![](media/image1.jpeg){width="3.625in" height="1.1305555555555555in"}

> "a regular basis" should be monthly, at minimum, instead of annually.
> A veterinarian cannot effectively oversee the care and use of animals
> through annual visits.
>
> ***Carbon dioxide euthanasia should be strongly discouraged***
>
> Policy 3 also states that "the method of euthanasia be consistent with
> the current Report of the American Veterinary Medical Association
> (AVMA) Panel on Euthanasia." Due to the widespread use of carbon
> dioxide alone as a euthanasia method, conflicting information that is
> available, and evidence that it causes animal pain and distress, the
> USDA's euthanasia recommendations should specifically address CO2 use,
> rather than referring readers to a document that has outdated and
> inaccurate information. CO2 used alone in rodents has been shown to
> cause pain and distress, therefore, the USDA should recommend use of
> an inhalant pre-anesthetic in conjunction with CO2 for euthanasia, as
> has been recommended by an expert working group on this issue (see
> Newcastle consensus meeting on carbon dioxide euthanasia of laboratory
> animals" at http://www.lal.org.uk/pdffiles/CO2%20Final%20Report.pdf).
> The use of CO2 alone should be strongly discouraged in all instances.
>
> ***Filing of teeth that exposes pulp should be prohibited***

The policy prohibiting declawing and defanging big cats and primates is
excellent for

> protecting the welfare of the animals. Declawing and defanging are
> painful procedures with lasting effects including lameness and
> deformities of the extremities. No benefit is provided to the animal
> and removing claws or canine teeth do not guarantee safety for the
> keeper. Bites and attacks continue when canines and claws are not
> present. Adoption of stronger language including elimination of filing
> teeth to exposed pulp would further benefit the welfare and overall
> health of the animals. Canine reduction does not protect handlers from
> injury due to these species and causes suffering, possible infection
> and continuing pain and distress for the animals.
>
> **[Policy 5: Licensing of Exotic Animal Auction Markets]{.underline}**
>
> ***Auctions should not be a venue for USDA licensed exhibitors and
> dealers to***
>
> ***sell, trade or transfer captive wild animals***

Auctions should not be a venue for USDA licensed exhibitors and dealers
to

> sell, trade or transfer captive wild animals. Records of sales from
> auctions are not readily available and many unlicensed entities
> purchase animals through these facilities. The animals many times
> become untraceable due to name changes, transfer to private hunting
> facilities or private individuals. When animals are transferred
> outside the licensing structure they often disappear into a system of
> unregulated activity.
>
> Captive wild animals in auction situations are subjected to stressful
> conditions
>
> in cramped conditions. These conditions facilitate disease transfer
> from animals to humans and vice versa, as well as between animals.
> Auctions also promote spur-of-the-moment decisions to buy animals
> without appropriate consideration of the ability to care for them.
>
> **[Policy 6: Space and Exercise Requirements for Traveling
> Exhibitors]{.underline}**
>
> ***Traveling exhibits for large felines should be eliminated***
>
> Large felines traveling in exhibits rarely are accorded sufficient
> space as described in this policy. Traveling felines are confined to
> 5' x 8' roll cages for long travel periods. They suffer in transport
> from injuries when the cages are too small. Eliminating traveling
> exhibits for large felids is recommended because exhibitors cannot
> meet the needs of these animals when transport is for an extended
> period of time.
>
> ***There should be no exemption for space requirements for traveling
> large felid exhibits and exercise pens should be required***
>
> If traveling large felid exhibits are allowed, this policy should not
> have exemption from the original definition that requires more
> stringent space requirements for vertical posturing and adequate
> space. The addition of exercise pens should be required, not optional.
> Exercise is a necessity to maintain health and muscle tone in all
> large felid species. Traveling cages should never limit the animal to
> space that is not large enough to lie down and extend their limbs
> without extension protruding from the cage. A cage that does not meet
> requirements should be disallowed. Transport for all large captive
> felines should be climate controlled.
>
> ***Traveling elephant exhibitions should be eliminated***
>
> Travel causes very stressful conditions for elephants both physically
> and psychologically. Traveling exhibits cannot meet the needs of
> elephants due to the lack of environmental enrichment, inability or
> limited ability to socialize, the domination and control that is
> required to keep elephants on the road, and the chaining and
> confinement of the elephants. Eliminating traveling elephant
> exhibitions is recommended.
>
> ***Chaining of elephants during transport and temporary exhibition
> housing should be prohibited; exercise and ad libitum water should be
> required***
>
> If traveling elephant exhibits are allowed, elephants should never be
> chained in transport or when housed on exhibition. Chaining of
> elephants limits exercise, freedom of movement, and rarely allows
> elephants to escape from lying down in their own excrement. No chain
> is long enough to provide necessary movement or social and postural
> adjustment.
>
> Climate controlled vehicles with freedom of movement should be
> required for any transport of elephants. No exemption should be
> allowed for transport that does not meet requirement for elephants.
> There should be limits on the number of hours elephants can spend in
> transport.
>
> Exercise should be provided daily and just an elephant walk should not
> be construed to provide necessary exercise requirements. There should
> not be any exemptions given to exhibitors from the exercise and space
> requirements for elephants simply because the exhibitor is on the
> road, permits its animals to participate in an animal walk, is housed
> in an in-door arena, or for any similar reason.
>
> Water access should be available to elephants constantly. Making water
> available but out of the elephants' reach where they must be walked to
> the water container is insufficient. This is particularly true during
> transportation when dehydration is regularly found in elephants.
>
> **[Policy 11: Painful Procedures]{.underline}**
>
> ***A definition of "distressful procedure" should be provided***
>
> Policy 11 is lacking guidance on animal distress---as is evidenced by
> the title of the policy: "painful procedures." The policy states that
> the "Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) is
> responsible for ensuring that investigators have appropriately
> considered alternatives to any procedures that cause more than
> momentary pain or distress." This statement is preceded by a
> definition of "painful procedure", but no definition of "distressful
> procedure" is provided. Animal distress can be experienced in the
> presence or absence of pain, and therefore a separate working
> definition of distress should be provided for investigators.
>
> A definition of distress was one of the issues in the USDA's request
> for comments regarding definitions and reporting of animal pain and
> distress (*Federal Register*, July 10, 2000) and the USDA has not yet
> taken any formal action on this issue. The HSUS conducted an analysis
> of all 2,839 comments submitted in response to this request for
> comments in order to assess the overall response regarding a
> definition of distress. It was found that 97% of the commenters
> supported the definition of distress published by the National
> Research Council (NRC) as published in *Recognition and Alleviation of
> Pain and Distress in Laboratory Animals* in 1992 if the USDA were to
> move forward with defining distress. This percentage demonstrates that
> there is general consensus among the research community (100%
> consensus among all parties will never be reached) for the NRC
> definition. The Institute for Laboratory Animal Research (ILAR)
> recently formed two committees to revise the 1992 report, one of which
> is addressing distress and the other pain. Once published, the USDA
> should consider adopting the NRC's revised definition/ description. A
> report published by a working group in the September 2006 issue of
> *Lab Animal* also provides a description of distress and supporting
> examples that could be adopted by the USDA (enclosed).
>
> ***More examples of painful and distressful procedures should be
> provided***
>
> In Policy 11, specific examples of procedures that can be expected to
> cause "more than momentary or slight" pain, or distress are provided.
> These lists should be lengthened to include other more prevalent
> procedures that would clearly cause more than momentary or slight pain
> and/ or distress, such as the following when performed without
> appropriate and complete use of anesthetics, analgesics, palliative
> care, and/or use of humane endpoints:

-   LD50 tests

-   Acute toxicity tests

-   Severe arthritis

-   Severe burns

-   Advanced infectious disease

-   Extensive irradiation

-   Recovery from major surgery without analgesics

-   Marked social deprivation

-   Prolonged restraint

-   Acute pain research

> **[Policy 12: Alternatives to Painful Procedures]{.underline}**
>
> ***A database search for alternatives to painful and/or distressful
> procedures should be required***
>
> The Animal Welfare Act requires that principal investigators consider
> alternatives to painful and distressful procedures. The USDA states
> that "in some circumstances..., conferences, colloquia, subject expert
> consultants, or other sources may provide...information regarding
> alternatives in lieu of, or in addition to, a database search." The
> words "in lieu of" should be removed from this recommendation. In
> order to ensure that all possible alternatives to painful/ distressful
> procedures are sought out, those methods mentioned should always be
> considered *in conjunction with* the standard database search.
>
> In the paragraph regarding federally-mandated animal testing that
> causes unrelieved pain and/ or distress, it states that "mandating
> agency guidelines should be consulted since they may provide
> alternatives." This paragraph should also refer investigators to the
> website of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on the Validation of
> Alternative Methods (ICCVAM) at <http://iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/> to
> check for validated alternatives to federally-mandated animal tests.
>
> **[Policy 13: Microchip Implants]{.underline}**
>
> ***All large captive felines should be required to be microchipped or
> tattooed for***

***identification purposes***

> All large captive felines should be required to be microchipped or
> tattooed for
>
> identification purposes similar to cats and dogs. Identification of
> large captive felines at times of escape or during routine inspection
> is necessary to be able to provide notification and maintain proper
> records. Tigers may be identifiable through stripe patterns yet many
> other species have no such easily recognized identity. When large
> captive felines escape there should be a readily available means of
> identification and notification of the facility. When enforcement
> agencies are assigned the task of investigation and possible
> confiscation, accurate identification of individual animals must be
> ensured.
>
> **[Policy 15: IACUC Membership]{.underline}**
>
> ***The nonaffiliated member should not be a former laboratory animal
> user***
>
> While Policy 15 states that the "nonaffiliated member cannot be a
> laboratory animal user at any research facility," USDA needs to
> clarify that the nonaffiliated member cannot be a *former* researcher
> or laboratory worker, in order to ensure that the general community is
> fairly represented by the nonaffiliated member, as is the purpose of
> that role.
>
> **[Policy 17: Annual Report]{.underline}**
>
> ***The annual report statistics should include all animals in
> laboratories, not just those used for research purposes during that
> year***
>
> In the instructions to institutions for filling out the annual report,
> "Column F" currently is the sum of Columns C, D, and E. USDA should
> require that Column F include the total animals in Columns B, C, D and
> E. Without the inclusion of animals reported in Column B ("number of
> animals being bred, conditioned, or held for use in teaching, testing,
> experiments, research or surgery but not yet used for such purposes"),
> the public is being misled as to how many animals are actually in
> laboratories.
>
> ***Clarify that failure to submit the annual report to USDA is a
> violation of the AWA***
>
> In the information pertaining to submission of annual reports by
> facilities, USDA
>
> states that "enforcement action may be initiated if the reports are
> not submitted" by the required deadline of December 1 of each year.
> This statement needs clarification that an institution not submitting
> an annual report to the USDA is actually a violation of the Animal
> Welfare Act; therefore enforcement action can be taken if it is not
> turned in.
>
> ***The categorization system should address the use (or lack) of
> non-pharmacological methods to relieve pain and/or distress and should
> reflect the levels of pain and distress experienced by the animals***
>
> The current system for reporting what animals experienced when used
> for research and the recommendations on how to fill out the annual
> report in reference to "Column E" are problematic. For example, under
> the "Special Instructions for Column E," (section IIB of Policy 17) it
> states that "a complete explanation for withholding **drugs**
> \[emphasis added\] for relieving pain and/ or distress" should be
> provided. This recommendation does not require a description of why
> *non-pharmacological* methods to relieve pain and/ or distress were
> withheld. However, since the current system is strictly based on
> whether or not drugs were given, it does not allow for consideration
> of non-pharmacological methods to relieve pain and distress.
>
> Therefore, we would like to strongly urge the USDA to adopt one of the
> categorization systems published as part of the request for comments
> on definitions and reporting of animal pain and distress of 2000
> (*Federal Register*). According to the notice itself, "\[a\] different
> categorization system could produce data that more accurately depicts
> the nature of animal pain or distress and provide a better tool to
> measure efforts made to minimize animal pain and distress at research
> facilities." We strongly recommend that the USDA transform its current
> classification system into a graded scale of pain and distress that
> reflects levels of severity (sometime termed "invasiveness"), with
> three new categories, namely, minor, moderate, and severe. For
> continuity between the current and proposed systems, we proposed that
> the minor category be subdivided according to whether or not pain
> and/or distress relief was provided. If this continuity were deemed to
> be unnecessary, then the new proposal boils down to a simple system of
> minor, moderate, or severe. Any "gray" areas between minor and
> moderate, and between moderate and severe, could be minimized through
> USDA guidance and exemplars.
>
> The proposed revision is straightforward and would not increase the
> workload of institutions, as some institutions have self-servingly
> argued. The revised system would finally permit the USDA to issue
> annual animal welfare enforcement reports that provide an accurate
> picture of what the research animals are experiencing, thus providing
> interested stakeholders with a more accurate picture of the true cost
> of research to the animals.
>
> **[Policy 18: Health Certificates for Dogs, Cats and Nonhuman
> Primates]{.underline}**
>
> ***Health certificates should be required for all captive wildlife
> transported across state lines***
>
> Health certificates should be required for all captive wildlife
> transported across state lines, not just be limited to nonhuman
> primates, cats and dogs. Health issues arise from many species of
> captive wildlife that could affect the human population, the wild
> animal population and the individual animal being transported.
>
> **[Policy 23: Criteria for Licensing Hoofstock Dealers]{.underline}**
>
> ***Sales of animals to game ranches and private breeders should be
> regulated***
>
> Sales of animals to game ranches and private breeders should be
> regulated. All other commercial transactions are regulated by the
> USDA, and the exemption for captive wild hoofstock animals is an
> oversight that should be corrected. If these animals are involved in
> the middle of a commercial transaction they should fall under
> regulatory authority. Game ranches themselves are commercial
> operations and should be treated as such. Transactions between two
> commercial operations should be regulated and under scrutiny. The
> movement and transfer of these animals without regulatory oversight
> violate the intention of the AWA. Similarly, breeders and dealers in
> captive wild hoofstock should be regulated. Sales of captive wild
> hoofstock animals to individuals for breeding purposes are also a
> violation of the intention of the AWA. Breeding is a commercial
> operation and is regulated. Dealing is also a commercial operation
> falling under regulation. Exemption for placing the two entities
> together violates the intention of the AWA and should be corrected.
>
> All animals sold into the private trade sector should still be
> regulated at the time of sale. The dealer is still operating
> commercially as a dealer and falls under AWA regulation. Exemption for
> placing the two entities together violates the intention of the AWA
> and should be corrected. All animals sold into the private trade
> sector should still be regulated at the time of sale. The dealer is
> still operating commercially as a dealer and falls under AWA
> regulation.
>
> ***Horses should be covered under the AWA and all relating rules and
> regulations***
>
> Horses are warm-blooded mammals and as such should be covered under
> the
>
> AWA and all relating rules and regulations. Horses are used in
> commercially operated activities and should not be exempted from
> coverage as they are under current policy. The current coverage stated
> in this policy is only for biomedical research. If horses are to be
> used in commercially regulated entities, they should be covered as all
> other warm blooded mammals are covered.
>
> **[Recommendations for new policies]{.underline}**
>
> ***Public contact with captive large felids should be prohibited
> including all cubs***
>
> Public contact with captive large felids should be prohibited
> including all cubs. No public handling should be allowed for these
> species due to the potential for injury to the public and the animal.
> The threat of injury and disease transfer outweighs any perceived
> educational value resulting from public contact. Current ambiguity in
> regulations regarding the age at which large felids may be handled
> creates confusion and potential for abuse. The ability to have photo
> opportunities and public handling of young animals encourages breeding
> and acquisition of young cubs in lieu of providing proper care for
> adult animals of the species. Older animals may be transferred to
> substandard and unregulated environments to provide room for younger
> animals, perpetuating breeding and trading in these animals for
> captivity.
>
> ***Public contact with captive nonhuman primates should be
> prohibited***
>
> Public contact with captive nonhuman primates should be prohibited.
> Primates have the potential to bite and scratch and spread zoonotic
> diseases including but not limited to Herpes B virus, hepatitis, and
> tuberculosis. In addition, humans can spread diseases that are deadly
> to nonhuman primates. The threat of injury and disease transfer
> outweighs any perceived educational value resulting from public
> contact.
>
> ***Public contact with captive elephants including elephant rides
> should be prohibited***
>
> Public contact with captive elephants including elephant rides should
> be prohibited. Elephant rides are difficult to conduct in compliance
> with existing AWA requirements such as sufficient public barriers and
> handlers and have resulted in elephants running off with children on
> their backs. The safety concerns associated with rides and generally
> with keeping these extremely intelligent animals under conditions
> which may cause them to rampage (inadequate space, exercise, and
> stimulation; and harsh training) all counsel against allowing elephant
> rides to continue.
>
> In addition, there is the potential for transfer of diseases such as
> tuberculosis from and to humans. Existing tests and treatments for
> elephants infected with tuberculosis are inadequate, thus, increasing
> the threat this disease poses to the public. The threat of disease
> transfer outweighs any perceived educational value resulting from
> public contact.
>
> ***All private ownership of captive wildlife should be a regulated
> activity***
>
> All private ownership of captive wildlife should be a regulated
> activity under
>
> the jurisdiction of the AWA. Licensing should be required for all
> individuals privately possessing captive wildlife for any purposes,
> including animals kept in private possession. State regulation is
> sporadic and not uniform in code. These animals deserve the same level
> of protection as animals used in commercial activities. Many privately
> owned animals can be construed to be used in commercial operation when
> transfers, sales, breeding and exhibiting occur, even if on a small
> scale.
>
> ***All regulated animals should be afforded enrichment standards***
>
> All regulated animals should be afforded enrichment standards specific
> to
>
> their species, similar to the enrichment protocols for primates.
> Enrichment has proven to be effective in reducing captivity related
> stress and inactivity due to sterile environmental factors in many
> species.
>
> ***The use of any implement that causes injury or harm to an animal
> should be***
>
> ***prohibited in both training and performance venues***

The use of any implement that causes injury or harm to an animal should
be

> prohibited in both training and performance venues. The list would
> include, but is not limited to, the ankus or bullhook, electric prods
> and hot shots, whips, taser devices, pvc pipe, dowel rods, and any
> other device that causes harm or injury, as well as confining animals
> in chains, pens, and train cars /transportation vehicles for periods
> of time that deny them the opportunity to perform natural behaviors,.
>
> **[Policy 27: Capture Methods of Prairie Dogs]{.underline}**
>
> ***Prohibit the use of vacuums for capturing prairie dogs***
>
> The regulations regarding the capture of prairie dogs from natural
> habitats specify that methods used must be "humane." The current
> regulations also require animals to be handled as "carefully as
> possible in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating,
> excessive cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary
> discomfort."
>
> According to a paper published by researchers at the National Wildlife
> Research Center in Fort Collins, the use of prairie dog
> vacuums \"result in losses of approximately 5% through direct
> mortality or injuries serious enough to require euthanasia" compared
> to live-trapping which usually results in the loss of less than 1% of
> captured prairie dogs (Fagerstone and Witmer, 2003). In light of the
> needless, undeniable pain and distress this particular method imposes
> on these small, fragile animals, and the fact that alternative
> methods, such as live-traps, are readily available and clearly more
> humane, the use of vacuums to capture prairie dogs should be
> prohibited.
>
> **[Concluding remarks]{.underline}**
>
> The above comments are not intended to address all ways in which the
> policy manual could be refined to improve the care of animals at
> facilities regulated by Animal Care, but represent issues that are a
> priority to our organization. With the above mentioned changes
> addressed, the Animal Care Policy Manual will be a more effective
> resource for enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and for regulated
> entities to meet AWA requirements. Thank you again for the opportunity
> to comment. If we are able to provide additional information, please
> do not hesitate to contact us.