 1976. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. 44 p. "Serial no. 94-LLL“ Congress. House. Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce. Subcommittee on Health and Environment. Horse Protection Act Amendments. Hearings, 94th Congress, 1st session, on H.B. 6155 1976. 59 p. "Serial No. 94-55" Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Subcommittee on the Environment. Bills designed to improve conditions_for animals in transit. Hearings, 94th Congress, 1st session, on S. 1941, S. 2070, and S. 2430. Nov. 20, 1975. [To be printed] Congress. Conference Committee. Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976; conference report to accompany S. 1941. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1976. 23 p, (94th Congress, 2d session. House. Report no. 94-976) 5 Congress. Conference Committee. Animal Welfare Act Amendments of 1976; conference report to accompany S. 1941. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1976. 23 p. (94th Congress, 2d session. Senate. Report no. 94-727) Congress. House. Committee on Agriculture. Animal Welfare Act Washington, U.S. House. Amendments of 1976; report to accompany H.R. 5808. Govt. Print. Off., 1976. 44 p. (94th Congress, 2d session. Report no. 94-801) Animal welfare Washington, 1st session. Senate. Committee on Commerce. Amendments of 1975; report to accompany S. 1941. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 25 p. (94th Congress, Senate. Report No. 94-580) -—--- Horse Protection Act Amendments of 1975; report to accompany S. 811. (94th Congress, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 20 p. 1st session. Senate. Report no. 94-418) CRS—-8 IB75053 UPDATE-02/26/80 CHRONQLQGY 92.21.35 2112‘ 07/11/79 '01/o5/79 11/10/78 10/17/78 10/14/78 09/19/78 10/14/77 06/21/77 06/17/77 03/00/77 03/00/76 USDA/APHIS final rule on humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of warmblooded aquatic animals or marine mammals. (Federal Register, June 22, 1979, Part V: 36868-36883). USDA/APHIS final rule on horse protection regulations, definitions of terms and certification and licensing of designated qualified persons (DQP's). (Federal Register, Jan. 5, 1979: 1558-1566). HIH's “Principles for Use of Animals" released. NIH Guide for Grants and Contracts (Vol. 7, No. Nov. 10, 1978). 17, U.H. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) releases “Declaration of the Rights of Animals.“ This charter is to become U.H. law in 1980. 1978 Annual Conference of the Humane Society of the United States passed resolution recognizing that animals have certain rights and that people have certain obligations towards animals. Conference held Oct. 11-17, 1978, Dearborn, Hichigan. USDA/APHIS proposed standards and regulations for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of marine mammals (Federal Register, Sept. 19, 1978: H2200-H2218). USDA/APHIS proposed revision of standards for transportation, handling care, and treatment of certain warm-blooded animals (Federal Register, Oct. 10, 1977: 55221-55226). USDA/APHIS standards concerning transportation, handling, and treatment of warm-blooded animals were promulgated (Federal Register, June 21, 1977, Part III: 31556-31571). ‘USDA/APHIS regulations concerning the Animal welfare Act, as amended, were promulgated (Federal Register, June 17, 1977, Part III: 31022-31029). The Report of the Secretary of Agriculture on Animal Welfare Enforcement for Calendar Year 1976 was issued. The Report of the Secretary of Agriculture on Animal Welfare Enforcement for Calendar Year 1975 was issued. 10/22/75 - 10/23/75 -- National Academy of Sciences held a symposium on "The Future of Animals, Cells, Hodels, and Systems in Research, Development, Education and Testing. 1Q/17/75 03/21/75 08/00/75 03/00/75 09/25/7n 08/19/74 06/00/74 03/26/74 12/24/72 03/28/72 03/07/72 02/29/67 Cowans, Hamer, John. JCLO British medical journal. CRS- 9 IB75053 UPDATE-O2/26/80 FAA revoked tie-down regulations for air transport of live animals (See Federal Register, V. #0, Oct. 21, 1975: Q9095-49096). USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, published amendment of Horse Protection Begulations+- amendment of regulations for devices and substances for use on horses at certain horse shows. Federal Register, v. #0, no. 163, Aug. 21, 1975: 36553-3655A. Report of the Secretary of Agriculture on Horse Protection Enforcement 1973-197a was released. USPA. June 1975. 12 p. Report of the Secretary of Agriculture on Animal Welfare Enforcement for calendar year 1974. USDA/APHIS proposed space and exercise requirements for laboratory animals.- Federal register, Sept. 25, 1974: FAA published regulations for air transport of animals (applying to webbing, partitions, ventilation, and "tie down" facilities within aircraft). Federal register, Aug. 19, 1974: 29917-29918. Report of the Secretary of Agriculture on Animal Welfare Enforcement for Calendar year 1973. USDA amendment of proceedings to be followed under the Animal welfare Act of 1970. Federal register, Mar. 26, 1974: 11173-11175. USDA published extensive changes in the regulations for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act of 1970. Federal register, Dec. 24, 1971: 2u917-2u928. Creation of Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Federal register, Mar. 28, 1972: 6327. USDA requested information on the space and exercise requirements for animals. Federal register, Mar. 7, 4918. v 1972: USDA published necessary regulations for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act of 1966. Federal register, Feb. 24, 1967: 3270-3252. 2D£ELQ!éL-§§§§§§§§§-§QQ§§§§ Alternatives to animal experiments in medical research. Mar. 23, 1979: 557-559. Pet overpopulation. Editorial research reports. v. 1, no. 5. February 1975: 83-100. CBS -10 IB7 5053 izmyvnaurn H-02/2 6/80 National Academy of Sciences-—National Research Council. A review of the toxicology research program of the 6570th Aerospace Medical Research.Laboratory Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. A report of the committee on toxicology [Bertram D. Dinman, Chairman]. June 1974. 25 p. National Academy of Sciences--National Research Council. Institute of A Laboratory Animal Resources. Research in zoos and aquariums--a symposium held at the 49th Conference of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Houston, Texas. Oct. 6-11, 1973. Washington, D.C. 1975. 215 p. Proceedings of the national conference on the ecology of the surplus dog and cat problem. Sponsored by: American Humane Association; American Kennel Club; American Veterinary Medical Association; Humane Society of the United States; Pet Food Institute. may 21-23, 197a. 128 p. U.S. Dept. of Health, Education, and Welfare. Public Health ’ Service. National Institutes of Health. Guide for the care and use of laboratory animals. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off-, 1974. 56 p. (DREW Publication No. (NIH) 7H-23 Revised 1972-A Second Printing 1973) U.S. Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service. Animal baiting and fighting: Federal and State statutes [by] Kent M. Ronhovde. may 7, 1976. Washington, 1976. 33 p. Multilith 76-96A The Toxic Substances Control Act: testing issues [by] Jo-Ann Mcflally. Aug. 14, 1978 (Currently updated) . [Washington] 16 p. Issue Brief 78050 ""'<‘ -72—-.-.1—«—I_,,__ ,__ nifih ) I Linn -.—,,s~:;,u;g:;y 5 meewwnerrhgi