HomeMy WebLinkAbout49-Animal Control
,
" SAN BERNARD~ 10 -
~,~
~F~ebi C. Biggs
Dept: Director of Animal
ATTACHMENT "C".
REQU[ IT FO~ COUNCIL At, . ION
REC'D.-AtMtI:tOfIhimal Control Department
SEP 23 AM I() ~'QCii1abi1i ty Policy
Control 1998 I
Date:
September 23, 1988
~~
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
6/9/88 Legislative Review Committee requested the Animal Advisory Commission
review the animal "Availability Policy".
7/21/88 Legislative Review Committee recommended the animal "Availability
Policy" be placed on the consent calendar for ratification.
8/15/88 City Council voted to send the policy back to the Animal Advisory
Commission for re-consideration.
Recommended motion:
That the recommendation of the Animal Advisory Commission to endorse the
current availability policy of the City of San Bernardino Animal Control
Department which has resulted in improved standards of operation,
improved staff morale, increased adoptions, improved relations with the
San Bernardino Community and increased public trust and confidence, be
approved.
W~L'~ 4-'
Signature -..; /?T-(:""'--
Contact person:
Debi_C..--Biqqs
Phone: 3 8 4 - 5 2 7 5
Supporting data attached:
Ward:
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
II/)
~F SAN BEANARDI~~ - REQUE~" FOR COUNCIL ACT-4)N
",?
STAFF REPORT
At the request of the Legislative Review Committee on June 9, 1988, the
Animal Advisory Commission met on July 20, 1988. The Commission submitted the
attached report (#1) unanimously endorsing the existing availability policy and
urging Council to adopt an ordinance prohibiting the sale or donation of animals
for research because it is counterproductive to an effective animal control program.
The Legislative Review Committee stated that although it is not the City Council's
function to "approve or disapprove" department policy, the policy would be placed
on the consent calendar because it was a controversial issue. Ray Quinto of the
V.A. Medical Center suggested that the City adopt an ordinance prohibiting the
sale of animals if there was to be a restrictive policy.
On August 15, 1988, the Council voted to send the policy back to the Animal
Advisory Commission and have the Commission report back to the Council on October 3
with suggestions on loosening the restrictions for the sale of animals to research.
The Animal Advisory Commission met on September 14, 1988. Those members
present were: Dr. Harold Chandler (Mayor), Elaine Grace (Flores), Terri Overcast
(Reilly), Margo Tannenbaum (Minor), and Judy Bliss (Maudsley). Absent were
Skip Herbert (Miller) and Dave Light (Mayor). There are no appointments repre-
senting Estrada or Pope-Ludlum.
After over 1~ hours of discussion, the following motion was made:
That the City Council vote to officially endorse the current
availability policy of the City of San Bernardino Animal Control
Department because of improved standards of operation, improved
staff morale, increased adoptions, improved relations with the San
Bernardino community and increased public trust and confidence which
are all direct results of the current policy.
The vote--Ayes: Chandler, Grace, Bliss, Tannenbaum. Noes: Overcast. Motion
carr; ed 4 to 1.
Overcast wanted to explain her no vote. She stated she morally did not want
to override the citizens. vote in June, 1986 on Advisory Measure HH and felt the
policy could be loosened in a few of the areas.
It is the opinion of the other Commission members and of Jo Orman, President
of the Humane Scrci~y of San Bernardino Valley, that selling animals from our
facility to research does more harm than good to the department as a public agency.
Since the restrictive policy went into effect over two years ago, the adoption and
redemption rates have substantially increased, staff morale has improved, and the
use of our facilty has increased.
Time limitations and revenue: When there were no restrictions on the sale
of animals, the department employed two Animal Health Technicians. This was
reduced to one AHT by Council for the 87-88 budget. Since an AHT must accompany
research personnel, another Shelter worker must be pulled from his/her regular
duties to cover some ~f the duties of the AHT while the AHT accomodates the
researchers. Aside from loss of work productivity, it cost the City $4803.79
in AHT salary alone to be with research personnel--one third of the research
revenue. If one takes into consideration the Shelter Office Specialists' time.
75-0264
-2-
r
to complete the paperwork and prepare the monthly invoices, the actual revenue is
further reduced. There are other, more productive means of generating revenue.
The recently approved citation system will produce more than twice the amount
of revenue than produced in 86-87 by sales to research. There is no projected
revenue from research sales in the FY 88-89 budget.
Staff opinion: The staff at the Shelter is always asking, "Why don't they
ask us what we think?" So we did. The results were as follows:
Would you bring a lost dog you'd found to a shelter that releases
unclaimed animals to research? 54.5% said no.
If you could not keep your own pet and brought it to a shelter that
released animals for research, would you sign a form giving permission
for your pet to be used for experimentation? 72.7% said no.
Would you donate money to an animal shelter that voluntarily sold or
gave pets to research? 54.5% said no.
If there were a stray dog in your neighborhood, would you be less
likely to report it if you knew it might end up in a research lab-
oratory? Evenly divided.
As an employee:
Do you think our public image has improved since we stopped selling?
81.7% yes. (One employee was no, one employee recently employed
and "doesn't know").
Do you think we should sell animals to research?
72.7% no.
Should the City Council vote to prohibit the selling of animals to
research? 63.6% yes.
When asked, "Do you believe in, support, or are in favor of medical
research?" 28.6% of those that said yes also answered yes to the
question above.
Of the 453 cities in the State of California, only two city agencies (San
Bernardino and Hollister in Northern California) sell animals to research. Holli-
ster's sales have decreased 82.5% in the last year. Our Shelter has not sold
an animal sinc~-March of 1987.
The issue before you is not one of debating whether research using animals is
beneficial or not but rather, should our trust and confidence as a municipal
agency deteriorate. The Animal Advisory Commission feels it is not the responsi-
bility of the City of San Bernardino government to supply shelter animals for
private enterprise. But it is the responsibiltty of the City to provide a credible
animal control program that has the trust, confidence and support of the citizens
as a viable public agency.
Dr. Harold Chandler, Chairman of the Animal Advisory Commission will be
present to discuss the issue further.
,
, ,Y
21,
19:=:8
~
At a meeting of the Animal Advisory Commission on July 20,
19B8, the "availability policy" and internal prc.cedures of
animals for research was discussed.
Loren Me Queen of the City Attorney's offict stated that
Advisory Measure HH was a voter opinion "having no legally
control I ing effect over the legislative acts of the Mayor and
Common Council." She also stated our availability policy is
not in violation of any law or ordinance therefore, no
"circumvention" of the law is taking place. We are not
"bound" to sel I, nor are we prohibited. If we do sel I, the
fees are set by resolution, as is the process if both a
research institition and a. private citizen wishes to obtain
the same animal.
The followins are the recommendations of the Animal Advisory
Commission:
Mc.tion:That the City Council vote to officially endorse the
current availability and adoption pcolicies of the City of San
Bernardino Animal Control Department. Motion carried.
Motion: That the City Counci I adopt a.n ordinance prohibiting
the sale or donation of any animal for reasearch, testing,
experimental, or teaching purposes. Motion carried.
It was a.greed that the sale of impounded
animal shelter is counter-productive to an
control program.
~nimals from our
effective animal
Respectfully Submitted,
DR. HAROLD CHANDLER
Chairman, Animal Advisory Commission
..
.#-l
i ~~
. .
. . - 2 -
2. No animal shall be released for medical research by
the Department of Animal Regulation except as
authorized by section 53.11 (h).
3. No animal shall be released for medical research until
the animal has been impounded and held for a period
of at least five days.
4. No owner's unwanted animal shall be released for medical
research if the animal has been relinquished to the
Department of Animal Regulation for destruction.
5. No stray dog wearing a dog license tag shall be released
for medical research.
The passage of this ordinance gave medical research, under some
basic guidelines, limited access to unclaimed animals and at
the same time set the stage for opposition against the DeparLlient
of Animal Regulation to be waged by many humane organizations and
pet owners alike. Many of those persons responsible for opposing
passage of Section 53.11 (h) are still fighting the release of
animals to medical research. The point to be made is that battle
scars of 1950 have remained intact and have continued to prevent
a unification of effort by concerned persons for the good of ani-
mals and medical research.
During those thirty years the Department of Animal Regulation
complied with both the spirit and letter of law. Changes in-
stituted by the Department to make the ordinance more workable
were as follows:
1. The Department required that owners' unwanted animals
would not be released to medical research unless the
owner specifically requested in writing, on the im-
pounding form, that the animal was to be made available
for research.
2. The Deif~tment required that all stray animals would be
held a minimum of seven days from date of impoundment.
This extension from five to seven days was made necessary
to facilitate the return of lost animals.
3. The Department required that medical research could not
obtain impounded stray animals unless said animal was
made available for sale to the public for at least one
full day. This provision made it necessary that all
animals sold to medical research would be held at least
eight days before release and three days beyond the
minimum set by the original ordinance.
. -
- :3 -
4. The Department required that only adult animals, ani-
mals in good health and animals in good condition
could be purchased for research purposes.
5. The Department caused the placement of signs in each
public lobby of each District Animal Shelter advising
the public that unclaimed stray animals could be made
available for medical research in accordance with
Section 53.11 (h).
While the changes in operating procedures were essential, the
release of animals to medical research caused the Department of
Animal Regulation to be placed in a most difficult, if not an
impossible situation. Much of the medical research facilities
in existence in the early 1950s and 1960s could be classified
as being in an embryo state. Most of the buildings utilized
for research were converted military type barracks, or old
buildings not specifically designed for housing animals, much
less people. Simply put, while the California Department of
Health had the responsibility for inspection and control for
medical research establishments, most certifications were routine
and did not cause required improvements. The care and housing of
animals apparently occupied the lowest priority in most medical
research budgets. Because of this low priority of concern re-
flected by the medical research community, many involved persons
and humane organizations became very frustrated due to their in-
ability to instantly correct objectionable conditions.
The Animal Welfare Act which was adopted in 1966, established
the first federal standards and requirements for medical research
facilities. These standards and requirements were contained in
the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act of August 24, 1966 (Public Law
89-544) and as amended by the Act of December 24~ 1970 (Public
Law 91-579). Said standards and requirements are administered
by the United-~tates Department of Agriculture as provided under
Title 9 - Animals and Animal Products, Chapter I, Subchapter A -
Animal Welfare Parts I, 2, and 3. Implementing rules and reg-
ulations have been published in the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) Title 9. However, enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act
was not immediate. Congress finally funded an enforcement pro-
gram which was not then nor now adequate to secure compliance
with federal mandates.
Given all of these problems and many not mentioned, the ordinance
~id provide, commencing 1950, a means for improving the care and
housing of all animals in medical research. Because of positive
attitude displayed by the Department of Animal Regulation and
many persons in the medical research community, ~edical research
.'
- 4 -
priorities gradually changed and made possible substantial im-
provements. As a result of improved facilities, research
techniques and medical research capability, Los Angeles was
finally recognized as a highly qualified and respected medical
research center. However, this image of a modernized medical
research center did not change the minds of some concerned pet
owners and some humane organizations. For during this thirty-
year period the DeparL~eIlt of l~imal Regulation released approxi-
mately 82,502 animals for medical research as shown in the attach-
ment.
Many of these animals could have been placed in homes if the ani-
mals had been given a greater opportlli~ity. The fact is that
these animals now confined to cages would have difficulty in ad-
justing to a medical research environment. Both sides of the
argument for or against the release of animals for medical re-
search does not appear to have changed in thirty years. The
heated and stormy arguments still persist.
Thirty years later, almost to the day, the Board of Animal Reg-
ulation, at its regular meeting held on November 18, 1980, City
Hall, adopted a motion requesting that the City Council repeal
Section 53.11 (h) of the Los Angeles Municipal .Code'- - This
recommendation, if adopted by the City Council and Mayor, would
repeal Section 53.11 (h) and prohibit the release of any animals
by the Department of Animal Regulation for medical research.
The motion as adopted by the Board of Animal Regulation was
predicated upon the following findings made by a committee des-
ignated as the RAnimals in Research Advisory committeeft.
1. That former pets used in research facilities suffer
accutely in a laboratory environment.
2. That the use of former pets in research destroys the
entire concept of animal shelters.
3. That there have been repeated violation of both the
spirit and letter of the law.
~e Animals in Research Advisory Committee was comprised of three
members which served at the pleasure of the Board. Members were
.Commissioners Rita Hoisch and Joan Peck, and a non-member of the
Board, Mary Ann Masey. The COmmittee studied the use of animals
in medical research for more than a year before submitting a
recommendation to the Board of Animal Regulation on October 18,
1980.
The impact which Section 53.11 (h) has had on the Department of
Animal Regulation has been substantial. Many thousands of persons
.
- 5 -
finding stray animals will not relinquish the animals to the
Department. The reasons for not relinquishing stray pets to
the Department are many and varied, but the possible threat of
releasing stray animals to medical research is most always
present in their reasoning for non-compliance. A close review
of newspapers, magazines, advertising inserts and almost every
commercial store which carry or will post -lost and found" ads
will soon convince the most novice person that the enormity of
the problem has been badly understated.
However, the fact that a citizen will not turn a stray animal
over to the Department because of the mandate to release animals
for medical research is sufficient to cause concern.
Because many stray animals are not relinquished to the Department
of Animal Regulation, departmental staff, volunteers and h~u~~e
. organizations are forced to spend thousands of working hours
assisting'persons in a fruitless search for lost pets. If the
medical research barrier can be removed, the Department could
then make official demands for custody of found stray animals.
Since dogs are classified as personal property, the practice of
-finders keepers" is a violation of. State law, but this law
appears to have little effect on those persons taking up stray
animals. The emotional shock which hits a person or family when
a pet is lost is substantial and for that person or family to be
deprived of their pet because the Department is releasing animals
to medical research is most unfortunate.
The primary impact on medical research is inconvenience and
financial. ~he Department of Animal Regulation received approxi-
mately $16,000 in revenue from medical research institutions
during fiscal year 1979-80 for the purchase bf 1,741 animals.
If the same medical research institutions bad to replace this
number of animals from the privately licensed animal dealers,
the cost for 1,741 animals would approximate $435,250 per fiscal
year or $25~-per animal. The one remaining question which must
be answered after you bave determined the degree of financial im-
pact on medical research is the ability to secure desired animals
from licensed animal dealers. The answer to that question is an
emphatic yes. Required animals can be obtained from licensed
dealers or medical research can reproduce required animals under
a colony type situation. Many persons in the research community'
fully believe that a time for change has arrived.
#In our estimation, a time for change is at hand.
search should no longer expect the Department of
to serve as a supply agency because that kind of
is counter-productive when our duty of providing
of animals in a humane manner is hindered to any
Medi~al re-
Animal Regulation
role and labeling
care and control .
degree.
. ..
~ t I,
- 6 -
Medical research can and must assume their role as respected in-
stitutions of learning and clearly demonstrate that kind of
leadership which can recognize a badly needed change which
would enhance the quality of life for all living things in our
city.
RECOMMENDATION
That Section 53.11 (h) of the Los Angeles Municipal Code that
mandates that the Department of Animal Regulation surrender
unclaimed impounded animals for medical research purposes be
repealed by the City Council and Mayor. Such action is necessary
if we are to restore full public confidence in the Department of
Animal Regulation and to facilitate the return of lost pets to
the rightful owners.
RI R: pn
Attachment
..
.. ~~.._... ~. .. __ - .._. ~ ;....._ ':. _,_U
< _.-..~..~" - ---...-,
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMEh_ATIONS RELATE. ro THE USE OF
ANIl'.ALS IN RESEARCH IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES
by the Animals 1n Researc~ Advisory Committee
October lti, 1980
I. INTRODUCTION
In August, 1979, the Board of Animal Regulation appointed a sub-
committee consisting of Commissioners Rita Roisch and Joan Peck
to study the subject of an1mals used in research and make recom-
mendations to improve the c~nditions of animals in laboratories
in the City. The committee was later expanded to include a
non-member of the Board, Mary Ann Masey, and was renamed tbe
An1rrBls in Research Advisory Committee.
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
Currently, limited protection for laboratory an~als is oon-
tained in the federal Animal Welfara Act (1966, 1970, 1976). The
Act deals mainly with the housing and care of animals in labora-
tories and at dealers' facilities. It doea not address itself to
the types of experiments done on animals or to the pain inflicted
except to req~~re "the appropriate use of anesthetic, analgesic,
or tranquilizing drugs . . . when the use of such ~rugs is con-
sidered proper in the opinion of the attending veterinarian,"*
provided thst tha administration of such drugs would not interfere
with the "actual resaarch or exparimentation by a rasearch facili-
ty as determined :J; such research facilit1."H
* Public Law 91-$79, 1970 \I\nimal Welfare Act"amendment). See
U.S. Code, 1970, Title 7, ~,~s. 2131 et seq.
*" U.S. Code, 1978, Title 9, Anil'.-ls and Animall'roducts, Chap. 1,
Subchap. A. (U.S. Dept. of Agrl,,'lture, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service)
Animals in Research Advisory Committee
Page 2
Many animals, such as rats and mice, are excluded from the Antmal
Welfare Act, and it is eatimated that only about S per oent of
the animals in laboratories are covered by the Act.* Furthe~ore,
no inspections or enforcement of the Act took place for several
weeks recently because funding ran out six weeks before the
end of the federal fiscal year.
In addition to following federal standards, many institutions
vOluntarily seek accreditation by the American Association for tbe
Advancement of Laboratory Animal Care (AALAC). AALAC standards
are a refinement of the housing and care standards set by the
Animal Welfare Act.
Many research facilities obtain unclaimed animals from public.
shelters. Some half a dozen states currently have laws ~gainst
"pound seizure," but most often the decision is left to local
entities. California has no law regarding pound se1.zure, but the
City of Los Angeles has an ordinance mandating the surrender of
animals to certified research facilities.
. I
!
The use _of~animals'in research has come under close scrutiny in
recent years, not only from traditional opponents such as anti-
---~
vivisectionist groups, but also from such diverse quarters as
journalists, elected officials, scientists, animal welfare groups
heretofore uninvolved, or at least maintaining a low prOfile,
and the medical profession itself. Articles on the subject have
*"Laboratory Animals," Representative Pat Schroeder, The Humane
Society ~, Summer, 1980, p. 13
Animals in Research Advisory Committee
Page J
, .
appeared not only in animal welfare publications but also in the
masS medi~, such as the ~ ~ Times and Reader's Digest, and
on the television program, "20-20." A National Coalition for
Alternatives to Animal Experimentation was formed. In New York
state, the Metcalf-Hatch Act mandating release of unclaimed pound
animals to medical research was repealed, and similar legislation
is currently underway in other states. A nationwide campaign was
initated to end the Draize test using rabbits' eyes to determine
the irritancy potential of consumer products. Two bills on an~al
research were introduced and currently are being discussed in
Congress: HR 4805 would support the development of alternatives
to the use of live animals in medical research. HR 6847 would
amend the Animal Welfare Act to provide for more humane treatment
of laboratory animals. Locally,.an effort to end pound seizure
state-wide through legislation or an initiative is gaining momentum
in California.
Increased awareness of the use of animals in research and experi-
mentation and reform attempts directed towards it are a result,
we believe, of the expansion of the field in recent decades into
a mammoth and complicated structure where millions of dollars
(many of them taxpayers' dollars) are spent and millions of animals
are sacrificed for purposes which are not readily known by the
general publiC. According to Congresswoman Pat Schroeder ot
Colorado, author of HR 6847, "American researchers sacrifice
approximately 65 to 100 million animals annually in experiments
--:-
Animals in Research Advisr-"'y Committee pa g! 4
that often involve intense suffering."* Grants by the National
Institutelof Health (prime dispenser of tax money for research)
totaled more than 1.5 billion dollars in 1978.**
It is important to note here that the interest currently belng
generated in the issue of animals in research Is not the same as
the traditional anti-vivisectionist cry to end all animal experi-
mentation. Rather, its stance is reformist, its goal is to alle-
viate suffering. We share that approach.
B. LOS ANGELES - BACKGROUND
According to the Federal Register of April 3, 1979, (Part V,
Department of Agriculture), there are 20 facilities within the
boundaries of the City of Los Ang~les registered with the federal
government to do research on animals. (Some of these facilities
are on federal, state or county property.) There are eight
licensed animal dealers within the City. Of the licensed research
facilities, fifteen were authorized during Fiscal Year 1979-80
to buy animals for medical research from City shelters in accor-
dance with Sec. 53.11 (h), L.A.M.C. Not all of them currently
do so.
Sec. 53.11 (h), L.A.M.C., came into being as the result of a
special municipal election in 1950 when it was placed as a propo-
sition on the ballot. The ordinance permits "reputable institu-
tions of learning, hospitals, research laboratories or their
* Pat Schroeder, ~. ~.
**~.
Animals in Research Advisory Committee
Page S
allied institutes" in the City to "use humanely unclaimed im-
pounded animals for the good of mankind and the increase at know-
led~ relating to the cause, prevention, control and oure at
disease." Such institutions must be certified by "the Health
Officer" (at that time the City Health Officer) when "he 111
satisfied (that the institutions) will use animals humanely tor
purposes above specified." Prior to consolidation at the city
and county health departments, certification was done by the City.
Now it is the responsibility of the County Department of Health
Services. Th6 standards used for certification are those contained
in the federal Animal Welfare Act.
/
Our city ordinance goes on to state that no pound animal shall be
sold to research until it has been impounded tor at least tive
days, that no animal shall be surrendered to research it it has
been turned over to the shelter by its owner tor destruction,
and that no impounded animal wearing a current license tag may be
sold for research. Lastly, the Department of Animal Regulation
1s instructed by the ordinance to adopt rules and regulations
for the care of impounded animals sold to research based on a
1949 public _bealth report titled "The Care of the Dog Used in
Medical Research."
The number of animals sold to research by the City in Fiscal Year
1979-80 was 1,741. For the past ten years the number has ranged
from about 1,600 to approximately 2,800.
Animals in Research Advienry Committee
Page 6
L.A.M.C., Sec. 53.11 (h) was the result of the passage of Propo-
sition C in 1950, after a long and bloody battle before City
Council between animal lovers and the animal research prof~s8ion.
Thirty years later, the wounds of that battle are still open.
While we, as members of an official committee, were received
graciously at each institution which we visited, we also could not
fail to note an in~rained distrust of any effort which might re-
sult in an intrusion on research operations. In some instances,
fear of and resentment towards the animal welfare movement in
general surfaced. Conversely, many animal lovers will not sur-
render a found animal to the shelters because of the possibility
that it may be sold to researoh.
II. OBSERVATIONS
The Advisory Committee on Animals in Research obtained permission
from and visited four institutions: U.S.C., U.C.L.A., Cedars-
Sinai and the Veterans' Administration, Wadsworth. We saw how
research animals are maintained. Staff veterinarians and, in
one instance, members of the research staff, made themselves
available to us. The Committee also studied printed material
----~
on animals in research, including official and non-official
publications, articles and independent studies. The City's chief
veterinarian, Dr. Walter Ziegler, and Dr. Michael Fox, head ot
the Institute for the Study of An1mal Problems and a well-known
authority in the field of animal behavior, contributed their
expert knowledge. We also contacted the local headquarters ot
the National Society for Medical Researoh.
Animals in Research Advip~ry Committee
Page 7
The following are our observationsf
A. HOUSING STANDARDS AND ENVIRONMENT
Generally, the housing standards which we saw seemed to oomp11
not only with federal law but also with AALAC standards on space,
ventilation, etc. The one exception was the Veterans Administra-
tion in West Los Angeles. Aside from some indoor-outdoor runs in
one building, housing for docs consisted of stand up-sit down-
turn around cages from which the animals were taken for exeroise
only when they were walked to another building for experimentation.
Cat oaging appeared oramped; the oats we saw were very vooal and
restless. A rabbit barracks - a converted, World War II affair
with leaky roof - afforded no shelter from the elements, and a
dead rabbit was being removed as we entered; it was raining.
Animals were destroyed by a veterinary assistant by means of an
injection of potassium ohloride, whioh causes a massive heart attack.
This practioe was discontinued, we were told, and euthanasia b1
injection of sodium pentobarbital instituted after we voiced our
concern.
.
Veterans AdwA~tratlon indioates that it is planning to build
a new animal faoility in aocordance with the highest standards
now reoognized (AALAC), even though federal law now exempts
federal research institutions from inspections. We were apprised
of the plans for the new facility at a meeting of the Animal
Studies Subcommittee, comprised mainly of members of the research
s taft.
Animals in Research Advisor~ ~ommittee
Page 8
In general, the physical condition of the animals we saw appeared
good. There were exceptions. At Veterans Administration a score
of white rats, thin to the point of starvation as the resu~t ot
a nutrition study, ran to the bars of their cage and screamed.at
us. At U.C.L.A., there were two dogs being used for gastro-
intestinal research which were emaciated, one of which lay prone
and unable to rise. The veterinarian who accompanied us said that
these animals were overdue for euthanasia. In addition to the
above instances, we also saw animals with tumors and bandaged
heads from which protruded implanted connectors. We at no time
witnessed any person conducting an experiment on any animal.
We did not see all of the animals housed at all of the facilities
we visited.
The environment in the research facilities we visited, even when
it was up to the highest standards now set, did not, in our opinion,
meet many of the needs of the animals. In most instances, animals
were isolated from others of their kind in cages which allowed
them only to lie down, stand up and turn around. Some antmals we
saw had been confined in this way for months and, in a few instances,
years. We were told by staff at Cedars-Sinai and U.C.L.A. that
the dogs were removed from their, cages once a day for exercise
in runs measuring about one-third the size of a run at our city
shelters. At Veterans Administration, a few dogs were housed in
indoor-outdoor runs comparable to those in our shelters, but
most were caged and taken out only when they were to be used tor
experiments. Environmental conditions at U.S.C. were the best we
-.- ----
. .
t.
.~~
~V)
'l ~
~~
Ar.lmals in Research Advisory committee
Page 9
saw for dogs. There was more spacious housing for most of the
dogs, more reel exercise time was given - long-term dogs were
walked daily, and there was much social interaction between the
animals and handler.
According to Dr. Fox, laboratory animals need varied sttmuli and
~
soclal interaction, not only for their own well-being, but also
so that they may be good models for research. A booklet dis-
-~_._-~'
tributed by the U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare
also emphasizes the importance of controlling environment to
reduce the psychological stress on laboratory animals.*
B. PAIN, DEBILITATION, DUPLICATION
Federal law permits painful experiments. Standards set forth by
the Secretary of Agriculture for the humane care of laboratory
animals, including the use of anesthetics, analgesics and tran-
quilizers, state that "nothing in these rules, regulations, or
standards shall effect or ~nterfere with the design, outlines,
guidelines, or performances of actual research or expertmentation
by a research facility as determined by such research facility.*O
--. - ---
At some research facilities, a veterinarian is empowered to reject
an experiment proposed by an investigator. (One such rejected
experiment at U.C.L.A. would have entailed forcing a dog to wear
a helmet-like device from which jets of air would continually
hit one spot on the gums.) Our concern is that painful or
* "Preoperative and postoperative Care of the Laboratory Dog,"
N. Bletcher, (Supervisor, Animal Surgery Laboratory, Depart-
ment of Surgery, School of Medicine, U.C.L.A., 1959
** u. S. Code, Title 9, ~. ~., 197~
Animals in Research Advi9~~y Committee
Page 10
debilitating experiments do occur when a veterinary statf for
one reason or another does not exercise its power. It is possible
for an investigator alone to determine the validity of and.
justification for the experiment without thought of the suffering
~might cause in as much as one of the main functions of the
veterinary staff, we were told, is to supply the right animal
for the experiment.
An additional concern of ours is that the term "pain" is not
defined in the Animal Welfare Act or standards promulgated by
the Secretary of Agriculture, but by implication would seem to
be limited to distress which could be alleviated by painkillers.
r Legally, then, a research facility need not be concerned with.
debilitation or psychological discomfort resulting from an
experiment.
Last, there must be much duplication of painful and otherwise
distressing experiments for animals in as much as there is no
nationwide "clearing house" where types of experiments are recorded.
C. POUND A~n':ALS IN RESEARCH
Most of the dogs and cats we saw at research facilities had been
purchased from publiC shelters. Place purchased and date of
purchase were noted on cage cards for each. Even those animals
purchased only a tew days prior to our visit appeared in excellent
condition, well-fed, with good coats, and friendly. They did not
appear to be the neglected pet which strayed and no one bothered
to look for. We believe that many of these animals, espeoially
dogs, ended up in one shelter while their owners looked for them
in another. This is not difficult to accept if one considers the
Antmals in Research Advisory
mmittee
Page 11
\
\
I
I
jigsaw puzzle of animal control jurisdictions within the bound-
aries or Los Angeles county.
The use of former pets in research facilities and their acquisition
from our city shelters create. two significant problems for us as
persons concerned with both humaneness and effective animal control.
On a humane level, we believe that former pets suffer acutely in
a laboratory environment. Dr. Dallas Pratt, fellow of the American
psychiatric Association, says it succinctlY: ".. · there can be
little doubt that the confinement, the boredom, the losS of
companionshiP, and the suffering repeatedlY inflicted (inexplicabla
to e gentlY nurtured pet) add up to maximum distress for an animal
which was not born and raised as s caged prisoner."*
From an animal control standpoint, pound seizure destroys the entire
concept of an animal shelter which is supposed to protect the ani-
mals within its confines. The Department of Animal Regulation has
made many advances in the humane treatment of impounded animals
which should helP bring about the public trust so necessary if we
are to do effective animal control. But fear pf pound seizure
continues to loom as a specter in the eyes of many animal lovers
who still refuse .to surrender found animals to a shelter system
which sells to laboratories and in which, therefore, they have
little trust.
Last, we believe there are grave problems inherent in our city
ordinance mandating pound seizure (Sec. 53.11 (h), L.A.M.C.). W.
* Dellas Pratt, M.D., Painful Experiments ~ Animals, Argus
Archives, 1976, p. lU2
Animals in Research Advisorj ommittee
Page 12
believe it is impossible to guarantee that some important pro-
visions of the ordinance ara being adhered to or have been adhered
to for the past 30 years of the law's existence. In fact, .we
believe there have been repeated violations of both the spirit
and lett~r of the law:
The ordinance specifically states that impounded animals surrenderad
for research shall be "used humanely." The word "humane" is defined
in Funk & Wagnalls ~ Practical Standard Dictionar~, Britannica
World Langua!!e Edition (1957) as "having or showing kindness and
tenderness; compassionate," and is further explained as "Humane
denotes what may rightly be expeoted of mankind at its best in
the treatment of sentient beings." We believe that lt ls the.
intent of the ordinance and was the intent of the electorate which
voted it into law that anlmals sold to laboratories from our
shel ters be trea ted exec tly as defined, "humanely." The faot i8
they often are not.
The certification process whereby it is deoided that oertain in-
stitutions will use animals humanely and may therefore purchase
impounded an1~s is based, according to both city and oounty
veterinary staffs, on the fedaral Animal Welfare Act. The Antmal
Welfare Act addresses itself to;ninimum._standards for housing and
maintenance only and permits the infliction of pain and suffering ~
-----
for the sake of an sxperimsnt. Its use as a standard for certifi-
oation, therefore, does not insure that animals sold from our
shelters to research are being "used humanel,.."
Antmals in Research Advisory ~ommittee
Page 13
An additional problem with oertiticetion is that the process
itselt has not been working as mandated by law. The veterinar,
services branch ot the County Department ot Health Services ha.
been responsible tor the certification procedure since the merger
ot the city end county heelth departments. However, and by their
own admission, county ofticials do not deem it their responsibility
to notify the City when an institution is no longer certitied.
As a result, the City inadvertentlY violated its ordinance by
selling animals to the Veterans' Administration in West Los Angele.
tor almost three years (January, 1978 to September, 1980) after
that facility had requested county officials that it be removed from
the certified list.
Last, our city ordinance specifically states that animals from our
city shelters only be sold to intitutions within the City whic~
have been certified. In reality, animals have been sold to a
certified facility within the City only to then be trensterred to
an "affiliate" institution outside the City which has not beeD
~ certified. As a case in point, animals sold to U.S.C. under term.
of the ordinan~ were moved to a tacility es far away as Palm Springa.
------------
D. PRACTICE- SURGE~Y
Budding surgeons in the United States practice their cratt OD
animsls. Many of the dogs sold to medicsl schools or hospital.
trom our shelters are used tor this purpose. Sometimes thes.
animals are euthanized betore they come out of the anesthetic.
ether times they are used repeetedly. We observed one such dog at
U.C.L.A. Our veterinarian escort told us that while the practic.
Animals in Research Advi~~ry Committee
Page 14
. .
of using an animal over and over again was generally frowned upon,
that this particular dog "seemed to be doing nicely" after several
surgeries.
Dr. Carl Rowan of the Institute for the Study of Animal Problems,
who himself has an extensive background 1n animal research in
England, told us that medical students are trained differently in
many other countries. In England, the Cruelty to Animals Act ot
1876 bans experiments on animals for the purpose of obtaining
manual dexterity. In that country, Dr. Rowan said, students
stand at the side of a skilled surgeon and are gradually trained
by participating in an operation on a human.
)
The difference between the two methods has raised questions in
our minds in view of the vast numbers of animals sacrificed yearly
in this country for practice surgery.
E. QUALIFICATIONS FOR INVESTIGATORS
At present, investigators need know nothing about the physiological
or psychological makeup of the animal on which they experiment. The
results of ~~an consumption of drugs and chemicals such as Thalido-
mide, DES and saccharin - all extensively tested on animals - have
been well publicized. Without getting into the argument about whether
or not animals can be validly used for such purposes, we believe
that requiring a researcher to be knowledgeable about a proposed
animal model can only be beneficial, both to the animal and to
research.
Animals in Research Advisory Comm1ttee
Page 15
F. ACQUISITION BY DEALERS
Under federal law, research fac1lit1es must acqu1re the1r an1mal
models from 11censed dealers, but the latter can obta1n an1ma1s
from anywhere. It 1s be11eved by many people 1n the Los Angeles--
Orange County area that one dealer has fraudulently obta1ned cats
from pet owners who have advert1sed by representing himself as
a prospect1ve home. And, of course, reports of pet knapp1ng are
recurrent.
G. TOXICITY AND IR~ITANCY TESTING
Animals are used 1n a var1ety of tests to determ1ne the toxio
or 1rr1tant potent1al of many consumer products, from drugs to
detergents and cosmet1cs.
The LD-50 test 1s one of these. Its name stands for "lethel dosage
for 50 per cent of the an1mals used." The test cons1sts of feeding
mass1ve doses of the test substance to a group of animals to d1s-
cover at what dosage level half of them d1e. The test substance
1s administered 1n the food, by capsule or by stomach tube.
The Dra1ze ~eat (named for 1ts inventor) 1s used to determ1ne the
eye irr1tancy of a product. Rabb1ts are used because they have
no tear ducts which would wash away the substance, and because
their corneas are extremely sens1t1ve. The rabb1ts are restra1ned
1n stocks and the substance placed in the eyes, with reactionfJ".sucb
as ulceration, recorded.
Ani!lial~ in Research Advi~"Iry Comlnittee
Page 16
Animals also are used to test the respiratory effects of aerosol
products, such as hair sprays.
Toxicity and irritancy tests are not specifically required for
cosmetics by the Food and Drug Administration, although many
people believe they are required because most major companies do
test. FDA regulations state only that a cosmetic's ingredients
shall be adequately substantiated for safety prior to marketing
or carry a warning label. It is possible to buy safe cosmetics
which have not been tested on animals.
,
Some products other than cosmetics, such as pesticides, general
household products and medicines, are subject by law to testing.
Controversy over the use of animals in these tests is growing,
with both the ethics (particularly as applied to vanity products)
and reliability of the tests being questioned. A coalition to
stop the Draize tests was formed earlier this year on the grounds
that such tests are not only cruel but unreliable.
H. THE SCIENTIFIC ELITE
Judging by ()-ur- own experience, it is an almos t impossible task for
the ordinary citizen to discover what is being done in the field-
of research using animals, and for what purpose. Unless the results
of an experiment have news value (see Attachment A), the lay
person is simply given general terms such as "ulcer researCh,
nutrition studies, thoracic experiments," etc.
Animals in Research Advisory Committee
Page 11
ATTACHMENT A
. ~;;':;Ij~: .t, ~..:+ . '. '.~>.:~L'::'~ ~~. .~~~;.~ .:;: ~':i.i,..:!,:t;~; ,:..~ ~....:~:. ~ : '.~i-'..J~;:~. :'.":',..~.i:~'~:~~~:~;}:; ~ ~;!:;'~l.!-4;;5...
":I:f'f-:'r"BOSS'S";-JOS--'''.AN'' BE"':'A'" 'KILl': ER ~,,-;;!'~.+
[~~~~'\.,.. .,'.' . . '. .,' ..\ ...' '~A. ::. :..... ,:::: ""1'::':""'" .' :"r"": ,.6X1~::~;~.-
. -:,,:l;,.~. ,", ift..... f' n:~-;(':; '.' '.;.... .:: I"'-..~.........~. <.''!~''''''!' ?"'q,.,:',.....,,'.'.,...~!. ~::I.. -..:-'-:'t~' . ,." '... :~;'~""."
:........-.. ,~. 2,"":, to..tT ,... ~i f.j,'" -':1:~ ,.1 ' .'...... \. I. I" .,1, ,'.J,.r'.. ';,.I . ......... i . '." ~'., ';_.
." - yOO;J;enoMnty' em' b4i'aitered 8bbPIY hi." "nirinkey~~vecJ'.bOW 'butOftIy oiJe'dt ...'~:!::..
';,;,-.~wbe~ryou are the boss or the bossed. a now- .pair<:ou.ld prevent them.. '.' ., .,....... ..~'., ,..~;..i',jJ..
.'. . . classic 8tudy or monkeys at the Walter Reed . "'The experimental. or: ~executlve'~' monkeY J ,\:
';,~ :'Anny Institute or Research Sugge8ted more than eou1d prevent shocks to himself and hJI 'part.der';r ~;.
. ~1! " 20 years ago. And It confirmet1.:what business eir-. by pressing the lever; the conlrol monkey', Jeni'>'j.ji,
~.;. ecuUves have 10ns knoWD:.the stresses allied-' . WD.. dWlUlJ,Y .~and .1Us. deciltoDl mley...t).:~",..;
~.., Bion-makingareenougb to give you an ulcer. .: ';: Bradysaid.'" ': <: '. . ,:.' ......" ;. : "::""
-'jl1'. BehaVioral btoIOgist Josepb .Bnldy; nowrt1 . Alone ObIerver'deseribed the~iCine:'~.r~tt)
f 'Johns Hopkins University, WD COOducfJnB ...-: . time the .executive monke,' makes. 1liistake...dO.
.. . ries of experiments on emotional behavior when they both _gel." ,boCk. The 'peon~ or controli'; ti.
. ,ODe group of his animal, su~ InexpUcably . monkey II out. there jUst t.I'ying to get alongaDcl. . ;~:. .
. ; " died. Autopsies revealed-they bad developed ul." every now ~d then-zap! His decisiona an.;. .j
.. . c:enr and suffered other gastrointestinal damage,' without tJ:1fluence: he doesn't know wby be., pt~. " ;' ~ "
a nre occurrence in laboratory aniInalJ. So Brady . t1ng zapped. The executive monkey ImoWl eact;.. '.
. andbisteamtoot.cloeerlook.":> , ',.' '. ..:'. IywbY-hisdeclsionsmakethedifl~,:.,
So-called "executive" 'monkey.. beld In toe-,.. 'he dies ofa pepUC ulcer." " .... . ,: '~"':'.
. training chairs, had beeri t.i'8ined to avoid eJeC:tr1c' ;, ': 'AI the experiments progressed. the eaeuttYe~~"'.,
.bocks by pressing a Jever'-The anini.f would re~ . .:' monk~ys BOt tncreasingly irritable. crank, aDd ~. .
celve . abock to the leet at regular, intervals. siy' " neurotic. .....and again developed uleen. But,the '; .
every 20 seconds. unless it ,learned to press the ' peons not only faded to develop ulcers, the,.,'
.: lever at least that often; -, ~" c" .- -. seemed to get tamer.' more docUe.11lOn! puilve.~. ;.;;,
. 'To test the possibWty 'that physical Itresa.Iiot It wu 0 thougb they adopted an fUjtUde ,af :,,!
. I : :c.,JJIYehological stress, had caused the uleers. a 1eC"- "'that', life-~very aow; end .tlten. zap. J/O ~w"'.~ !i;{\~.
~:~;~~~:e;;:~:;,:-;~':f~=;~:~:~~;, .~~~~~;~j~~k~i~~i:ft~~~~,i~~~~~~~;~:
LOS ANGELES TIMES
August 25, 1980
/ ~.mals in Research Advisor~ Coromi ttee
Page l'a
Part-of the problem, we realize, is due to the specialized nature
of the work being done and the difficulty in translating it into
lay terms. We believe, however, that there are two other factorc
at work: an elitist stance and a defensive posture on the part
of much of the research community. Whatever the reasons, the re-
suIting public ignorance has brought about a lack of public control.
Legal constraints are few, and the real decision-making is done by
the grant-giving agencies, paramount of which is the National
Institutes of Health, which dispenses taxpayers' money. It is
difficult to think of any other field of endeavor supported so
..
generously by public funds where the same amount of trust is placed.
III. RECOMr-:ENDATIONS
A. The City of Los Angeles should adopt an ordinance en-
compassing the following points in order to protect all animals,
i. e., all live vertebrate creatures, used for research in the City.
1. All animals in research, testing or teaching facilities,
or in facilities where they are used for the production of medical
or veterinarj products, shall be humanely treated in the gen~relly
accepted sense ~f~he word, i. e., with the kindness and compassion
that exemplifies the best qualities of humankind in its treatment
of sentient creatures.
2. All animals used in such facilities shall be properly
fed, watered, handled and housed, such last to include proper
sanitation, protection from extremes of weather and temperatures,
and space for normal exercise.
imals in Research Advisor.. Committee
Page 19
3. All animals used in such facilities shall be given
adequate veterinary care, including the appropriate use ot
anesthetic, analgesic or tranquilizing drugs when such use -shall
be deemed proper.
4. All animals used in such facilities shall be separated
by species when such separation is necessary for humane reasons.
5. No animels in such facilities shall be subject to the
1lSVC\\O L06jcA,-
immediate physical sensation of pain, or to debilitation or I' I · .
and behavioral distress. If any animal is to be subject t~ any
procedure which would involve immediate physical distress or pain,
the ani~al shall be used onl~ after being adequately anesthetized.
Any r~utin~ veterinary procedures, such as injections, etc., should
be exempted. Pain, debilitation 'or distress caused by the inflic-
tion of a disease must be alleviated by the administration ot
adequate anesthetics, analgesics or tranquilizers.
6. Animals which are used in experiments which would
result in pain or lack of normal functioning after the anesthesia
has worn off, and which cannot be controlled by analgesics or
tran~uilizers during a normal recovery period, shall be humanely
destroyed with the most accepted means of euthanasia available.
7.- No animal shall be used for more than one unrelated
operative procedure or for related operative procedures of the
same type not united by a common hypothesis.
8. No animal which is used for practice surgery shall be
allowed to recover from the anesthetic and must be euthanized at
the conclusion of the surgerf.
Page 20
An1mals in Research Advisory committee
9. A veterinarian must be in attendance during any eurg1cal
procedure performed on any animal.
10. No animal will be ueed in medical, commercial or
educational research if an alternative ex1ste.
11. There shall be improved pSycholOgical environments for
all animalS, including more spacious housing, space for normal
exerc1sa, lesS isclat10n from memberS of the same species, and more
handling and socialization by humans in the case of thoSe an1male
which are accustomed to or can benefit from human contact.,
12. The use of the to-50 and Dra1ze tests for cosmeticS
shall be prohibited.
13. Each animal research, testing or teaching facility,
or facility which uses animals for the production of medical or
veterinary products, shall appoint an overview committee con-
sisting of five concerned and knowledgeable persons in the field
of animal welfare, one of whom shall be a veterinarian, and one
of whom shal~be a representative of an animal welfare organization.
The committee shall be responsible for the care and use of animals
according to the above provisions. It shall alao have the power
to approve or disapprove an experiment based upon the pain, de-
bilitation or pSycholOgical suffering to which an an1mal is subject,
order euthanasia when needed, and refuse animal models to investi-
gators who do not evidence sufficient knowledge of the an1mal in
question. It shall also keep records on all experiments done and
their results.
\nimals in Research Advisory Committee
Page 21
. .
,
14. Licensed animal dealers must submit to the City a list
of animals acquired, the names and addresses of the persons from
whom they were acquired, and the dates of acquisition, such in-
formation to be a matter of public record and_posted at City Hall
and all city shelters as is now the practice with animals to be
auctioned and animals listed on impound sheets.
B. The City of Los Angeles should cell for an immediate
moratorium on the sale of impounded animals to research under
Sec. 53.11 (h), L.A.M.C. on the grounds that the ordinanoe bas
been proven unenforceable. The City should also take whatever
steps necessary to rescind the ordinance and institute instead
a prohibition against the surrender of impounded animals tor
research, testing or teaching, or laboratory work of any kind..
IV. CONCLtJSION
The Advisory Committee is in unanimous agreement that pound
seizure is undesirable and a detriment to effectiv~ animal control
in that it alienates much of the general public from the shelter
syste~.
Even when pound animals are no longer used for research, however,
there will still-be animals suffering in laboratories. That is
why we haye addressed our recommendations to include all animals
vsed for research in the City. ~e believe that adoption of our
recommendations would make the City a forerunner in the humane
regulation of animals used in researob.
A~imals in Research Advisory Committee
Page 22
Our recommendations are based on two strong beliefs which have
grown out of our year of exploration and studYl
First, in the words of Isaac Asimov (see Attaohment B)~ "The
knowledge that scientific advance oannot be abandoned must not
give scientists false confidence. They must not feel that they
are too necessary to be assailed, that they can be rigidly 1n-
different to public clamor.
They dare not assume the role of
an invulnerable priesthood.
"
. . .
Second, the research community and the animal welfare community
\
have an obligation to work together to demonstrate that kindness
and comoassion towards all living things can be an integral part
of the search for a better and longer life for humankind.
--~
~ITY OF SAN BEF._ JARDINO
ATTACHMENT "E"
- MEMORANDUI\..
To:. JAMES ROBBINS
ACTING CITY ADMINISTRATOR
Subject: AVAILABILITY POLlCY /POUND SEIZURE
From: DEBORAH L. BIGGS
DIRECTOR OF ANIMAL CONTROL
Date: OCTOBER 28, 1988
Approved
Date
On October 3, 1988 the Council voted to send the "availability policy"
to your office for further consideration in loosening the restrictions.
As you know, the Animal Advisory Commission has voted twice in favor
of the current policy. It is also the desire of the Commission to see
a total ban on the sale of animals to research. The reasons are:
1. Pound seizure is counter-productive to an animal control
central program. Residents who use our 'services over-
whelmingly do not want the animals sold and therefore
are reluctant to turn in strays, leaving them on our
city's streets where they then become an animal control
problem.
2. The adoption and redemption rates have substantially
increased in the last two years.
3. The overall use of our facil ity has increased. More
owners have turned their animals in, knowing they will
be protected from going to research.
4. Staff morale has increased substantially over the last
1~ years.
5. The revenue lost from the sale of animals has/will be
made up through more positive, productive programs such
as the year to date licensing, the citation system and
owner release fees.
There are only six agencies in the state that "officially" sell animals,
San Bernardino being one of them.
I have attached documentation from Orange County and the City of Los
Angeles that led up to their ban on the sale of animals to research.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
IC.d'tfia-1- c/ &g;J-- ~
I :
..
~ ~
-4 ,
(a) ]Il1o
o
X
-
~ ?=
0;> 0
....
N ~
W
DEBORAH L. BIGGS
Director of Animal Control
DLB/js