Animal Welfare Act of 1966

The Animal Welfare Act (Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of 1966, P.L. 89-544) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 24, 1966. It is the only Federal law in the United States that regulates the treatment of animals in research and exhibition. Other laws, policies, and guidelines may include additional species coverage or specifications for animal care and use, but all refer to the Animal Welfare Act (otherwise known as “AWA”)as the minimally acceptable standard for animal treatment and care.

As enacted in 1966, AWA required all animal dealers to be registered and licensed as well as liable to monitoring by Federal regulators and suspension of their license if they violate any provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and imprisonment of up to a year accompanied by a fine of $1,000. All facilities covered by the Animal Welfare Act were required to establish a specialized committee that included at least one person trained as a veterinarian and one not affiliated with the facility. They were to regularly assess animal care, treatment, and practices during research and required to inspect all animal study areas at least twice a year. Such committees also were required to assure that alternatives to animal use in experimentation is implemented whenever possible.

Although hygienic living conditions were necessary for animals not during experimentation to prevent unintentional infection, there were no such provisions against intentionally infecting animal subjects with disease for the purpose of the experiment.

History

The historical climate of AWA regarded animal welfare as a priority. The Animal Welfare Act was not the only law enacted for animals at the time. The Horse Protection Act (public Law 91-929) was passed in 1970 and protected horses against the physical practice of produce a physical appearance aesthetically appealing to humans ("soring" the ankles to produce a high-stepping gait); marine mammals as a class (whales, porpoises, seals, and polar bears, for the most part), found protection under the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Public Law 92-522) of 1970, preventing extinction or depletion from indiscriminate taking, including hunting, harassment, capture, and killing (permitted takings, including for subsistence and research purposes, must be accomplished humanely, with "the least degree of pain and suffering practicable to the animal"); and endangered and threatened species were also protected with the passage in 1973 of the Endangered Species Act (Public Law 93-205), making it unlawful to buy, sell, or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any species found to be endangered and closely regulating commerce in any species threatened with extinction.

These laws regarding animal welfare demonstrate the type of concern that produced AWA in the 1960s. Congress had acted on several occasions over the past century to protect animals, both as individuals and as species (i.e., marine mammals and endangered species). The degree of commitment to the protection of animals through regulation and enforcement increased during this period and exhibit Congress' growing tendency toward stricter controls beginning in the 1970s.

The premise for the animal welfare act makes itself clear in events occurring shortly before the enactment of AWA. Due to increasing evidence that dogs and cats kept as pets were being stolen by dealers, taken across states lines, and resold to research institutions for scientific experimentation, Congress enacted the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act in 1966. Many sportsmen supported the act because it was their hunting dogs that often went missing, as well as many distraught pet owners. The purpose of the act was to deter such abuses by requiring dealers and research facilities that handled, cared for, treated, or transported certain animals "in commerce" to follow standards developed and issued by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). It was meant to protect the owners of dogs and cat from having their pets stolen for experimentation and to establish other such humane standards for the treatment of particular animals by animal sellers and medical research facilities.

Pitfalls for Universities

While the Animal Welfare Act was intended to improve quality of life for animals, the regulation has caused some harm. Facilities that receive federal research funds have Institutional Animal Care Committees, described with the acronym IACUC. These committees are held accountable for Animal Welfare Act violations, which could, in theory, lead to loss of Federal funding. Because of the risks of punishment under the Animal Welfare Act, animals at facilities such as research universities are under strict controls. For example, should a researcher find a loving home for an animal to live in after an observation of behavior is complete, the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act cause committees to force painful euthanasia upon animals rather than home placements because killing animals is a "humane endpoint" that is preferable to "waiting for animals to die" according to the USDA.. Attention to hygiene and health means animals are not allowed to go outside or have contact with unprocessed natural objects. Due to the focus on laboratory mice and rats used for medical experiments, guidelines effectively prevent exercise and outdoor play for animals that can benefit from it because IACUCs will err on the side of caution and prefer animals be kept in sterile environments to going outdoors. This attitude is highlighted in the National Press "Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (1996) by the Institute for Laboratory Animal Research which is 124 pages long and has only one paragraph referring to outdoor activities for animals but four pages about room air ventilation. The bringing of companion animals into classroom for teaching is regulated through the Animal Welfare Act, and is taken very seriously by IACUCs. College students will end up with videos of dogs rather than playing with a professor's dog during class because Animal Welfare Act regulates "the use of animals for teaching." Putting out a bird feeder on a campus to offer food to migratory birds could get a student or professor in serious trouble. Campuses that are regulated under the Animal Welfare Act may develop almost pathological levels of control and risk management in response to the Act. In some circumstances the Animal Welfare Act reduces animals' identities to being liabilities rather than sentient creatures.

Exclusions

There is much debate as to the actual definition of an animal, but for the purpose of AWA, birds, rats, mice, horses, and other farm animals were excluded from its protection as initially legislated in 1966. The most commonly used animals in laboratories are rats and mice and therefore they were not regulated in the original law.

Certain conditions are also excluded from coverage by AWA. Animals that are killed prior to usage, such as frogs used in a biology class, are also not included, so long as they are killed humanely before use.

Facilities that do not receive Federal funding were also not bound by the act’s coverage, such as bear armories.

Timeline

The Act was amended six times (1970, 1976, 1985, 1990, 2002, 2007,2008) and is enforced by the USDA, APHIS, and Animal Care agency.

In 1970 the act was amended to include all warm-blooded animals used in testing, experimentation, exhibition, as pets or sold as pets. Certain cases could be exempted from such definitions unless they used live animals in substantial numbers. Fines were also increased against those interfering with an investigation of an experimentation facility. Those found guilty of assaulting or killing Federal inspectors responsible for such tasks also faced additional sentencing.

Basic treatment was expanded to include humane and reasonable handling of the animals, required shelters from weather and temperature extremes, proper ventilation, adequate housing, decent sanitation, and adequate veterinary care at all stages in the animal’s life.

In 1976 the act was further amended to further specific its necessary qualifications of animal treatment during transportation. Animals were to be kept in adequately sized traveling accommodations according to their size and to be kept from fighting amongst one another. The definition of animal was also broadened to rid the law of the possible interpretation that dogs used for hunting, security, and breeding were not included in its protection.

Again in 1985 the act was amended. The psychological well-being of the animals was now taken into consideration as it never had been before. It was also not permitted for a single animal to be used in more than one major operative experiment, from which it was also allowed adequate time to recover as guided by a veterinarian with proper training.

In 2007 the Animal Fighting Prohibition Reinforcement Act amended section 26 of the Animal Welfare Act. Its purpose was to strengthen prohibitions against animal fighting, and under the provisions of the AWA it made animal fighting a felony with punishment of up to 3 years in prison under Title 18 of the U.S Code( Crimes and Criminal Procedure). The act also made it a felony to trade, have knives, gaffs or other objects that aided in use of animal fighting. Also, these provisions were designed to close the loopholes from the 2002 amendments.

In 2008, the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, P.L. 110-246 added several new amendments to the Animal Welfare Act. It added more prohibitions to training, possessing and advertising animals or sharp objects for use in animal fighting. The penalties for these crimes were raised to 3-5 years imprisonment. The 2008 amendments also prohibited imports for resale of dogs unless they were at least six months of age, have all necessary vaccinations and are in good health. Furthermore, fines for violations of the Animal Welfare Act increased from $2500 to $10,000 per violation, per animal and per day.

Licensing and registration

The U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires that businesses that buy or sell warmblooded animals, exhibit them to the public, transport them commercially, or use them in teaching or experiments, must be licensed or registered. Failure to become licensed or registered is a punishable violation of the Animal Welfare Act. Depending on the basis of the business, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection services (APHIS) determines whether the business should be licensed, registered, or both. Business owners are responsible for knowing about registration and licensing requirements.

Businesses and activities covered

Federal animal care standards mainly cover humane handling, housing, space, feeding, sanitation, shelter from extremes of weather, adequate veterinary care, transportation, and handling in transit. The same standards of animal care apply to all registered and licensed businesses. To make sure the regulation and standards are followed the APHIS field inspectors make periodic unannounced visits to all locations where animals are held. If any facility does not meet federal standards when they apply for a license or registration, they can receive up to three inspections within a period 90 days to correct any problems. The licenses are not issued until all problems are corrected. The facilities have to wait for a minimum of 6 months before reapplying for a license if they do not pass inspection within the 90-day period. Legal action results if the facility operates a regulated business without a license. Under the Animal Welfare Act, exhibitors and animal dealers must obtain a license, for which an annual fee is charged. APHIS does not issue a license until it inspects the facility and finds it to be in compliance with its regulations. Research facilities and animal transporters do not need a license, but must be registered with APHIS.

Enforcement

The 2006 HBO film "Dealing Dogs" documents an undercover operation targeting a "Class B" kennel which treated dogs inhumanely, violating the Act. The owners of the kennel were fined over $200,000 as the result of a USDA suit.

In 2011, the Dollarhite family of Nixa, Missouri were fined $90,643 for selling several thousand dollars worth of rabbits without a license, which is required of people selling more than $500 worth of rabbits sold as pets. The USDA has increased enforcement of the law in recent years, targeting magicians who perform magic tricks with rabbits.

Proposed amendments

Many animal welfare groups and animal activists support strengthening and further enforcement of the act. The act is often criticized for it’s exclusions of rats and mice, although inappropriately, as the act was amended to include all warmblooded animals in 1970. Some, however, do feel that not just warmblooded animals should be included in the act’s protection. Many also think there should be a higher level of funding given to the purpose of enforcing the provisions of the act.

There is also some questions as to whether or not the act appropriately keeps track of the effectiveness of drugs that are given to animals during experimentation to dull their pain and suffering.

Considering that other alternatives to animal experimentation are available, many also criticize the fact that animals are permitted legally to ever be used in scientific experimentation.

On the other hand, there are also many opponents to increased government regulation of scientific research facilities. Some claim that researchers and their institutions are the ones best suited to determine what policies are acceptable regarding their care of animals. Some in the scientific community feel that it would be inappropriate to regulate animal use at a higher level. There are as well those that feel that funding for the act should be altogether eliminated, although this extreme view is not as widely accepted.

There have been numerous sanctions taken against individuals and agencies that have been found in violation of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). A database of violations, reports, and sanctions on behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) can be found on the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service website.

See also

• Animal Welfare Act 2006

Further reading

• Irvine, Leslie. 2009. Filling the Ark: Animal Welfare in Disasters. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. ISBN 978-1-59213-834-0
• Alix Fano, Lethal Laws (White Lotus Co. Ltd, 1997).
• Bekoff, Marc, Encyclopedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (ABC-CLIO, 2010).
• Jann Hau and G. L. Van Hoosier, Handbook of Laboratory Animal Science: Essential principles and practices.

External links

• Animal Welfare Act and Animal Welfare Regulations from the United States Department of Agriculture
• Biosecurity New Zealand - guide to the New Zealand Animal Welfare Act
• awic.nal.usda.gov - Animal Welfare Information Center (USDA)
• grants.nih.gov