Now, I will just skip over this which appears fully in my wri statement. What is being done is that screen is being attached to the cage f with pieces of wire to try to make a change without expending real money. The screen is often torn by the dogs and sticks up sharp points which the dog is forced to lie on, and this is the r pennypinching that is being practiced by those who unblushingly the Congress to appropriate millions of dollars for their use. You already have the photographs of a different laboratory—t is, the University of Minnesota. And I would like to emphasize t the legislative history of the measures you are considering should a it perfectly clear that such care and housing could not be condoc once the bill you approve in this committee becomes law. Breeders of laboratory animals, like the laboratories themselv wish to be exempt from the humane provisions of the measure, 1 the National Society for Medical Research wants them and the dea in exotic species, including primates, excluded from the bill. I wish to point out inspection by voluntary agencies is difficult a often impossible, and I will submit for the record a statement on rent efforts to observe conditions in primate transport. For example, last week Merck's refused to permit a representative the Animal Welfare Institute to see the monkeys it was bring through the airport. Ten years ago, Parke, Davis worked with us to make major impro ment in shipping and mortality in their monkeys. Parke, Davisa | AWI personnel together made a surprise visit to the airlines, bring in a big load, and saw the extent of sickness, death, overcrowding.a mishandling. But with every passing year, the laboratory interests, both o mercial and nonprofit, receive increasing numbers of millions of lars, and their arrogance seems to increase correspondingly. T want no objective, disinterested third party, which the Secretary Agriculture would constitute, to observe their care and handling animals or to enforce decent standards where these are lacking. sound Federal law such as you are here considering today is essent The breeding of dogs and cats for research is being carried out s cessfully on a small scale. Using impounded animals for nonsurvi experiments under full anesthesia and breeding them for chr studies is by far the best solution and one we have suggested for t past 15 years. It is the best scientifically speaking, and from: standpoint of animals and animal owners. These bills would encourage solutions of this type to the proc ment problem. They would raise standards throughout the an experimentation industry, improving research as they cut down: necessary suffering. We have heard no reasonable arguments aga this moderate and desperately needed legislation, and we earnestly quest that you give a favorable report to a strong, effective bill. (The prepared statement of Mrs. Stevens follows:) The Animal Welfare Institute and Society for Animal Protective Legislati which I represent, are in favor of S. 2322 and S. 3059 and hope the commin will include the best features of both bills, including in particular the b coverage whereby all vertebrate animals in both laboratories and dealers pec ises and in transport must be humanely handled and cared for. We believe: provision for stopping payments of Federal funds to any institution which refuses to obey the law is a sound sanction and should be included. It has worked well in the Federal Humane Slaughter Act of 1958 and should be equally effective in stopping abuses in care and housing of animals for experimentation. Scientific groups are making a determined effort to have the provisions requiring humane care and housing of animals in laboratories deleted from these bills. Despite all evidence to the contrary, they still claim that outside intervention is not needed because the laboratories will regulate themselves. The spokesman for the animal care panel, Dr. Howard A. Schneider, of the AMA's Institute | for Biomedical Research, Eduction, and Research Foundation, even goes so far as to assert that "the house of science" (as he calls the laboratories) is already in order. At House hearings March 8th, he pointed with pride to the status quo saying, "For more than 14 years the animal care panel has been putting that house in order. Mr. Chairman, that house is in order, and if there are those who would carp at that, let them come forward at another time and place to vent their concerns." Hoping to head off the growing demand for regulatory legislation, the AMA and other like-thinking groups have organized the AAALAC. The AAALAC— American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care-is the brainchild of the National Society for Medical Research, the AMA Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association, and 13 others. This AAALAC will send members of its council on a site visit to a laboratory for a fee of $100 to $1,000. If the laboratory is accredited as a result of this site visit, the accreditation is valid for 5 years. What, exactly, would be accomplished by the "site visits" and accreditation? A view from the inside will make this clear; and I quote from the testimony of Dr. Samuel Peacock, who was unable to be here today because he is so greatly occupied with research and writing for a scientific meeting: "I have always used animals in my research and will continue to do so. I am a member of the American Physiological Society and American Academy of Neurology." Of the AAALAC he writes: "Self-regulation through the American Association for Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care is a farce. For example, one of the facilities with which I am a consultant research associate, was inspected by a committee representing this organization. Their appointment was set up a week in advance. The animal colony attendant worked overtime for days cleaning up the colony, painting cages, etc. No cats were ordered for the week so that the usual overcrowding would be avoided. When the committee arrived, they saw cats each in his own cage with food and water. Had they arrived unannounced 1 week later, they would have seen four or five cats in cages designed for one cat, cages with dead cats among the living, neither food nor water in the cages, and a crate of new cats for which there was no room at all. Such a situation is not at all unusual. In short, the research community will not and cannot regulate itself. If they could, the present conditions would not exist. The animal quarters in research facilities I have seen have been totally inadequate for the task expected of them, and the personnel incompetent to care for the animals entrusted to them." Clearly, the provision in pending legislation for licensing research institutions and requiring humane standards of care and housing by them is essential. Dr. Peacock's estimate on mortality of animals received from dealers agrees with that I reported (hearings, Subcommittee on Livestock, House Agriculture Committee, March 7, 1966) from three other scientific institutions at previous hearings (Brooklyn Jewish Hospital, Bionetics Laboratory of Hazleton, and Downstate Medical Center of New York State University). "In general." he states, "we usually find that 30 to 50 percent of our animals will die before they are used for research." Dr. Peacock sums up the situation concisely: “The animal dealer for economic reasons and ignorance will not reform his methods unless he is forced to do so. The research institutions and universities will not improve their facilities unles forced to do so for basically the same reasons. As long as the research worker has enough animals to do his work, the present system, unless forced by public opinion to change, will continue indefinitely, completely uncontrolled." "Enough animals, of course, means quite different things to different scientists. Ten thousand dogs a year may be used up by the University of Minnesota, for example, and every possible source, both in and out of the State, tapped to give the dog to the researcher at the minimal charge of $5.75 (figure given AWI laboratory animal consultant in 1964). Opponents of the pending bills have asserted that if only pound st available locally to scientific institutions, there would be no dig än a hence, no dog thieves. However, this assertion is out of line with the example, Minnesota' has had a law for no less than 17 years res, pound in the State to supply animals to research, yet the dig de in Minnesota is a thriving one, and the laboratories even import a of State, including Wisconsin (which has a State law prohitstar. of dogs and cats over the State line for purposes of experimentation. is the demand for dogs in Minnesota and so interested are the suis reimbursed for their efforts, that dogs are apparently being resio in different laboratories after their use. Ralph Mayer, whose clear and accurate testimony before the H-- .. ture Committee, March 8, I commend to your attention, reports that he ing a surgeon at an operation when they found a 1-inch polyethylene dog's spleen. This dog and another in the same group of stock dogs ha on their abdomens, indicative of previous experimental use. In his testimony, Mr. Mayer stated: "Before the arrival of a t animal welfare organization, we are all warned and briefed as to what to hide. *** No pain relievers have ever been given to my any dog including the major surgery cases. • • Infections are very and often fatal. At the time I was working with the dogs as al di taker. I actually got in trouble with my foreman for spending to IL watering them. ・・・ I would not leave the room until I was sure eum had as much as it could drink plus a full pan. ・・・ The floors of the of a wire mesh. ⚫ Very frequently dogs have caught their toes ala and suffered considerably before they were noticed. ・・・ There have when it was necessary to anesthetize them to remove the toes from have seen a dog with toes on each of three legs caught so that the d pletely immobilized." Checking with Mr. Mayer about any improvements this well-finan ment laboratory might have made since the extreme negligence atud es it has displayed was brought out at public hearings, I learned that two caught in the mesh on Sunday; and Thursday a dog, which has been ratory since 1962, was found with a terrible infection in his foot of changing the cage floors, they put the men who feed and care f to attaching screening (of the type used for screen doors) onto the cages. This is done with wire. Mr. Mayer is glad to make the the dogs the pain of caught toes which swell and become infected since the cages are hosed with the dogs inside them, cleaning these 2 floors is far from satisfactory. Moreover, the screen, not des grind purpose, is often torn by the dogs and sticks up with sharp poiz."«, the middle of a cage so a dog cannot lie down without lying on the ing. Such is the cruel, penny-pinching practiced by those who un?« the Congress to appropriate millions of dollars for their use Photographs of a few of the 1,400 dogs currently caged at a tion, the University of Minnesota Medical School, are herewith. come out of these cages alive for one purpose only: Experimentat they removed for exercise, even though the cages are too small for to stand or lie down in normal comfort. The Minnesota fash. cages with the dogs inside is practiced here, too, with the res. are often wet. Others testifying for the Animal Welfare It examples of similar mistreatment in other major laboratories country I trust that the legislative history of the measures you are today will make it perfectly clear that such care and housing eve doned once the bill you approve in this committee becomes aw care, housing, and handling are varions. Some are pecu er ti others to the premises of de v'ers, still others to conditions of try ever, could be corrected without delay were simple rules of a. Including sufficient food, water, space, air, warmth, and a cot rest, required. 1 For other examples of failure to prevent dog dealers' activity ty its that have forced were der low see p. 43 Hine bearings • "'ed Regnt to the Triportation, Sale and Handing of Ings and Richard Fxperimentati Breeders of laboratory animals, like the laboratories themselves, wish to be exempt from the humane provisions of the measure; and the National Society for Medical Research wants them and the dealers in exotic species, including primates, excluded from the bill. A look at the constitution and bylaws of the Laboratory Animal Breeders Association, September 8, 1961, throws an interesting light on a relationship between animal suppliers and the personnel of scientific institutions which may account for at least some of the extreme overcrowding of animals that causes so much useless misery. Section D(4) states: "Bribery to obtain business is forbidden." No doubt those who drew these bylaws were well acquainted with the need for their provisions. Here, again, the rush to get "enough" animals into the laboratory brings about abuses which could be prevented by licensing and inspection of dealers and laboratories. Inspection by voluntary agencies is difficult and often impossible, and I would submit for the record notes on some efforts to observe current conditions in primate transport and housing by dealers and laboratories. It is clear that many of those concerned feel a strong compulsion to hide the facts both from animal welfare workers and from the public. In this area we move into big business and its sometimes accentric idea of public relations. For example, last week Merck's refused to permit a representative of the Animal Welfare Institute to see the monkeys it was bringing through the airport. Ten years ago, Parke, Davis worked with us to make a major improvement in shipment and reduction of mortality in their monkeys. Parke, Davis and AWI personnel together made a surprise visit to the airlines, bringing in a big load, and saw the extent of sickness, death, overcrowding, and mishandling. But with every passing year, the laboratory interests, both commercial and nonprofit, receive increasing numbers of millions of dollars and their arrogance seems to increase correspondingly. They want no objective, disinterested third party to observe their care and handling of animals or to enforce decent standards where these are lacking. A sound Federal law such as you are here considering today is essential. There is no other way to stop the enormous extent of needless suffering now being inflicted on experimental animals entirely apart from experimental procedures themselves. By providing the Secretary of Agriculture with the authority to enforce minimum standards of care, housing and handling for experimental animals before they reach the laboratory and while they are there (always excluding the experimental procedures) the Congress would provide a means to change cruel practices as rapidly and effectively as it did when it passed the humane slaughter bill, a humane law which has been effectively administered by the Department of Agriculture. Legislation embodying the basic principles of S. 1071 will be needed to regulate experimentation, but that is not an issue here today. It is entirely appropriate that inspectors for the Department of Agricul7ture should enforce a law dealing with the care, housing, and handling of animals and with the identification of dogs and cats to prevent theft of pets. Indeed, no other agency of government is so well qualified for this task. As testimony from those who have had their pets stolen shows, present laws are hopelessly inadequate to deal with this problem. No expenditure of time and money is adequate to locate a dog once he has been taken. Even when a man is known as a thief, efforts by local police and detective agencies to convict € him are rare because animals cannot speak, and it is not necessary to break into a house to steal them. After months of intensive effort, Vermont law enforcement officers apprehended cat thieves; and a Missouri dog thief was recently fined, but even his whereabouts are now a complete mystery. These thieves are unlikely to be the big dealers who cross State lines with their doubledeck truckloads of dogs. For example, Mike Kredowski, who boasted at House hearings, March 8, that he sold 60,000 dogs to laboratories last year, is not the one to steal a dog. It is essential that small as well as big dealers be licensed and inspected if theft is to be stopped and that big dealers be required to give full accounting of the source of the animal. Merely to license interstate dealers in dogs and cats cannot stop the theft, to say nothing of the cruelty. The breeding of dogs and cats for research is being carried out successfully on a small scale. Using impounded animals for nonsurvival experiments under full anesthesia and breeding them for chronic studies is by far the best solution both scientifically speaking and from the standpoint of animals and animal owners. These bills would encourage solutions of this type to the procurement problem. They would raise standards throughout the animal experimentation industry, improving research as they cut down on unnecessary suffering. have heard no reasonable arguments against this moderate and de We oly needed legislation, and we earnestly request that you give a favorable report a strong, effective bill. Senator MONRONEY. Thank you very much, Mrs. Stevens. STATEMENT OF DOROTHY DYCE, ON BEHALF OF ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE Mrs. DYCE. Thank you. I am Dorothy Dyce, of Detroit, Mich., and I wish to testify in fave of S. 2322 and S. 3059. In the last 6 years I have visited 94 institutions which use vertebrate animals in experimental research. The majority of these institutions receive Government grants. I have attended trade days and auction and visited many dog-dealer farms in various parts of the country Early this year a young couple from Joplin, Mo., made a frant search of local dog farms in an effort to find their German shepher who had mysteriously disappeared from their backyard. I went along with them, accompanied by two deputy sheriffs who knew the locations of the various dealers. One of the biggest dealers in the area, Mr. O. L. Beckam, bragged that "the dog dealing business is the third biggest business in the Midwest." One of his drivers was arrested and convicted of cruelty to animals in 1957 while delivering dogs to the Anchor Serum Co. Fifty dogs were packed into a 1952 Chevrolet two-door sedan; 33 in wired shut crates behind the front seat and 16 dogs in a crate in the trunk. Three of the dogs were dead. Last summer I visited the Anchor Serum Co., and found that they are still buying their animals from this same dealer, Mr. Beckam. One of the dealers who supplies dogs to Mr. Beckam is out on ba after being arrested for dog theft in January of this year. The dog in question was fond on the farm of Raleigh Tash. I would like t submit, please, for the record this copy of a letter written by Jack Kirk, the owner of the dog, who had Mr. Tash arrested for stealing the dog. While I went with this couple to look for their German shepherd. this is a picture of a dog farm owned by Mr. Duggar who also supplies dogs to Mr. Beckam, and you can see the deplorable conditions, if these could be passed around, and a dog chained with no shelter standing in the mud and rain. At another dog dealer in Oronogo, Mo., who also supplies dogs to Mr. Beckam, I found this dog lying in the mud in a convulsive state. white foam coming from his mouth. After some hassling around with the owner of the dog farm, I was able to take the dog to a veterinarian. and the veterinarian put it to sleep for humane reasons. I have a copy of his letter. He says: The dog was presented in a comatose condition and it had distemper and cholers probably of some duration. Although the American Medical Association emphasized its support of "programs which protect pets from theft and insure the humane care of laboratory animals," it urges that the bills be modified to exclude the licensing of research facilities. |