A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW

The Best Intentions of Congress Give Rise to Pet Owners' Worst Fears

Since the turn of the century, there has been a commercial demand for dogs and cats to serve as models used in scientific experimentation throughout the United States. Many facilities had been obtaining animals from pounds and individuals, but by the 1960's increasing public opposition to pound seizure of companion animals lowered the supply even as the demand was skyrocketing. Additionally, many research facilities valued the ease of placing orders from dealers and having the animals delivered rather than sending a truck and being limited to the animals available at local pounds on any given day. Because of the demand for live specimens and the cost of breeding and raising them, the financial incentive to use "random source" animal dealers grew.

In its February 4, 1966 issue, Life Magazine exposed the wide-scale theft of America's companion animals for use in scientific experimentation. The article resulted in a great public outcry, which compelled the U.S. Congress to pass the 1966 Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, later renamed the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The original Congressional policy statement reveals that the primary intent of this act was "... to protect the owners of animals from the theft of their animals, to prevent the sale or use of animals which have been stolen, and to insure that certain animals intended for use in research facilities or for exhibition purposes or for use as pets are provided humane care and treatment."

A subsequent amendment to the Act included ¤ 2146, which states "...the provisions of Title II of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970 are made applicable to the jurisdiction, powers, and duties of the Secretary in administering and enforcing [the AWA]." However, the USDA has shown itself to be ill-equipped to regulate this complicated interstate system.

Before the Act became law, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Orville L. Freeman gave testimony before the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee and definitively expressed reservations with regulatory responsibility by saying, "The operating methods of people who steal family pets and the commercial aspects of the purchase and transfer of dogs and cats in commerce are not areas as to which this Department has expertise." From the very beginning, forthright USDA administrators did not feel the Department was capable of properly implementing this type of anti-theft system. Time has shown that this assessment was correct.

According to former Congressman Rod Chandler, "... the USDA has not adequately been enforcing the [Animal Welfare] Act. In the first ten years after the law was enacted in 1966, the USDA brought a total of two enforcement actions. USDA's more recent failure to enforce the Act is documented by the General Accounting Office in its May 16, 1985, report. 'Every major violation of the act that has been revealed in recent years has been brought to light by a source other than the USDA."

On March 6, 1986, in response to a legislator's request for a legal analysis, the Congressional Research Service issued a flawed memorandum. The memorandum states that, "...the purpose of the [Animal Welfare] Act was to benefit animals, not people." In fact, the Congressional intent of the AWA was to protect pet owners from the theft of their property. The opinion put forth in this memorandum fits a pattern of denying the property rights of pet owners in the United States.

In 1990, Congress passed an amendment to the AWA spearheaded by Senator Wendell Ford (D-KY), an eye witness to the theft of his own son's dog. On the Senate floor, he told his colleagues, "I did not know what was happening at the time, but I do now." The Ford amendment included requirements for documentation of the original source of randomly collected companion animals. Unfortunately, as has been demonstrated in this report, the flow of stolen and fraudulently obtained animals continues unabated. These new provisions, however, have provided the evidence which proves widespread and deliberate attempts by class B dealers to mislead Federal investigators as to the origin of random source animals.


Return to Report Index - Return to Main Index


CONGRESS MUST SPEAK AGAIN

The Will of the People Shall be Enacted

Any proposed solution to this problem will create controversy among those with competing and often conflicting interests. The events of 1966, in which Congress enacted a law, part of whose intent was completely circumvented, must not be repeated. The property rights of America's pet owners, which have thus far been denied, must be permanently protected in any proposed solution.

While having companion animals tattooed and/or microchipped can assist in their ultimately being reunited with their owners, these methods cannot begin to protect animals from being stolen and used in experimentation. Identifying an animal in this way is helpful only if the animal ultimately falls into the hands of someone who is actively seeking to return it. These forms of identification cannot prevent pet theft, nor can they guarantee that stolen animals used in experimentation will be detected since any random source animal, even one legally obtained, could bear this identification.

Assistant Secretary Dunn, in a February 13, 1996 meeting with LCA representatives, said that the USDA has laid out a strategy involving changes in regulation, changes in legislation, and improved partnership with state agencies. He assured those present that a legislative proposal was imminent, and that concerns regarding stopping the illegal activities of class B dealers would be addressed to the satisfaction of the public. Additionally, the January 1996 APHIS report titled "Strategic Direction for the Animal Care Program" states that, "APHIS is currently sponsoring new legislation..." No such legislation has yet emerged.

While LCA supports strengthening any regulations regarding the humane care of animals, any mere overhaul of this inherently flawed system to thwart pet theft is doomed to fail. As long as random source animal dealers can sell dogs and cats for cash, the financial incentive will exist for the dealers to obtain and sell stolen pets. Moreover, recent cutbacks in USDA staffing will further weaken its ability to properly enforce the existing laws.

A controversial solution would be for Congress to enact a law forbidding the supply of all dogs and cats for sale into research. While this suggestion may sound extreme, in fact, it does reflect Americans' attitudes towards companion animals as well as current trends in medical research. The nationwide increase in anti-pound seizure laws which prohibit shelters from selling dogs and cats to laboratories demonstrates that Americans would rather have companion animals painlessly killed than used in experimentation.

Proponents of this solution maintain that because dogs and cats have been domesticated throughout history as pets, they have a special relationship with people. Therefore, many people find it reasonable to recognize this bond through a prohibition of their use in scientific experimentation.

While finding support among the public, this solution would certainly meet opposition from special interest groups. Some researchers would oppose it because it may increase the cost of certain experiments. Others would see it as the beginning of a total ban on using animals in experiments.


Return to Report Index - Return to Main Index


THE SOLUTION

It is the position of LCA and the nearly 500 groups it represents that Congress should enact HR 594, the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 1997. This amendment to the AWA effectively mandates that no random source animal dealers can sell dogs or cats for scientific experimentation in the United States.

This modification of the licensing system is in accordance with the January 1996 Strategic Direction for the Animal Care Program report released by APHIS. The report requests legislative changes to the current system which include:

"The authority to require, within two years, that dogs and cats used for research purposes be acquired only from: a licensed dealer on whose premises the dog or cat was born or raised...; a pound or shelter; or a research facility. (Currently, dogs and cats can be obtained from class B dealers who buy and sell non-purpose bred animals for research purposes, thereby providing the potential of stolen animals to be involved.)"

Such an amendment would effectively modify the class B dealer license to prohibit the sale of randomly obtained dogs and cats for research models, and should set forth stiff penalties for dealers or researchers who violate the proposed amendment.

Research facilities could still legally obtain dogs and cats from class A dealers, and from local municipal pounds where permitted. Under "Proposed Regulatory Changes", the January, 1996 APHIS report proposes regulatory changes that include, "The prohibition of random source animal dealers selling for research purposes from operating as contract pounds." The amendment must stipulate that only publicly run pounds may sell animals to research. Anything less would enable class B dealers to simply enter into agreements whereby they become local "pounds". This would enable them to continue their existing business practices uninterrupted, and escape even those inspections to which they are currently subject.

The current system of animal procurement for scientific models shows evidence of larceny, interstate trafficking of stolen property, bribery, obstruction of justice and program fraud. It is an affront not only to all people who own pets, but also to all American citizens who believe in law and order. This amendment would help to assure Americans that their household pets cannot be used in scientific experimentation, thereby freeing the government of the fiscal and logistical burden of regulating random source animal dealers who sell to research. Unnecessary regulations would be eliminated, tax dollars would be saved, and the USDA's credibility would be restored, enabling the agency to concentrate on its principle mission to protect the health and welfare of plants and animals.

HR 594, the Pet Safety and Protection Act of 1997, whose primary sponsors were Rep. Canady (R-FL) and Rep. Brown (D-CA), clearly and concisely amends the Animal Welfare Act to stop class B dealers from selling random source dogs and cats to research facilities. This bill was supported by LCA and hundreds of other organizations across the country.

In the August 1st Congressional hearing on the bill, opponents representing the research community claimed that, if enacted, this legislation would impact research by significantly driving up the cost of obtaining laboratory animals, and adversely impact research. However, the USDA estimates an increase in cost to the research community of only 12 million dollars per year. This nominal increase is attributed to a reliance on more expensive purpose bred animals. This number is based upon fiscal year 1993 data, so the dollar figure should be even lower given that USDA statistics show a drop of almost 25% of dogs and cats used in research by 1995. This dollar increase is less than one tenth of one percent of the total Federal expenditures for biomedical research. This figure is an even smaller percentage of the total cost when private funding sources are also taken into consideration and accounted for in the cost projections. This minuscule cost increase would come as the NIH budget for biomedical research has significantly increased over the last 2 years.

Opponents to this reform allege the cost increase would be significant. This allegation is either erroneous or indicates that the actual number of animals being used is far greater than the officially reported statistics.

Committee member Rep. Peterson (D-MN) stated the proposed legislation would "... impede, if not halt life saving research." This type of grandiose statement is indicative of the polarized viewpoints on animal research, both pro and con, which have crippled attempts to amend the current system to protect family pets. Peterson went on to say that, "The USDA already has the authority to enforce the AWA which regulates [the] class B dealers addressed in these bills." It is clear that even some members of Congress remain unaware of the USDA's own admission that it is unable to adequately enforce the AWA.

Return to Report Index - Return to Main Index


THE COST OF INACTION AND THE BENEFITS OF ACTION

The Waking Giant of Public Opinion

Over the past two decades, concerned individuals and later animal protection organizations began to investigate the business practices of class B dealers. Organizations as varied as Protect Our Pets in Missouri to the Animal Protection Institute based in California have invested resources and, as in the case of LCA, put their members at risk of personal injury in order to document and expose this problem. Rather than focusing on corrupt individuals and local instances of pet theft, the entire system must be addressed.

Major newspapers and television stations across the nation have begun to focus on this issue. For example, KARE TV Channel 11, NBC's local affiliate in Minneapolis, aired a report on the University of Minnesota's purchase of dogs from class B dealers who have failed to comply with the AWA's recordkeeping and animal care requirements. Similar reports have aired in recent years on KYW Philadelphia (NBC), WHPTV Harrisburg (CBS), WGRZ Buffalo (NBC), KCAL Los Angeles, and many others. National programs such as ABC 20/20, CBS Eye to Eye, CNN news, CNBC Steals and Deals, NBC Dateline and other national magazine shows have aired segments exposing class B dealers supplying research facilities in California, Oregon, Washington, Missouri, Minnesota, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Florida, Texas and other states.

Almost 500 groups nationwide now participate in National Pet Theft Awareness Day (February 14). Groups ranging from local humane societies, to law enforcement agencies, to civic organizations, to national animal protection organizations such as Friends of Animals have participated in the effort to educate their members about this issue. In fact, there is no other issue that so unites the many animal protection and welfare groups as does ending pet theft. These varied groups, in turn, represent millions of taxpaying citizens.

While there are many problems beyond Congress' control, the theft and fraudulent acquisition of companion animal for use in experimentation is not among them. While voters are divided on most issues, everybody loves their dog and cat. Many consider the household pet to be an integral member of the traditional American family. Indeed, concerned voters write more letters to Congress about animal welfare than any other issue.

Animal advocacy organizations have begun publishing lists of politicians' voting records on animal issues, and the 150 million pet owners of America, like an awakening giant, are just now realizing their collective voting power.

The class B dealer problem is one of law enforcement, government inefficiency, waste of taxpayer dollars, and confidence in government. APHIS is woefully out of compliance with the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), a law whose purpose is to improve the confidence of the American people in the capability of Federal Government by holding Federal agencies accountable for achieving program results.

In the August 1st Congressional hearing, Rep. Brown stated that, "It would seem on the face of it that eliminating the class B dealers would both save money to the [Agriculture] Department, and eliminate one level of regulations", to which Assistant Secretary Dunn responded, "it would eliminate one heck of a headache for us..."

LCA urges members of Congress to immediately introduce and enact corrective legislation to once and for all lay this issue to rest.

Return to Report Index - Return to Main Index


APPENDIX A

Debate continues over the actual number of stolen or fraudulently obtained animals sold into research.

Animal advocacy groups, pet food producers and veterinary groups across the United States estimate that over two million household dogs and cats disappear each year. Most of these animals are never again seen by their owners. An unknown percentage of these animals have been stolen and end up in Federally and privately funded scientific and medical research facilities. Responding to a question of how many animals are stolen each year, Assistant Secretary Dunn at the August 1st Congressional hearing stated that, "We really don't have any knowledge of that... Our charge is to enforce the Animal Welfare Act and the licensing of dealerships. The theft of pets, which would be state and local violations would be recorded by local officials."

In fact, accurate statistics are not available from local law enforcement officials. Often it is unclear whether a pet was stolen or escaped shelter by its own doing. Yet many other times, a broken gate or lock is a probable indication of pet theft. Even so, few people report this crime to local law enforcement, and even fewer law enforcement agencies will take the report seriously or compile statistics on this crime. Obscuring the numbers even further is the fact that almost all people who are deceived into giving away their animals from "free to good home" ads never know that they have been victimized through theft by deception.

Another route for discerning how many stolen animals could possibly end up in research is to look at the total number of animals used by research facilities. The Johns Hopkins Center for Alternatives to Animal Testing in its Fall 1994 newsletter concedes that there is "... haphazard reporting of laboratory animal use in the U.S.", and it is therefore, "...difficult to prove or disprove the claim" regarding the totals of animals used. However, as far back as 1966, Life Magazine reported that "Laboratories now need almost 2 million dogs a year."

The USDA officially reports that 101,000 dogs and 33,000 cats were used in scientific experimentation in 1994, and approximately 89,400 dogs 29,500 cats in 1995. These numbers are based on year-end reports filed with the USDA by research facilities. The reports cannot be verified, and research facilities have a great incentive to under-report their usage of companion-type animals to avoid criticism from the public. Additionally, a 1994 random sampling of seventeen research facilities revealed that the number of dogs the USDA officially reported for each facility was significantly lower than the totals reported by the facilities directly to the pubic. A 1994 survey was conducted by the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), a biomedical industry lobbying group. This survey indicates that the total number of dogs and cats used in research is over three times higher than the official USDA figure.

A February, 1995 internal APHIS review cites that "... many [inspection] reports are lacking inventory numbers..." Additionally, factors such as off-site research, and non USDA regulated activities (such as classroom dissection and U.S. military experiments) suggest that the official USDA estimates are extremely low.

In his written testimony sent to the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Livestock, Dairy and Poultry, Assistant Secretary Dunn states that in fiscal year 1995, from 35% to 45% of research dogs and cats came from class B dealers. This means that between 41,600 to 53,500 dogs and cats were sold by class B dealers into research. The totals of dogs and cats sold are reported by research facilities and are not verifiable. Additionally, the percentage figure of how many animals were obtained from class B dealers, as opposed to class A breeders and pounds, is nothing more than an estimate based upon a polling of USDA field inspectors.

In his written testimony, Dunn includes a table of sales which includes 50 dealers and totals 46,303 dogs and cats. The table says Hodgins Kennels in Michigan sells 1,002 animals annually, yet court transcripts of the USDA proceedings against Hodgins document that his business sold 4,695 animals in 1994. Every independent verification of USDA numbers seems to indicate that they are a vastly underestimated.

The best credible estimate is that many hundreds of thousands of companion type animals for scientific purposes each year, class B dealers sell as many as 200,000 dogs and cats each year, and some portion of these animals are stolen or fraudulently obtained.