whether there is any responsibility there as far as the operator of the auctions are concerned. Is it a kind of cooperative farmi?

Mr. EVANS. So far as I know, it is like most of these country fr ers' auctions. It is strictly a local enterprise and for reasons am not sure of historically, some of these farmers' auctions veloped a large business in handling laboratory ammals as handling the ususal meat animals.

Mr. MCMAHON. As a further answer to Senator DominiI don't remember the name now, but I do have it in our could supply it, but the owner of one of the auctions in G Pa., is also a dog dealer. The two are very closely interre

Senator MONRONEY. Do you find the sale of dogs an occas ciality of certain farmers auctions or it is a general tha g t . most all of them the dogs are sold?

Mr. MCMAHON. It is becoming a very general th2. Monroney. There are auctions that we know of in Tex is, see, in Maryland, in Virginia, in Pennsylvania, and I amla stre igan and Minnesota, and no doubt many, many other: not know about.

Senator MONRONEY. Do you have any further quest

Cannon?

There are two statements I think should be briefed bef the benefit of the committee.

Mr. MCMAHON. We have some inserts of various di episodes that we want to put in the record.

Senator CANNON. I was going to say, Mr. Charm at reviewing these statements and I think it would be them summarized because this may raise other questions t want to a-k.

Mr. EvANS. I think these statements would take 4 or 5 : read.

Senator MONRONEY. I think we had better have those

STATEMENT OF FRANK J. MCMAHON, DIRECTOR, FIELD SEIT THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. McMAHON, Senator Monroney, I am Frank J. M M do have a few remarks that I would like to make in a . prepared statement.

The opponents of this legislation have stated that the research laboratories in the inspection requirements a upon legitimate research. We agree with this. Although, we that many family pets are sent to these institutions, at intention to intimate that the institutions themselves kra ground or the practices which involve some of the dea other hand, however, these institutions in their neves animal-, often have been inclined to minimize what is

situation.

It is interesting to note that in the hearings in the H resentatives on this subject, only one laboratory an nai appeared in his own defense. It is necessary, of course, f mittee to study the complete position of all sides to this ta would like to comment on only two paragraphs of the state

has been submitted by a representative of a New York university. The statement is:

Within the last few months, very noisy publicity upon some instances of difficulty and ease and evil methods in providing animals for sale to reputable and indeed highly esteemed educational institutions has led to a change in the laws of Pennsylvania aimed particularly at dogs to be utilized for experimental purposes. This has occurred even though a portion of the publicity has shown to be entirely in error. A result of this change in the laws has been a strangulation of our flow of appropriate experimental animals. The result of this in turn has been a serious compromise of our medical educational processes and research endeavors in Brooklyn. Teaching programs have had to be curtailed and increased costs to all of us as taxpayers and our effectiveness in helping you has been hampered.

I would like to add this, I am not going to go through it because I know the committee has other witnesses, but by "noisy publicity" he meant apparently the very many cases of cruelty that have been tried in Pennsylvania. By strangulation of the source of supply, I think that the key word in this is "appropriate." The source of supply for animals has not been strangulated; the effect has been on appropriate animals. And appropriate does not mean the aged or diseased or malnourished or parasite-ridden animal which ends its days in the pound or private shelter. He meant the healthy animal which was being shipped to Pennsylvania by dealers from Illinois, Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, and other States. Unfortunately, gentlemen, all too often this appropriate, healthy animal was the family pet.

We come then to the statement that we have with these laws imposed a burden, an unnecessary burden for the taxpayer. The institution that this doctor represented has received in the last 5 years, $32,353,163. I don't think it is unfair to ask them to pay a little more for animals. As a matter of fact, in 1965, research institutions throughout the country received $574 million from the Public Health Service. This money was appropriated by Congress to provide better research facilities and to improve the public health and well-being. It is a very justifiable cause. It would be interesting to know how much of this $574 million was channeled back into the hands of some of these unscrupulous dog dealers.

We have heard it said that dog theft is a problem to be controlled on a local and State level. There are 574 million reasons why it is a Federal problem.

In closing, gentlemen, the laws of Pennsylvania were obtained by 28 Pennsylvania humane societies led by the Humane Society of the United States and the Animal Rescue League of Berks County. If we have done all of the things that the doctor said we have done, I mean if we have obtained this noisy publicity and strangled the supply of appropriate animals, and made this institution aware of the taxpayers' dollar, I am sure that these 28 Pennsylvania societies feel just as proud as David must have when he slew Goliath. Thank you. (The prepared statement of Frank J. McMahon follows:)

STATEMENT BY FRANK J. MCMAHON, DIRECTOR OF FIELD SERVICES FOR THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES

(NOTE: Photographs referred to in this statement are in the files of the Humane Society of the United States.)

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, thank you very much for allowing me to be here today.

I am Frank J. McMahon, director of field services for the Humane Society of the United States.

Mr. Oliver Evans, president of the Humane Society of the United States, bas already testified as to the urgent need for this legislation, so I shall confine my remarks to specific cases and abuses which would be stopped if S. 2322 were enacted.

Although S. 2322 covers several areas in which protective legislation is sorely needed, the most important of these is the actual theft of dogs and cats for research purposes. These thefts take many forms, from the actual physical act of stealing a pet from an owner's fenced yard to the more subtle form of corrupting humane society and public animal shelter employees to betray their trust.

Perhaps most difficult to prove are the individual cases of theft because of the fact that these men usually operate under the cover of darkness or in rural areas where their activities are not suspect. You will find newspaper clippings in the prepared exhibit describing dog theft rings in Delaware, Pennsylvania. New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. These clippings are merely a sampling of reports received daily from all over the country at our national office concerning the mysterious disappearance of family pets.

Government agencies which receive Federal funds are also, perhaps unwittingly, contributors to the continuing disappearance of family pets. We have to look no further than the new NIH holding facilities in Poolesville, Md.

A dog had been reported stolen by her owner, Garland Lloyd of Boyce, Va. during late August and her distinctive markings led humane society investigators to institute a search of research institutions and hospitals. In November. Teenie was located at the Poolesville (Md.) kennels of NIH by Miss Fay Brisk, a direc tor of the Animal Rescue League of Berks County, Pa. NIH is the largest user of research animals in the country.

Despite positive identification by Lloyd, NIH refused to release the animal claiming that she had become "U.S. Government property." The HSUS called | in its attorneys and launched a full-scale investigation through its field service department.

Under HSUS questioning, an NIH representative disclosed that Teenie had been purchased from Lone Trail Kennels, Pa., a large east coast laboratory supplier. In further investigation by the HSUS the supplier claimed that he had obtained the dog from a smaller dealer named James Byerly in Lexington, N.C., and that the transaction was validated with a bill of sale. Byerly, in turn, claimed that he had bought the dog from an unidentified man in Boyce. Va. Despite this chain of evidence, NIH still refused to release Teenie. An HSUS offer to post bond of $500 was rejected. The HSUS pursued the case by sending Field Representative Dale Hylton to Lexington, N.C., for further questioning of James Byerly.

Hylton returned to Washington with a notarized statement that no dog like Teenie had been in Byerly's possession and that no dog of her description had been sold by him to Lone Trail Kennels. Byerly's statement also said that he had "never provided a bill of sale of any kind, either with descriptions of each dog or for the total number of dogs delivered, and no bills of sale had ever been requested." The statement was signed with Byerly's mark since he can neither read nor write.

With this new evidence, the HSUS brought even greater pressure to bear upon NIH. The story began to attract national publicity and NIH officials abruptly decided that Teenie was too hot to handle.

The dog was returned to the Lloyds on December 10 when she was happily reunited with the other members of the family.

Quite recently investigators for a humane society went to NIH to search for another dog reported to be there. They were refused admittance and even a call from a U.S. Senator would not unlock the doors of the largest animal-holding facility in the Nation. Investigators were told that if they would describe the dog an attendant would search for it.

This might seem to be cooperation on the part of NIH but can you imagine an attendant, unfamiliar with the dog, searching for one particular beagle out of several hundred. This particular Government agency spent well over $100.000 of the taxpayers' money last year to purchase dogs and cats for research purposes. The same taxpayer, however, searching desperately for a lost or stolen pet is not allowed to even walk through their corridors. What are they afraid of?

You will undoubtedly hear testimony that humane societies have contributed to the overall problem by resisting the efforts of research institutions to obtain = animals from public pounds. We do indeed say that animals should not be released from public pounds or private animal shelters for research purposes. We say it because, as many scientists themselves have said, these animals are not good subjects for these purposes.

Let us, for example, study the situation in New York City. Mr. William Mapel, administrative vice president of ASPCA, testified before the House of Representatives Subcommittee on Livestock and Feed Grains last September. I would like to quote from Mr. Mapel's testimony, "The society was custodian of 273,261 animals last year. In that fiscal year the ASPCA honored requisitions for 2,162 dogs and cats claimed under the law by research facilities in the New York City metropolitan area within the State of New York."

I think that many missed the significance of Mr. Mapel's remark-only 2,162 dogs and requisitioned out of 273,261 animals. Why does 1 New York institution continue to purchase almost 500 dogs a week from a Pennsylvania dealer when these animals are available in New York? Why do the institutions in New York continue to pay dealers from $15 to $30 per animal when they can be obtained right in New York under requisition for a very nominal price? The answer, we believe, is quite obvious the abandoned, stray, malnourished dogs and cats of doubtful medical history which end their days in public pounds are simply not good subjects for research.

All too often when public pounds sell animals to dealers who supply research institutions, dogcatchers become overly efficient because of the easy money and the public loses confidence in the entire animal control program.

On one hand opponents of this legislation state that there is very little dog theft and on the other say that the problem of dog theft would be eliminated if animals were released from public pounds to research institutions. This statement, too, is erroneous. Reports of missing dogs and cats continue to flood the HSUS office-reports from areas which have such laws in effect.

If dog dealers are to be strictly controlled and if animals from public pounds are not suitable subjects for research purposes, what then is the answer? Congressman Resnick of New York has suggested that dogs and cats be bred for research purposes. His suggestion should be very carefully considered.

Millions of dollars of the taxpayers money is being spent on purchasing and conducting research experiments on disease-ridden, parasite-ridden, malnourished, and otherwise unfit research animals from dog dealers. Even more appalling is the fact that a good deal of this money is spent to purchase healthy pets which have either been stolen or have not had a chance to be reclaimed by their owners.

Research groups have testified that it would be economically unfeasible to breed animals for research purposes. I do not recall the exact figure but it was stated at one time that it would cost approximately $250 to raise a dog to the age where it would be useful for research. I cannot believe that any well organized program would result in such a fantastic cost.

With the assistance of Mrs. Alice Wagner, editor of Popular Dogs magazine, we have contacted many of the top dog breeders in the United States. These are people who breed and show animals and spare no expense in their care and treatment. The average figure which was submitted by these breeders to raise an animal to 6 months of age was $83. This figure included kennel help and shots.

How much wiser it would be if these millions of dollars were spent on a program of control and breeding which would guarantee that animals used for the purpose of research were not stolen or lost pets, would guarantee that they were healthy animals with known genetic backgrounds, would guarantee that the results of experiments were accurate. Such a program would not hamper medical research-it would improve it.

On the present system of supply of animals to research institutions there are three distinct categories of dealers. One, the grassroots dealer actually collects dogs and cats in any given area and by any method he can. We also have the middleman who travels throughout the country collecting animals for the large dealers. Finally, we have the dealers who operate on a tremendous scale involving thousands of dogs and cats yearly. It is these dealers who actually supply research institutions.

62-317-66

I mentioned the corruption of humane society employees and public employees in connection with dog and cat thefts. On September 30, 1964, the HSUS was notified by Mrs. Clair Vogenie, president of the Humane and Dog Protective | Association of Freeport, Long Island, N.Y., that a laboratory animal supplie had attempted to bribe an employee in an effort to obtain animals from the shelter. Fortunately, this employee reported the incident and investigators for the HSUS went immediately to Freeport. We allowed this dealer, Donald Munson, of Brooklyn, N.Y., to load his truck with 14 dogs and 12 cats for whic he paid a total of $112. With the help of Nassau County police, Munson was then arrested and subsequently convicted on a charge of commercial bribery. It should be emphasized that many of these animals were pets of people who had not had a chance to reclaim them.

In a statement made to Detective Gulla of the Nassau police, Munson admitted obtaining animals from any source that he could for resale to Bellevue Hospital, Manhattan; North Shore Hospital, Manhasset, N.Y.; Meadowbrook Hospital, East Meadow, N.Y.; and to other institutions out of New York State. A newspaper report of this investigation is included in the prepared exhibit: however, I would like to introduce at this time a photograph taken by a police photographer. It shows the shelter manager removing a mixed breed collie purchased by Munson. It also shows the type of crates used. Cats were jammed into these crates for shipment, too.

A very similar case existed in Camden, N.J. Investigation by the Animal Welfare Association of Camden resulted in the arrest of all of the public pound employees on grand larceny charges. These employees were selling animals to commercial laboratory suppliers on the same day they were received at the pound, making it impossible for owners to reclaim a lost or strayed pet. The HSUS was asked by Camden city officials to take over the temporary operations of the pound until new employees could be trained. While attempting to clear up the premises, which I might add were in one of the most unsanitary conditions I have ever seen, dozens of dog tags and collars were found secreted in coffee cans, clothing lockers, drainage systems, and other hiding places. Camden police were able to trace many of these to owners who had no idea of what had happened to their pets.

Mrs.

Another case involved a Marion, Ind., woman, Mrs. Denzel Grim. Grim's German shepherd followed her children to school on a Thursday morning. The dog was picked up by the Marion, Ind., dogcatcher and within a day, the legal holding time is 72 hours, was sold to Oakdale Farm & Kennel, Rural Route 5, Decatur, Ind. Acting on a tip from neighbors, Mrs. Grim, after some difficulty and after obtaining the assistance of local police, was able to gain entrance into the Oakdale Farm and recovered her dog. This establishment. by the way, was, until last year, listed in a Government publication entitled "Laboratory Animals." This publication lists various sources from which laboratory animals can be obtained, and is produced by the National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, under a grant from the U.S. Publie Health Service. It is ironic that the taxpayers' money should be used to provide free advertising for laboratory animal supply dealers who obtain the same taxpayers' pets by illegal methods.

Since Mrs. Grimm originally reported this case to us, HSUS investigators working with the Marion-Grant County Humane Society have conducted a thorough investigation of the Marion, Ind. public pound which was being run by the police department.

Conditions of housing and sanitation at the pound were deplorable. In response to questions at a city council meeting as to why the money from the sale of animals to Oakdale Kennels was not used to improve conditions at the pound it was learned that only $56 had been credited to the pound for an entire year and that the city council did not even know animals were being sold to Oakdale Kennels.

The resulting scandal rocked the State of Indiana. The chief of police resigned and turned over $500 to the city, which, he said, he had been accumulating to "turn in, in a lump sum." A grand jury investigation was ordered and the chief of police has been indicted for misuse of public property. The Marion-Grant County Humane Society has been asked by the city to run the pound, and the grand jury investigation is continuing.

1