1

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Animal and

Plant Health

Inspection

Service

APHIS 41–35–065

Report of the Secretary of Agriculture

to the President of the Senate and

the Speaker of the House of Representatives

Animal Welfare Report

Fiscal Year 1999
2

The U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) prohibits

discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race,

color, national origin, sex, religion,

age, disability, political beliefs,

sexual orientation, or marital or

family status. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.)

Persons with disabilities who

require alternative means for

communication of program

information (Braille, large print,

audiotape, etc.) should contact

USDA’s TARGET Center at (202)

720–2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of

discrimination, write USDA,

Director, Office of Civil Rights,

Room 326–W, Whitten Building,

1400 Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, DC 20250–9410 or

call (202) 720–5964 (voice and

TDD). USDA is an equal

opportunity provider and

employer.

Each year, the Secretary of

Agriculture reports on

administration and enforcement

activities under the Animal Welfare

Act (AWA) (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.)

as required by Section 25 of the

AWA. The present report covers

fiscal year (FY) 1999, from

October 1, 1998, through

September 30, 1999.

June 2000
3

CONTENTS

Letter From the Secretary: Plans for Pets and

Implementating Innovations 1

The AWA: A Legislative and Regulatory History 3

The Law

The Regulations

How USDA Administers the Law 5

Animal Care

AC’s Management Team

AC Appropriations for FY 1999

Investigative and Enforcement Services

Animal Welfare Information Center

Inspection Highlights 7

New Definition of “Site” Implemented

APHIS’ Inspection Strategy: Quality Over Quantity

Summary of Complaints and Searches

AC Inspectors Go Beyond the Numbers

Inspections by Business Type 10

Animal Dealers

Animal Exhibitors

Carriers and Intermediate Handlers

Research Facilities

Reports From Research Facilities

Enforcement Highlights 15

APHIS’ Enforcement Strategy Yields Results

Innovative Penalties

Stringent Enforcement

The High-Priority Designation

The Results Are in the Numbers

Charting the Future: AC’s Strategic Direction 18

Performance-Based Management

Elephant Training Remains A Priority

AC Begins Testing New Data Base

Risk-Based Inspection System in Full Swing

Dealer Inspection Guidelines Move Forward

Special Initiatives 20

AC Assists Pets Affected by Hurricane Floyd

Class B Dealer Traceback Continues Successes

Data Base on Circus Elephants Available to Inspectors

Primate Import Workgroup Established

Class A Dealer Workgroup Established
4

Public Outreach 22

AC Publishes Missions and Operations Brochure

AC Expands Distribution of Quarterly Report

Safe Pet Travel Campaign Continues

Automated Telephone Service Assists Travelers

E-FOIA Gives Public Quick Access to Data

AC’s New and Improved Website

AC Takes a Position on Dangerous Pets

Answering Public Inquiries

Cooperating and Communicating With Stakeholders

Assisting the Media

AWIC Focuses on Educational Efforts

Liaison With Other Federal Agencies

Regulatory and Policy Initiatives 26

Decisions on “Doris Day” Petition Published

Comments Received on Rats, Mice, and Birds Petition

Comments Received on Environmental Enrichment Policy

More Comments Received on Training and Handling

 of Dangerous Animals

Perimeter Fencing Final Rule Completed

Work Progresses on Swin–With–the–Dolphins Rule

Policies Completed

Additional Policies Near Completion

Listing of Regulatory Initiatives

Glossary of Terms 29

Appendix 31

Table 1. Number of Licensees and Registrants, by Facilities

and Number of Sites (FY 1999)

Table 2. Animals Used in Research (FY 1999)

Table 3. Animals Used in Research, No Pain or Distress—

No Drugs Needed for Relief (FY 1999)

Table 4. Animals Used in Research, With Pain or Distress—

With Drugs Used for Relief (FY 1999)

Table 5. Animals Used in Research, With Pain or Distress—

No Drugs Used for Relief (FY 1999)

Table 6. Number of Animals Used by Research From the First

 Reporting

Year (1973) to the Present

Attachments

Animal Welfare: List of Licensed Dealers

Animal Welfare: List of Registered Research Facilities

Animal Welfare: List of Licensed Exhibitors and

Registered Exhibitors

Animal Welfare: List of Registered Carriers and

Intermediate Handlers
5

LETTER FROM THE SECRETARY:

PLANS FOR PETS AND IMPLEMENTING INNOVATIONS

In September 1999, Hurricane Floyd wreaked

havoc up the east coast of the United States,

not only for people, but for animals too.

Millions of animals—including livestock,

pets, and those in facilities regulated by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)—were

killed, injured, lost, or affected in other ways

during the storm and the aftermath of flooding.

The events surrounding Floyd brought to light

the need for an emergency plan for owners of

pets and animals used in businesses regulated

under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).

Representatives from the Animal Care (AC)

staff of USDA’s Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS) have begun

meeting with veterinary and animal welfare

organizations to develop such emergency

plans.

This is only one example of AC’s efforts in

fiscal year (FY) 1999 to ensure the welfare of

animals. Several of the initiatives supporting

the AWA are worth noting.

In FY 1999, a team including AC, APHIS’

Investigative and Enforcement Services, and

USDA’s Office of the General Counsel was

selected to receive Vice President Gore’s

Hammer Award for Reinventing Government

for their innovative enforcement efforts. These

efforts include redirecting fines to activities that

will improve the well-being of animals, such as

facility improvements, employee training, and

research on animal health and welfare issues.

When facilities do not show an interest in

coming into compliance, stringent enforcement

actions are taken. These efforts are described

in the Enforcement Highlights section of this

report.

AC assembled a team to revise the animal

welfare program’s strategic direction. The team

was reestablished in July 1999 and expects to

publish the new strategic plan early in the

summer of 2000.

We also began developing a position statement

on the inadvisability of keeping large wild and

exotic cats as pets. Although USDA does not

regulate these animals as pets, we have seen

the tragic consequences to animals and people

when big cats are kept in private homes.

AC’s risk-based inspection system and

innovative enforcement methods are still

improving the welfare of regulated animals.

Inspections are able to focus more on those

facilities needing the most oversight.

Enforcement outcomes are of more benefit to

the animals through case settlements where,

for example, fines are directed toward training

and handling programs, improving facilities,

or research in animal care issues. Several

major settlements are described in this year’s

report.

We also pursued several regulatory and policy

issues to strengthen the protection we provide

animals covered by the AWA. Policies include

space requirements for animals kept by

traveling exhibitors, necropsy requirements,

and a clarification of when agricultural animals

are regulated. We published our decision on

redefining “retail pet store” and licensing

wholesale dealers of hunting, security, and

breeding dogs, as petitioned by the Doris Day

Animal League. In FY 1999, AC also

completed work on the perimeter fencing rule,

which was published at the beginning of FY

2000.

These efforts, and many others, were part of

another year of AC’s progress in protecting

animals covered under the AWA more

effectively and more efficiently. We hope you

find the information in this report helpful in

providing a comprehensive perspective on our

initiatives and accomplishments.

Sincerely,

DAN GLICKMAN

Secretary of Agriculture

Washington, DC
6

THE AWA: A LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY HISTORY

The Law

The Regulations

In 1966, Congress enacted Public Law (P.L.)

89–544, known as the Laboratory Animal

Welfare Act. This law regulated dealers who

handle dogs and cats, as well as laboratories

that use dogs, cats, hamsters, guinea pigs,

rabbits, or nonhuman primates in research.

The first amendment to the Laboratory Animal

Welfare Act was passed in 1970 (P.L. 91–579)

and changed the name of the law to the Animal

Welfare Act (AWA). This amendment

authorized the Secretary of Agriculture to

regulate other warmblooded animals when

used in research, exhibition, or the wholesale

pet trade.

An amendment in 1976 (P.L. 94–279)

prohibited most animal fighting ventures and

regulated the commercial transportation of

animals. Another amendment was added to

the AWA in 1985 as the Improved Standards

for Laboratory Animals Act, which was part of

the Food Security Act. These amendments

required the Secretary to issue additional

standards for the use of animals in research.

In 1990, provisions concerning injunctive

relief and pet protection were added to the

AWA. These two provisions were included in

the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade

Act of 1990. The injunctive relief provision

authorizes the Secretary to seek an injunction

to stop certain licensed entities from

continuing to violate the AWA while charges

are pending. (Injunctions are used in cases of

stolen animals and where an animal's health is

in serious danger or may become

endangered.)

The pet protection provision mandated that the

Secretary issue additional regulations

pertaining to random-source dogs and cats.

(Random source means "dogs and cats

obtained from animal pounds or shelters,

auction sales, or from any person who did not

breed and raise them on his or her premises.")

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is

charged with developing and implementing

regulations to support the AWA. These

regulations, which appear in Title 9, Code of

Federal Regulations (CFR), Chapter 1,

Subchapter A, Parts 1–3, require the licensing

of animal dealers, exhibitors, and operators of

animal auction sales where animals regulated

under the AWA are sold. (Birds and laboratory

rats and mice are not currently included in the

regulations.)

Licenses are valid unless the licensee

terminates the license voluntarily or fails to

renew it or an administrative law judge

suspends or revokes the license in an

enforcement proceeding. Licensing fees for

dealers and exhibitors are determined by a

graduated schedule listed in the regulations

[9 CFR 2.6(5)(c)]. Dealers pay between $30

and $750, and exhibitors pay between $30

and $300 per year. These fees are deposited

as miscellaneous receipts in the U.S. Treasury.

The regulations also require all carriers,

intermediate handlers, and exhibitors not

subject to licensing and all non-Federal

research facilities using animals to register

with the Secretary of Agriculture. There is no

charge to register. Table 1 in the appendix

provides a list of the number of licensees and

registrants for each State in the country and

Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin

Islands.

All licensees and registrants must provide

their animals with care that meets or exceeds

USDA's standards for veterinary care and

animal husbandry. These standards include

requirements for handling, housing, feeding,

sanitation, ventilation, shelter from extreme

weather, veterinary care, and separation of

species when necessary.

Over the years, USDA has made substantive

changes to the AWA regulations. In the late

1980's, USDA amended the requirements

pertaining to the use of animals in research.

In response to the Improved Standards for

Laboratory Animals Act, these amendments

established standards for the exercise of dogs

and psychological well-being of nonhuman

primates. The amendments also set standards

to minimize the pain and distress of animals;

ensure the proper use of anesthetics,

analgesics, and tranquilizers; and require

researchers to consider alternatives to painful

procedures.
7

To ensure that these standards are met, the

amendments require each research facility to

establish an Institutional Animal Care and Use

Committee to approve and monitor all

research conducted at the institution. USDA

published the final regulations for Parts 1 and

2 of Title 9, CFR, Chapter 1, Subchapter A, on

August 31, 1989; those for Part 3 were

published on February 15, 1991.

USDA published revised standards for guinea

pigs, hamsters, and rabbits in final form in the

Federal Register on July 15, 1990. These

standards increased the minimum space

requirements for cages and provided

additional requirements to protect animals

being transported via common carrier.

In 1993, USDA established holding periods

for animals in pounds and shelters and

certification requirements to ensure that

animals have been held for the duration of

these periods. The regulations were

published as a final rule on July 22, 1993, and

became effective August 23, 1993.

In 1997, USDA published a final rule that

removed the provisions allowing the

permanent tethering of dogs as a means of

primary enclosure. The temporary tethering of

dogs for health or other reasons is permitted if

licensees obtain approval from their AC

inspector or regional office. The final rule on

this matter went into effect September 12,

1997.

In FY 1998, APHIS published new rules that

further increase the protection for animals

covered under the AWA. AC amended the

AWA standards pertaining to wire flooring for

dogs and cats and revised the AWA

temperature requirements, which included

clarification of climatic conditions for housing

facilities, conveyances used for transportation,

and holding areas at airport terminal facilities.

In FY 1999, APHIS published and developed

several more rules, policies, and other tools to

better protect animals under its purview:

• A draft policy on the psychological wellbeing of nonhuman primates was published

for public comment. More than 230

comments were received by the closing date.

At the end of FY 1999, AC was reviewing and

considering comments. The purpose of the

policy is to clarify existing regulations by

providing a specific means for reporting on

environmental enhancement programs.

• In June 1990, USDA began regulating horses

used for biomedical or other nonagricultural

research and other farm animals used for

biomedical or other nonagricultural research

or for nonagricultural exhibition. Currently,

the standards in Title 9, CFR, Chapter 1,

Subchapter A, Part 3, Subpart F, apply. In

March 1999, APHIS requested comments on

adopting two existing guides for facilities to

meet standards in the regulations as they

apply to the handling, care, treatment, and

transportation of these animals. The guides

are the “Guide for the Care and Use of

Agricultural Research and Teaching,”

published by the Federation of American

Societies of Food and Science, and the

“Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory

Animals,” published by the Institute of

Laboratory Animal Research. APHIS has

received comments and expects in FY 2000

to publish its decision on whether or not to

adopt these guidelines.

• During FY 1999, APHIS completed its review

of more than 400 comments regarding

current best practices for training and

handling of potentially dangerous wild and

exotic animals. An APHIS working group

has recommended a policy to management

that is expected to be published early in 2000

to notify the public and regulated parties, and

to allow them to comment. A public meeting

is scheduled during this comment period to

allow interested parties another way to

engage in dialog with APHIS regarding this

issue before implementation.

• In July 1999, APHIS published its final

decision to not change the definition of “retail

pet store” as requested in a petition by the

Doris Day Animal League. APHIS did decide

to license wholesale dealers of hunting,

security, and breeding dogs, as the petition

requested. APHIS received more than 48,000

comments regarding these issues.

• APHIS also worked in FY 1999 to develop a

position statement regarding large wild and

exotic cats as pets. Although APHIS does not

regulate these animals as pets, we have seen

a great amount of harm to humans and

animals that can happen when they are kept as

such.

• APHIS prepared a final rule on perimeter

fencing requirements for animals covered

under the AWA, with emphasis on wild and

exotic animals. The requirements are

designed to better contain the regulated

animals and keep out unwanted animals. The

final rule is to be published in early FY 2000.

• In February 1999, APHIS published for

comment a proposed rule based on the

consensus language regarding marine

mammal regulations (subpart E). This

language was derived from the negotiated

rulemaking committee of stakeholders

established under the Federal Advisory

Committee Act. APHIS has reviewed the

comments and expects to publish a final rule

in FY 2000. Negotiations regarding these

regulations were held in 1995 and 1996 to

identify major stakeholders to participate in

the committee.

• APHIS developed a comprehensive dealer

inspection guide and issued it in April 1999 to

AC employees to guide them in performing

inspections and to better educate and inform

regulated dealers.
8

HOW USDA ADMINISTERS THE LAW

Within USDA, APHIS’ AC program is

responsible for administering the AWA. AC's

mission is to provide leadership in

establishing acceptable standards of care and

treatment and to monitor and achieve

compliance through educational and

cooperative efforts.

The AC program is headquartered in Riverdale,

MD, and has three regional offices in Raleigh,

NC, Fort Worth, TX, and Sacramento, CA.

These offices are charged with enforcing the

AWA in each of their respective areas. The

map on this page shows AC's regional

structure. The box provides the addresses,

phone numbers, and fax numbers for all AC

offices, as well as AC's home page on the

World Wide Web and e-mail address for

incoming correspondence.

Each regional AC office employs a cadre of

field veterinary medical officers and animal

care inspectors. The number of field

inspectors at the end of FY 1999 was 65.

These employees are highly qualified and have

an excellent professional support system and

communication network. Many also have

specialized interest and expertise in such areas

as the care of laboratory animals, zoo animals,

or marine mammals.

In enforcing the AWA, APHIS inspectors work

closely with other Federal agencies and

frequently interact with regulated professional

groups, industry organizations, humane

groups, the scientific community, and other

concerned associations or individuals. In FY

1999, AC personnel attended about 297

industry training sessions and meetings and

gave presentations at 97 of them.

Animal Care

ANIMAL CARE

Headquarters Office

4700 River Road, Unit 84

Riverdale, MD 20737–1234

Phone: (301) 734–7833

Fax: (301) 734–4978

Eastern Region

920 Main Campus Drive

Raleigh, NC 27606

Phone: (919) 716-5532

Fax: (919) 716 -5696

Central Region

P.O. Box 915004 (letters)

501 Felix St., Bldg. 11 (packages)

Fort Worth, TX 76115–9104

Phone: (817) 885–6910

Fax: (817) 885–6917

Western Region

9580 Micron Ave., Suite J

Sacramento, CA 95827–2623

Phone: (916) 857–6205

Fax: (916) 857–6212

World Wide Web

Homepage

www.aphis.usda.gov/ac

E-mail

ace@usda.gov

USDA–APHIS–ANIMAL CARE

WA

OR ID

CA

NV UT

AZ NM

CO

WY

MT ND

MO

AR

TX LA

OK

KS

NE

SD

IA

MN

WS

IL IN

KY

TN

MS AL GA

SC

NC

MI

RI

MD

NJ

ME

MA

CT

NH

VT

NY

PA

VA

OH

WV

FL

P.R.

DE

AK

HI

V.I.

Western Region

Central Region

Eastern Region AK
9

AC’s Management

Team

AC Appropriations

for FY 1999

AC is led by Deputy Administrator Ron

DeHaven, D.V.M. DeHaven was head of AC's

Western Regional Office from 1989 until his

move to AC headquarters in November 1996.

Supporting DeHaven are three regional

directors and an assistant deputy administrator:

Dr. Elizabeth Goldentyer in the Eastern Region,

Dr. Walter Christensen in the Central Region,

and Dr. Robert Gibbens in the Western Region.

In March 1999, Dr. Richard Watkins became

the assistant deputy administrator for AC. All

are veterinarians with many years of experience

with AC and extensive knowledge regarding the

AWA.

APPROPRIATIONS FOR

ANIMAL WELFARE,

FY 1994–99

 Annual appropriation

 for enforcement of the

 FY Animal Welfare Act

 1999 $9,175,000

 1998 $9,175,000

 1997 $9,182,000

 1996 $9,185,000

 1995 $9,262,000

 1994 $9,262,000

Investigative and

Enforcement Services

Complementing AC's efforts is APHIS'

Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES)

program. IES supports all APHIS programs in

the goal of enhancing compliance with agency

regulations. Toward this end, IES utilizes

comprehensive investigations and sound

enforcement actions. IES also works closely

with USDA's Office of the General Counsel,

other Federal agencies, State and local

governments, and industry groups. IES is

headquartered in Riverdale, MD, and has

regional offices in Raleigh and Fort Worth.

Animal Welfare

Information Center

The National Agricultural Library's (NAL)

Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC)

also supports AC's efforts. AWIC was

established in December 1986 to provide

valuable information pertaining to possible

duplication of research involving animals,

methods of humane animal care and use,

alternatives to the use of live animals in

research, and methods to minimize pain and

distress to animals. AWIC also provides

materials for the training of personnel and

other products and services that support the

administration and regulatory requirements of

the AWA.

USDA–NAL–AWIC

AWIC Coordinator

National Agricultural Library

10301 Baltimore Blvd.

Beltsville, MD 20705

(301) 504–6212

E-mail

awic@nal.usda.gov

In FY 1999, the AC program received

appropriations totaling about $9 million for

activities related to animal welfare. The next

tabulation shows APHIS' animal-welfarerelated appropriations for FY 1994–99 in

unadjusted dollars.
10

INSPECTION HIGHLIGHTS

AC personnel perform three major types of

inspections: prelicensing inspections,

unannounced compliance inspections, and

auction market observations.

To determine whether prospective licensees are

in compliance with the AWA, AC personnel

perform prelicensing inspections of dealers

and exhibitors prior to granting them licenses.

Preregistration inspections are not required

under the Act, but many facilities request AC's

consultation. Whenever possible, the program

honors these requests to promote the highest

level of compliance.

Unannounced compliance inspections are

performed at the facilities of all licensees and

registrants to ascertain whether they are

operating within the regulations. The AWA

requires that APHIS perform at least one

compliance inspection per year at each

research facility that uses animals in

experimentation. For nonresearch facilities,

APHIS uses a risk-based system to determine

inspection frequency. This system is described

in detail in the next section of this report.

If AC inspectors discover conditions that are

not in compliance with the regulations, AC

typically establishes a deadline for correcting

these items. In conjunction with IES, AC

immediately investigates any situations that

may have caused unnecessary animal suffering

or death. Inspectors are required to reinspect

any facilities where areas of noncompliance are

found that have, or are likely to have, an impact

on the well-being of the animals. If the

conditions remain uncorrected, AC documents

them for possible legal action.

Auction market observations are conducted to

determine whether animals covered under the

AWA are receiving care that meets the

standards and regulations. These observations

are also performed to examine buyers' and

sellers' acquisition and disposition records for

AWA-regulated animals.

In FY 1999, APHIS implemented a new

definition of “site” for inspected facilities in

which all facilities with the same geographic

location are considered one site. Previously, a

site was determined on a case-by-case basis

by the inspector and the facility representative.

This situation led to a wide range of

inconsistencies between facilities. One

research university might have 50–60 sites on

1 campus; another university of similar size

and scope might have only 2–3 sites.

Now all facilities under one legal entity within

a 35-mile radius are considered one site. The

intention is that all the locations of one site

can be inspected within a normal commuting

distance. Under this definition, the

universities in the examples above would

likely have 1 site/campus.

This new definition of site has been helpful in

many ways. It promotes increased

consistency between individual inspectors and

across AC’s regions. With site determinations

constantly changing, it was difficult to track in

AC’s data base who, what, or where was

inspected at a site or facility. For example,

Site 3 inspected today was not the same group

of animals or at the same physical location as

Site 3 at the last inspection of the same entity.

Preparing for the transition to the new data

base, AC wanted consistent site information to

ensure accurate comparison of work

accomplishments based on future

measurements, such as number of inspections

conducted at a site.

New Definition of “Site” Implemented
11

In 1997, AC modified its inspection strategy.

After 30 years of focusing on conducting as

many inspections as possible, the program

began performing more indepth inspections—

particularly of those licensees and registrants

who historically had compliance problems.

This new inspection strategy and other factors

have resulted in a decrease in overall number

of inspections since FY 1997 but a significant

increase in the amount of time spent inspecting

individual facilities. Each inspection of a

facility with a history of compliance problems

takes longer than a routine inspection of a

compliant facility. Other factors affecting

quantity include fewer inspectors employed by

APHIS, the new definition of “site” as

described earlier, and inspectors’ spending

more time in training. During FY 1999, AC

inspectors received training on new computer

systems, class A dealer inspections, and

elephant training and handling.

Under the new strategy, AC has used its time to

more carefully inspect licensees' and

registrants' animals, structures, and records—

an approach that APHIS firmly believes makes

better use of AC's inspection resources.

To support this focused inspection strategy, AC

implemented a formal risk-based inspection

system in February 1998. This system uses

several objective criteria, including past

compliance history, to determine the inspection

frequency of each licensed and registered

facility.

Under the system, facilities that meet all of the

criteria qualify for low inspection frequency

and are subject to inspections once every 2–3

years. Facilities that meet few or none of the

criteria qualify for high inspection frequency

and are subject to inspections at least every 6

months. Those in the middle qualify for

medium inspection frequency and are

inspected once a year. AC remains committed

to inspecting research facilities once a year, as

required under the law.

11,263

FY 1999 AWA INSPECTIONS

Total number Number of

of facilities inspections

(and sites)1 by category

Inspections for Compliance2

Dealers 4,071

(4,208) 4,298

Research 1,232

facilities (1,644) 1,816

Exhibitors 2,293

(2,270) 2,591

Intransit 276

handlers (432) 99

Intransit 86

carriers3 (893) 292

Total 7,958 9,096

(9,897)

1

 See the glossary of terms for the definitions of “facility“ and

site,” also explained in this section.

2

 Inspections for compliance are unannounced inspections

and reinspections. These do not include prelicensing or

preregistration inspections, auction market observations, or

attempted inspections. (Prelicensing/preregistration

inspections are announced. Observations of licensed and

Other Types of Inspections

Prelicensing and

preregistration

inspections NA 1,418

Auction market

observations NA 56

Attempted inspections of dealers

and exhibitors NA 693

Total 2,167

Total of Inspections

for Compliance and

Other Inspections

Total number Number of

of facilities inspections

(and sites)1 by category

unlicensed auction markets are made to locate unlicensed

dealers. Attempted inspections could not be performed for

certain reasons—usually because there was no one available at

the facility when the inspector arrived unannounced.)

3

 Intransit Carriers is a category representing commercial

airlines. Each airline may have two or more animal

transportation sites at each airport it serves. Due to frequent

changes in airline activities and other factors, the number of

sites may vary.

The next tabulation details the number of

inspections of licensees and registrants

conducted during FY 1999. Subsequent

tabulations chronicle the number of different

types of inspections conducted from FY 1997

through FY 1999.

APHIS’ Inspection Strategy: Quality Over Quantity
12

Summary of Complaints

and Searches

AC Inspectors Go

Beyond the Numbers

AUCTION MARKET

OBSERVATIONS,

FY 1997–99

 Total

 auction market

 FY observations

 1999 56

 1998 57

 1997 77

PRELICENSING

INSPECTIONS,

FY 1997–99

COMPLIANCE

INSPECTIONS,

FY 1997–99

 Total Total

 facilities compliance

 FY (sites) inspections

 1999 7,968 9,096

 (9,897)

 1998 7,773

 (10,393) 10,709

 1997 7,819

 (10,534) 12,057

 FY Total Dealers Exhibitors

1999 1,418 991 427

1998 1,579 1,074 505

1997 2,150 1,525 589

In addition to inspections, AC personnel

routinely conduct searches for unlicensed or

unregistered persons. AC also investigates all

public complaints to determine whether

regulated animals are receiving proper care

and/or the animal owner(s) should be licensed

or registered. APHIS regards these activities

as critical to successful enforcement of the

AWA and, in FY 1999, AC conducted more

than 200 such inquiries.

AC inspectors routinely do exceptional work

that goes beyond the call of duty and is not

reflected in the numbers above. The vignettes

below describe two of these efforts.

• In September 1999, the Eastern Region

Office in Raleigh, NC, worked with State

officials during the flooding that followed

Hurricane Floyd. A supervisory animal care

specialist helped arrange for facilities to

hold unclaimed pets. The regional director

called USDA registered and licensed

facilities to check up on their situations

after the flooding.

• In the spring of 1999, a traveling marinemammal exhibitor needed help placing its

last sea lion because the business was no

longer exhibiting. AC inspectors kept their

eyes open for a facility that could house the

animal. Our inspectors found the sea lion a

permanent home with a zoo in Texas.
13

Chart 1

INSPECTIONS BY BUSINESS TYPE

Animal Dealers

LICENSED DEALERS, FY 1997–99

 Total Class A Class B

 dealers dealers dealers

 FY (sites) (sites) (sites)

 1999 4,071 2,986 1,085

 (4,208) (3,039) (1,169)

 1998 3,926 2,892 1,034

 (4,168) (3,024) (1,144)

 1997 4,043 2,996 1,047

 (4,387) (3,151) (1,236)

A AND B DEALERS, FY 1997–99

Numbers from License and Registration Inspection System (LARIS) data base

Facilities Sites Inspections

4,043 3,926 4,071 4,387 4,168 4,208

4,922

4,298 5,000

3,000

1,000

0

2,000

4,000

5,385

6,000 FY 1997

FY 1998

FY 1999

Dealers are individuals who sell regulated

animals for research or teaching, wild or

exotic animals for exhibition or as pets, or

domestic pet animals in wholesale channels.

There are two classes of dealer licensees.

Class A licensees are those individuals who

deal only in animals that they breed and raise.

Class B licensees may breed and raise some

of the animals they sell but typically buy and

resell animals. These dealers include brokers,

operators of auction sales, and “bunchers.”

The numbers of Class A and B licensed

dealers and sites for FY 1997 through 1999

are listed in the next tabulation. The number

of inspections conducted during the same

period is shown on chart 1. It should be

noted that, of the 1,085 Class B dealers,

APHIS estimates that fewer than 35 supply

dogs and cats to research.
14

REGULATED EXHIBITORS, FY 1997–99

Total

exhibitors Licensed Registered

FY (sites) (sites) (sites)

1999 2,293 2,276 17

(2,720) (2,701) (19)

1998 2,198 2,178 20

(2,696) (2,673) (23)

1997 2,098 2,105 23

(2,540) (2,510) (30)

Chart 2 Animal Exhibitors

EXHIBITORS, FY 1997–99

Numbers from Licensing and Registration Information System (LARIS) data base

2,198 2,198 2,293

2,540 2,696 2,720

2,851 2,803

2,591

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

Facilities Sites Inspections

FY 1997

FY 1998

FY 1999

3,500

2,500

1,500

500

Exhibitors

Animal exhibitors may either be licensed or

registered under the AWA. Licensed

exhibitors are those entities that either obtain

or dispose of animals in commerce and

exhibit them for compensation. Registered

exhibitors do not buy, sell, or transport

animals and do not accept compensation.

Licensed exhibitors typically operate animal

acts, carnivals, circuses, public zoos,

“roadside zoos,” and marine mammal

displays. Many of the animals exhibited are

species not native to the United States (e.g.,

nonhuman primates and exotic cats), but

exhibited species may also include domestic

farm animals and wild animals native to this

country.

Listed next are the numbers of exhibitors

and sites regulated from FY 1997 through

1999. Chart 2 shows the number of

inspections for the same period.
15

Chart 3

CARRIERS AND INTERMEDIATE HANDLERS, FY 1997–99

Numbers from License and Registration Inspection System (LARIS) data base

Carriers and

Intermediate Handlers

Carriers registered with USDA include airlines,

motor freight lines, railroads, and other

shipping businesses. Registered intermediate

handlers are ground freight handlers.

Intermediate handlers usually provide services

for animals between consignor and carrier and

from carrier to consignee. They also care for

animals delayed in transit.

The numbers of sites and registered carriers

and intermediate handlers for FY 1997 through

1999 are listed next. Chart 3 shows the

number of carrier and intermediate handler

inspections for the same period.

 Carrier facilities Carrier sites Carrier inspections Handler facilities Handler sites Handler inspections

FY 1996

FY 1997

FY 1998

96 90

893

732

858

901 901

292 309

276 292

432 465 465

275

99

206

1,000

400

0

200

600

800

86

SITES AND REGISTERED

CARRIERS AND

INTERMEDIATE

HANDLERS, FY 1997–99

 Registered Intermediate

 carriers handlers

 FY (sites) (sites)

1999 86 276

 (893) (432)

1998 90 292

 (858) (465)

1997 96 309

 (732) (465)
16

REGISTERED RESEARCH FACILITIES,

TOTAL SITES AND INSPECTIONS, FY 1997–99

Chart 4

Research Facilities

Numbers from Licensing and Registration Inspection System (LARIS) data base

Facilities Sites Inspections

1,232 1,243 1,267

1,644

2,410

2,206

1,816

2,645

2,262

3,000

0

1,000

2,000

FY 1996

FY 1997

FY 1998

Reports From Research Facilities

Each research facility registered under the

AWA and each Federal research facility is

required to submit an annual report, signed

and certified by the Institutional Official,

covering the previous fiscal year. The report

lists the number and species of animals used

in research, testing, and experimentation and

indicates whether pain-relieving drugs were

administered. If such drugs were not

administered for procedures that cause pain or

distress, the report must explain why their use

would have interfered with the research or

experiment.

The report must also assure that

professionally acceptable standards, including

the appropriate use of pain-relieving drugs,

were followed and that each principal

investigator considered alternatives to painful

or distress-causing procedures.

REGISTERED

RESEARCH FACILITIES

AND SITES, FY 1997–99

 Total Total

 FY facilities sites

 1999 1,232 1,644*

 1998 1,267 2,206

 1997 1,243 2,410

Moreover, the report must demonstrate that the

facility adhered to the AWA regulations or that

any exception to such adherence was justified

by the principal investigator and approved by

the Institutional Animal Care and Use

Committee prior to experimentation.

Chart 5 shows the number and species of

animals used in research during FY 1999.

This number excludes birds and laboratory

rats and mice, as well as farm animals used

exclusively in agricultural research. Chart 6

shows the number of animals used in research

that involved no pain or distress, or that

involved pain or distress alleviated with drugs,

or that involved pain or distress without relief

because use of pain-relieving drugs would

interfere with the results of the research or

testing.

Research facilities that use animals include

hospitals, colleges and universities, diagnostic

laboratories, and many private firms in the

pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.

All research facilities are required to comply

with the AWA's regulations. Even though

Federal facilities are not registered or

inspected under the AWA, they are responsible

for maintaining compliance with the AWA's

regulations and standards. The AWA requires

that non-Federal research facilities receive at

least one inspection per year to determine

compliance.

The next tabulation lists the numbers of

research facilities and sites for FY 1997

through 1999. Chart 4 shows the number of

inspections of research facilities conducted

during this period.

*Decrease in number of sites is due primarily to new

definition of “site” implemented in FY 1999.
17

ANIMALS EXPERIENCING PAIN/DISTRESS, PAIN/

DISTRESS RELIEF, OR NO PAIN/DISTRESS DURING

EXPERIMENTS, FY 1999

Chart 6

Tables 1 through 5 of the appendix contain

further details. Table 6 reports the total of

animals used by research since this report was

first published in 1973.

In FY 1999, there were 22 research facilities

whose data are not included in this report

because they either did not submit a report or

submitted it too late for tabulation. Of these

facilities, 5 were Federal facilities, and 17 were

non-Federal. It is a violation of the AWA for a

facility, whether active or inactive, not to

submit a timely report. AC initiated the

appropriate corrective actions.

Numbers from Licensing and Registration Inspection System (LARIS) data base

Chart 5

ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH, EXPERIMENTS,

TESTING, AND TEACHING, FY 1998

.4

Numbers from Licensing and Registration Inspection System (LARIS) data base

1.0

0.8

0.6

Dogs Cats Primates Guinea

pigs

Hamsters Rabbits Sheep Pigs Other farm

animals

Other

animals

Total

70,541 23,238 54,927

265,129

201,593

288,222

23,559 77,042 54,808

165,939

1,217,998

0

Millions

.2

1.2

1.4

107,523

418,774

691,701

1,217,998

Pain/distress— Pain/distress No pain/distress Total animals used

 no drugs alleviated in research

0

0.2

0.8

Millions

0.4

0.6

1.0

1.2

1.4
18

ENFORCEMENT HIGHLIGHTS

APHIS’ Enforcement Strategy Yields Results

APHIS' IES personnel investigate alleged

violations when corrective measures have not

been taken by licensees or registrants to come

into compliance with the AWA.

Investigations disclosing violations are acted

on in a variety of ways depending on their

severity. Many infractions can be settled with

an official notice of warning or a stipulation

offer. (Stipulations allow alleged violators to

pay a fine, have their license suspended, or

both, in lieu of formal administrative

proceedings.)

Cases warranting formal prosecution undergo

Department-level review for legal sufficiency

prior to issuance of a formal administrative

complaint. Formal cases may be resolved by

license suspensions, revocations, cease-anddesist orders, civil penalties, or combinations

of these penalties through administrative

procedures.

FY 1999 was another extremely successful

year from an AWA enforcement perspective.

The major reason for this success was AC and

IES' two-pronged enforcement strategy.

For licensees and registrants who show an

interest in improving the conditions for their

animals, AC and IES actively pursue

innovative penalties that allow the individuals

to invest part or all of their monetary sanctions

in facility improvements, employee training,

research on animal health and welfare issues,

or other initiatives to improve animal

well-being. In doing so, USDA enables the

individuals to immediately improve the

conditions for their animals while sending a

clear message that future violations will not be

tolerated. Prior to 1997, most such fines were

either suspended or paid directly to the U.S.

Treasury, but neither of those results directly

improved the plight of the violators' animals.

On the other hand, for licensees and

registrants who do not improve the conditions

for their animals, AC and IES move swiftly and

pursue stringent enforcement action. Such

action typically includes significant monetary

penalties and/or license suspensions or

revocations. It may also include confiscation

of their animals and relocation to another

facility if the animals are found to be suffering.

AC's strategy focuses on making the welfare of

the animals the top priority in all enforcement

actions. The examples that follow highlight

cases from the past year that illustrate both

components of AC and IES' enforcement

strategy.
19

Innovative Penalties

• In FY 1999, USDA was selected to receive

Vice President Gore’s Hammer Award for

Reinventing Government for its work in

innovative enforcement. This includes

functions such as the risk-based inspection

system, in addition to the innovative

enforcement strategy described above.

• In August 1999, APHIS settled a case with

the registered research facility that held the

largest chimpanzee colony of any facility in

the United States. A $100,000 fine was held

in abeyance, provided that the facility meet a

number of requirements, including transfer

out 300 of its 650 chimpanzees, establish

an external review team to evaluate its entire

animal care program, and hire necessary

veterinary staff to care for the animals

currently there.

• In October 1998, APHIS settled a case with

an airline, in which the airline agreed to

donate $25,000 to an APHIS-approved

organization to research methods to

promote the safe and humane handling of

animals during transportation. The results

of this research will be disseminated to all

carriers registered under the AWA.

An important component of AC and IES'

enforcement strategy is the high-priority

designation for certain cases. Cases are

deemed high priority based on the following

criteria:

• Severity of animal suffering (death or severe

injury),

• Past compliance history of facility,

• Potential public or animal safety or health

concerns,

• Abusive or potentially violent nature of

licensee or registrant,

• Type of facility and species of animal

involved, and

• Severity of issue results in extensive public

interest.

When a case is given this designation, AC, IES,

and USDA's Office of the General Counsel put

special emphasis on the investigation and

enforcement of a case to expedite its

resolution. This measure has been successful

in shortening the timeframes of significant

cases and providing quicker relief for animals

protected under the AWA.

The High-Priority

Designation

Stringent Enforcement

• In February 1999, USDA and the U.S.

Attorney’s Office in Oregon successfully

prosecuted nine people for their roles in a

pet-theft ring. Charges included providing

false information concerning the suppliers

of dogs sold into research. Two of the

people were sentenced to 4 and 6 months of

home detention plus a 1-year term of

probation, and they agreed to be

permanently disqualified from being

licensed under the AWA. They were also

prosecuted in the State Circuit Court for

theft of companion animals.

• In November 1998, a USDA administrative

law judge revoked the license of a Florida

exhibitor of primates and fined her $25,000

for violations of the AWA, including

housing, handling, and recordkeeping. The

judge determined revocation of her license

to be in the best interest of the animals.

• In February 1999, a U.S. Circuit Court of

Appeals upheld a USDA decision and order

that included fining a Michigan animal

exhibitor $26,000 and revoking his license

to exhibit under the AWA. The exhibitor was

found to be guilty of several violations,

some of which had been dropped in the

original decision but reinstated by a USDA

judicial officer during an appeal.
20

NUMBERS OF ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

CONDUCTED AND RESOLVED, FY 1996–98

Cases Investigated and Reviewed

 Submitted

 Submitted to for formal

 FY Cases IES staff prosecution

 1999 313 188 104

 1998 456 416 60

 1997 365 118 58

Cases Resolved

 Administrative

 Official Stipulations law judges’

 FY warnings offered/settled decisions

 1999 143 89/79 28

 1998 219 100/66 82

 1997 167 86/4 98

Sanctions Imposed

 Revocations,

 Fines imposed by suspensions,

 administrative Fines imposed and disqualifi-

 FY law judges by stipulation cations

 1999 $585,162 $82,152 16

 1998 $378,900 $89,763 34

 1997 $822,200 $46,240 43

The Results Are in the

Numbers

Through this multifaceted enforcement

strategy, the AC and IES staffs and the Office of

the General Counsel have been able to

virtually eliminate the backlog of AWA cases

awaiting resolution through the formal

administrative process. The results have been

shorter timeframes for prosecuting cases and

the ability to expedite high-priority cases.

In addition, APHIS obtained more than

$667,000 in monetary penalties. The agency

required licensees and registrants to put more

than $70,000 of these penalties into facility

renovations, employee training, and other

areas to improve the conditions for their

animals.

The next tabulation provides detailed

information on the number of enforcement

actions conducted and resolved during FY

1999. In the tabulation, it should be noted that

“Cases Submitted,” “Cases Resolved,” and

“Sanctions Imposed” are those actions that

actually occurred during the fiscal year even

though many of the settled cases were

submitted in previous years. This numerical

disparity occurs because it takes a case

considerable time to work its way through the

legal system and appeals process.
21

CHARTING THE FUTURE:

AC’S STRATEGIC DIRECTION

Performance-Based Management

In 1999, AC began updating its strategic

direction for the animal welfare program. The

original 1996 plan included horse protection,

which is now under an individual plan. The

strategic direction examines all aspects of

program operations and identifies

accomplishments and area needing

improvement. Areas focused on include

enhancing statutory, regulatory, and procedural

authorities; providing proactive leadership in

establishing acceptable practices of animal

care and treatment; maximizing resources for

enhanced program delivery and efficiency;

responding to external concerns and

expectations through objective action; and

empowering, supporting, and developing

employees.

In FY 2000, AC will complete the new strategic

direction and start implementation through a

coordinated operating plan.

This section describes the progress of various

initiatives launched from the strategic

direction.

Under the mandate of the Government

Performance and Results Act, AC has taken an

active role in measuring its effectiveness in

meeting the provisions of the AWA. The

primary measure used in FY 1999 was the

percentage of facilities in compliance with

regulations. AC raised the overall level of

facility compliance from 58 percent in FY 1998

to 59 percent in FY 1999. AC achieved this

despite increased operational costs with no

increase in appropriation. While 1 percent in 1

year seems a small gain, if that rate of

improvement holds, in 10 years, 800 more

facilities will be in compliance. If this

improvement occurs with other factors

remaining constant, the welfare of thousands

of animals would be significantly improved.

In FY 1999, the AC management team began

developing several additional measures of

program effectiveness. A customer

satisfaction survey was conducted for

regulated facilities in February 1997 and

established a baseline level of satisfaction.

Before repeating the facility survey, AC plans

to survey animal welfare organizations.
22

Elephant Training

Remains a Priority

Risk-Based Inspection System in Full Swing

Dealer Inspection Guidelines Completed

With increasing attention focused on the care

and handling of elephants in recent years, AC

has made it a priority to provide special training

to its personnel on these issues. In FY 1999,

AC held a course at two exhibitor facilities in

the San Diego area and the Tampa and Orlando

areas. The course provided instruction on

elephant care and handling to about 30

inspectors and other AC personnel, bringing

the total number of employees trained to about

50. In FY 2000, AC will hold training in the

Chicago–Milwaukee area for remaining staff to

be trained.

AC’s risk-based inspection system utilizes

several criteria to determine the inspection

frequency for individual licensees and

registrants. Results in FY 1999 show that

inspections decreased at facilities with minimal

problems, allowing AC to increase attention to

In May 1999, AC distributed comprehensive

guidelines to its field personnel to use when

conducting AWA inspections of animal

dealers. These guidelines impose no new

requirements on dealers; they are to assist AC

personnel in their inspection efforts and to

improve the uniformity of inspections

AC Begins Testing New

Data Base

throughout the country. The guidelines cover

such areas as how to document inspection

findings and how to conduct exit interviews.

We feel the guidelines will prove to be a

tremendous help to new inspectors and a

valuable reference document for seasoned

inspectors.

facilities needing the most guidance and

oversight. This system is an integral part AC’s

efforts to improve operations. More details are

provided in the “New Inspection Strategy:

Quality Over Quantity” section earlier in this

report.

At the end of FY 1999, AC began testing the

new Licensing and Registration Information

System (LARIS) data base. When completed,

LARIS will provide a single storage center for

licensing and inspection data on regulated

parties throughout the United States.

Eventually, it will enable inspectors to enter

data from remote locations using laptop

computers. (Presently, inspectors type

inspection reports and mail them to the

regional offices, where support personnel

reenter the data.)

To support this effort, the data base utilizes

WindowsTM-based screens that guide users in

their efforts to enter and retrieve information.

The data base will also automate all of AC’s

forms. The result will be an efficient, easy-touse system that should significantly reduce

the resources needed to maintain records on

regulated parties.
23

SPECIAL INITIATIVES

In FY 1999, AC pursued many operational

enhancements that did not fall within the

scope of its strategic direction. These projects

all come under the broad rubric of special

initiatives.

AC Assists Pets Affected

by Hurricane Floyd

Since FY 1993, APHIS has conducted an

intensive traceback effort on dogs sold by

random-source, class B animal dealers. These

dealers, who supply animals to the research

community, typically obtain them from pounds

and shelters, pet owners who wish to

relinquish ownership, and other legitimate

sources. However, there has always been

concern that some of these dealers may be

trafficking in stolen animals.

Under the AWA, random-source dealers are

required to maintain accurate records of the

acquisition and disposition of their animals.

APHIS' traceback effort has focused on making

sure these records are accurate and complete.

To optimize this effort, APHIS has conducted

quarterly inspections of all random-source

dealers since the traceback project went into

Class B Dealer Traceback Continues Successes

effect in 1993. AC has also taken stringent

enforcement action when violations are found.

Since 1993, this includes issuing more than

$500,000 in fines, suspending 5 licenses and

revoking 12 more.

The fruits of this effort have been tremendous.

From FY 1993 through 1999, the percentage

of animals traced back to their original source

has increased from a little more than 40

percent to nearly 95 percent. At the same

time, the number of random source dealers

has decreased from more than 100 to fewer

than 35. Moreover, the number of class B

dealers under investigation has decreased

from a high of 260 in 1992 to fewer than 5 in

FY 1999.

Hurricane Floyd, which pounded the east coast

in September 1999, affected not only humans

and livestock but pets as well. In the flight of

evacuation, pets were lost, left behind, and

separated from their owners. Some shelters

were not equipped to handle animals, and

fleeing pet owners did not know what to do

with their dogs and cats.

At the end of FY 1999, USDA made plans to

meet with disaster planners from The Humane

Society of the United States, the American

Humane Association, and the American

Veterinary Medical Association in November to

discuss how best to secure the well-being of

pets in disasters. The meeting will allow USDA

officials to examine the disaster strategies of

various animal protection groups and discuss

how the Department can work with companion

animal owners before, during, and after times

of crisis.

USDA issued a press release reminding pet

owners to use APHIS’ Missing Pet Network to

help reunite them with their animals. The

Missing Pet Network is an Internet site

(www.missingpet.net), created by an AC staff

officer in 1996, that has free postings about

lost and found pets, organized by State. We

receive many reports of people being reunited

with their lost pets through the network.
24

Primate Import

Workgroup Established

Data Base of

Circus Elephants

Developed

Class A Dealer Workgroup Established

In December 1997, AC formed a class A dealer

workgroup to examine enforcement of the AWA

at commercial breeding facilities throughout

the country and make recommendations for

improvement. The group is modeled on the

highly successful approach that was used to

improve enforcement of laws covering class B

dealers over the past several years. The

group's first meeting was in St. Louis in early

December 1998. The team toured breeding

facilities in the area and identified several

possible ways to improve enforcement.

In spring 1999, AC trained field personnel on

the inspection of dealer facilities, based on

recommendations developed at the St. Louis

meeting. The goal of the training is to ensure

uniformity of inspection procedures

throughout the United States so that all dealers

are required to provide the same level of care

to their animals.

Another recommendation entails the

development of a policy that spells out the

minimum requirements for maintaining

medical records for all covered animals. All

AWA licensees, including dealers, would be

required to follow the policy. At the end of FY

1999, the policy was being drafted for

publication.

In January and February 1998, a team of AC

field members inspected all circuses

throughout the United States that use

elephants. The team completed formal

inspection reports, took photographs of the

elephants, and filled out evaluation forms

containing specific information on such things

as the condition of the elephants’ feet. AC

used this information to develop a profile on

each circus elephant and has compiled these

profiles into a single data base. This data base

has proven to be a useful resource to AC field

personnel when inspecting circuses.

In FY 1998, AC established a workgroup to

improve APHIS’ oversight of shipments of

imported primates. This group worked with

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

(CDC) to coordinate oversight activities,

improve information sharing between

agencies, and avoid duplication of efforts. For

example, FWS and CDC officials agreed to

provide APHIS with information on importers’

compliance histories and dates of future

shipments.

In addition, AC agreed to work with CDC and

FWS to address shipping and handling

concerns with unregulated importers and

transporters. A detailed set of procedures for

inspection of such shipments of imported

primates was developed and distributed

through the regional offices. These procedures

have clearly helped to improve oversight of

shipments of imported primates.
25

PUBLIC OUTREACH

In FY 1999, AC carried out numerous outreach

activities, including moving forward with its

multiyear public affairs campaign to educate

and inform all program stakeholders about the

AWA and AC's role in enforcing the law. To

support this effort, the program is upgrading

all of its existing public affairs materials and

producing new products where needed.

AC Expands

Distribution of

Quarterly Report

AC Publishes Mission

and Operations Brochure

During FY 1999, AC continued to expand the

distribution of its quarterly Animal Care

Report, increasing the number of subscribers

from about 1,700 to nearly 2,000, doubling its

distribution from FY 1997. This report, which

provides brief overviews on all key issues

affecting AC's administration of the AWA, is

mailed at no charge to program stakeholders

to keep them up to date on current program

initiatives. Editions of the report were

prepared for winter–spring and spring–

summer. The report is also posted on the AC

home page (www.aphis.usda.gov/ac).

AC's public affairs campaign on safe pet travel,

which was launched in September 1997 to

educate the general public about traveling with

their pets, has disseminated thousands of

pieces of informational materials. By the end

of FY 1998, AC had distributed its entire press

run of 20,000 copies of “Traveling With Your

Pet,” its full-color brochure. The program had

also disseminated thousands of factsheets on

safe pet travel and stickers labeled "Live

Animals" that are designed to be to placed on

kennels to meet the AWA requirements.

Recipients of these materials have included

members of the general public, veterinary

clinics, travel agents, and State Veterinarians.

In FY 1999, AC made slight revisions to

“Traveling With Your Pet” and printed another

40,000 copies. In addition to distributing the

brochure through AC personnel and travel

shows, AC posted the brochure to its Web

page so that anyone with electronic access

can view and download it

(www.aphis.usda.gov/oa/pubs/petravel.pdf or

.html). The new APHIS travel page

(www.aphis.usda.gov/travel/index.html) also

provides a link to the brochure.

AC also began production in FY 1999 on a

public service announcement about pet travel.

This animated piece is expected to be

distributed nationwide in the spring of 2000.

Safe Pet Travel Campaign Continues

In order to better inform people about AC’s

mission and how we work, AC published a

12-page, full-color brochure entitled “Animal

Care: Safeguarding the Welfare of Animals.”

This publication provides general information

on the animal care and horse protection

programs, regulations, and legislation. It also

discusses developments in innovative

enforcement and inspection processes,

regulatory issues, and other issues AC

expects to face in the future.
26

Automated Telephone

Service Assists

Travelers

In FY 1999, more than 2,500 members of the

general public used AC’s toll-free, 24-hour,

automated telephone voice response service

(800–545–USDA). This service provides

information on the humane handling of cats

and dogs during transport, including the AWA

requirements for temperature, shipping

documents, food and water, and cage sizes.

Designed to be user friendly, the service is

recommended for inclusion in training courses

for airline cargo handlers, ticket agents, and

supervisors.

In February 1999, AC launched its new and

improved Website (www.aphis.usda.gov/ac).

The new site contains the same information as

the old site but organizes it in a more logical

and user-friendly way for both the general

public and program stakeholders. One of the

new features is the News and Information

page. The page provides access to current

issues affecting the program as well as AC

press releases and APHIS’ E-FOIA search

engine. AC has also developed separate

pages for Horse Protection Act and AWA

information to help producers find exactly

what they are looking for. Another new page

details the mission and structure of AC.

In fall 1998, AC began posting annual reports

it receives from research facilities to the

Website. The action complied with a

congressional mandate to make Federal

Government documents available

E–FOIA Gives Public

Quick Access to Data

 FOIA

FY requests

1999 481

1998 657

1997 824

ANIMAL-WELFARERELATED FOIA

REQUESTS RECEIVED

BY APHIS,

FY 1997–99*

*These figures include both official FOIA requests

processed through APHIS’ FOIA office and requests for

inspection reports processed through AC’s regional

offices. Before FY 1997, all such requests were

processed through the FOIA office at headquarters.

electronically and was part of an ongoing

APHIS and AC initiative to provide the public

with access to agency records through the

Internet. The posting started with reports from

FY 1996 and FY 1997.

APHIS is aware that there are concerns about

the posting of certain information to the

Website, such as researchers’ names and

addresses, and is working, where possible, to

address the situation. However, under the

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), APHIS

may not arbitrarily remove information from

agency records. More information is available

in AC policy number 17, “Annual Reports for

Research Facilities” (www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/

policy17.html) and the Spring–Summer 1999

issue of the Animal Care Report.

AC Takes a Position on

Dangerous Pets

AC’s New and Improved Website

Throughout FY 1999, AC continued to expand

the amount of program information available

on APHIS’ FOIA Website (foia.aphis.usda.gov).

Under the project, AC has made the names

and locations of all licensees and registrants

available. It has also made recent inspection

findings for these individuals available and

will continue to add additional information in

the future.

AC also responded to numerous animalwelfare-related FOIA requests the oldfashioned way. The next tabulation lists the

number of FOIA requests received for the past

3 fiscal years.

In FY 1999, AC began developing its first

position statement: Large Wild and Exotic Cats

Make Dangerous Pets. The position statement

differs from AC policies in that AC does not

regulate what animals people may keep as

pets. AC has seen through its experience what

happens when people who are not trained to

handle animals such as this try to keep them.

The situation is dangerous for people and

detrimental to the animals as well.

This first position statement will be released in

February 2000 at the Animal Care Expo

sponsored by The Humane Society of the

United States. Other topics for position

statements are being considered for

development.
27

Cooperating and Communicating

With Stakeholders

In FY 1999, APHIS and the research

community cosponsored a research

preceptorship program that sent two AC

veterinarians to 6 intensive weeks of training at

various research facilities and teaching

institutions. This very successful program,

which previously had been conducted at

research facilities in the Northeast, moved to

the Chicago area in FY 1999.

AC personnel also attended and participated in

national meetings held by various

organizations, including the International

Association of Aquatic Animal Medicine, the

American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the

Society of Marine Mammalogy, the Association

of Aquatic Life Support System Operators, the

North American Veterinary Conference, the

American Association of Laboratory Animal

Science, the Applied Research Ethics National

Association, Public Responsibility in Medicine

and Research, and the Scientists Center for

Animal Welfare.

In total, AC personnel attended more than 297

industry meetings and training sessions in FY

1999 and presented papers or informal talks at

more than 97 of them. APHIS employees also

staffed an exhibit booth at several of these

meetings to answer questions and provide

information on AC's enforcement of the AWA.

In addition, AC personnel actively interacted

with organizations concerned about the

humane care of animals. These organizations

include the American Zoo and Aquarium

Association, the American Veterinary Medical

Association, the National Association for

Biomedical Research, Americans for Medical

Progress, the American Association of Zoo

Veterinarians, the Alliance for Marine Mammal

Parks and Aquariums, the Association for the

Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory

Animal Care International, and the Scientist's

Center for Animal Welfare.

Additional cooperators include The Humane

Society of the United States, the Animal

Welfare Institute, the American Humane

Association, the Animal Protection Institute,

the Association of American Medical Colleges,

and the Air Transport Association. AC is also

represented in the United States Animal Health

Association and has members on both its

animal welfare and captive wildlife committees.

Answering Public

Inquiries

In FY 1999, AC assisted media officials in

various ways. Altogether, the program fielded

more than 1,200 calls from members of the

media and issued more than 70 press

releases. Most of these releases provided

information concerning enforcement actions

taken against licensees and registrants (such

as settlements, fines, suspensions, and

confiscations). The other releases concerned

matters such as AC’s request for comments on

a draft policy on environmental enhancement

for nonhuman primates and publication of

final rules on perimeter fencing requirements.

AC personnel also gave numerous local and

national television, radio, and newspaper or

magazine interviews on various issues relating

to the AWA. These included interviews with

CNN, NBC’s Dateline, ABC’s 20/20, the

Chicago Tribune, and The Wall Street Journal.

Outreach efforts also included interviews with

local media outlets in all 50 States and several

foreign countries.

Correspondence Correspondence

received/dispatched received/dispatched

FY by headquarters by regional offices

1999 3,729 24,092

1998 2,495 22,280

1997 4,188 20,396

ANIMAL WELFARE CORRESPONDENCE

RECEIVED BY APHIS, FY 1997–99

Assisting the Media

During FY 1999, APHIS received and

responded to thousands of inquiries about

animal welfare from individual citizens,

concerned groups, the Office of the President,

and Members of Congress. Other Federal

agencies also refer animal welfare concerns to

APHIS for response. The next tabulation lists

the number of animal welfare inquiries received

by APHIS during FY 1997 through 1999.
28

In FY 1999, staff from the Animal Welfare

Information Center (AWIC) responded to about

18,000 requests for information and

publications, including copies of the AWIC

Newsletter, and distributed more than 38,000

published documents to requesters. The AWIC

Newsletter was published twice in FY 1999

and sent to its 7,500 subscribers in the United

States and 38 foreign countries.

AWIC's Website (www.nal.usda.gov/awic)

underwent many changes in FY 1999. The

site and its subject areas were restructured,

and many documents and new links were

added. The average number of hits per month

grew from about 17,000 in October 1998 to

more than 30,000 in September 1999.

AWIC also trained 224 individuals in its

workshop entitled "Meeting the Information

Requirements of the Animal Welfare Act,"

which is held at the National Agricultural

Library in Beltsville, MD, and at other

locations throughout the country. AWIC

continues to develop materials for the online

tutorial that provides access to the workshop to

more regulated parties.

AWIC participated in two projects involving

environmental enrichment for nonhuman

primates. An AWIC representative served on

the committee that wrote a report on

requirements for promoting the psychological

well-being for nonhuman primates. The report

was the basis for the draft policy on

environmental enhancement plans for facilities

with nonhuman primates. (For further

information on the draft policy published on

environmental enhancement plans, see page

24.) AWIC also worked with USDA, the

National Institutes of Health, and the Office for

the Protection From Research Risks to provide

information, as directed by Congress, on

environmental enrichment for nonhuman

primates. The group revised a previous

document on the subject and published the

Environmental Enrichment for Nonhuman

Primates Resource Guide, January 1992–

February 1999. This greatly expanded

document includes U.S. laws, regulations,

organizations, Websites, primate centers and

animal colonies, relevant listservers, product

suppliers, audiovisuals, journals and

newsletters, and an updated bibliography on

the topic.

AWIC officials interacted with about 850

people who visited their booth at various

conferences, and more than 700 people

attended presentations about AWIC’s services

and how to conduct searches for alternatives to

painful research procedures.

AWIC staff also produced four new

publications on various aspects of animals

care. These publications concern Websites for

biomedical, pharmaceutical, veterinary, and

animal science resources; information

resources for livestock and poultry handling

and transport; symposium proceedings on

historical perspectives and future directions of

the AWA; and information resources for

institutional animal care and use committees.

AWIC Focuses on Educational Efforts

AC serves on the Interagency Research

Animal Committee, whose members come

from Federal agencies involved in the care

and use of animals in biomedical research.

This committee is responsible for interagency

coordination of animal care-and-use

concerns and for making contributions to

policy development. It also acts as a forum

for information exchange and regulation

development.

Liaison With Other Federal Agencies

AC also maintains close working relationships

with other Federal agencies that deal with

animals on regulation and enforcement of the

AWA. APHIS cooperated on numerous issues

with the U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services' National Institutes of Health, CDC,

and Food and Drug Administration; the

Department of Defense; the Department of

Veterans Affairs; the Marine Mammal

Commission the U.S. Department of

Commerce's National Marine Fisheries

Service; the U.S. Department of the Interior's

FWS; and the Environmental Protection

Agency.
29

REGULATORY AND POLICY INITIATIVES

Decisions on "Doris Day"

Petition Published

In spring 1998, the Alternative Research and

Development Foundation, a group affiliated

with the American Antivivisection Society,

filed a petition that would have USDA exercise

its authority under the AWA to regulate rats,

mice, and birds. To do so, AC would have to

amend the AWA regulations to include these

species under the regulatory definition of

“animal.”

Bringing these species under the protection of

the AWA would significantly increase AC’s

regulatory responsibilities and affect oversight

of other program activities (e.g., inspections

of dog dealers and animal exhibitors).

In January 1999, AC published the petition in

the Federal Register to solicit public input on

whether rats, mice, and birds should be

regulated and, if so, how the increased

workload should be prioritized. In March

1999, the comment period was extended

through May 28, 1999. By the end of FY

1999, AC had received more than 34,000

comments and was still reviewing them. AC

also commissioned a study by the Federal

research division of the Library of Congress

to determine the potential number of

additional facilities that might need to be

regulated. This study and the decision on

whether or not to cover these species under

the AWA are still pending.

Comments Received on

Environmental

Enrichment Policy

Comments Received on

Rats, Mice, and Birds

In July 1999, AC published its decision and Petition

policy on changes in licensing requirements

for dogs and cats, based on a petition from the

Doris Day Animal League filed in 1997. More

than 48,000 comments on these issues were

received. USDA's decided to not amend the

AWA definition of "retail pet store" but did

decide to require that wholesale dealers of

hunting, security, and breeding dogs be

licensed. Both of these changes were

contained in the Doris Day Animal League

Petition that AC published as a notice in the

Federal Register in FY 1997.

Recognizing that these rule changes could

severely strain available AWA enforcement

resources by adding numerous new licensees,

AC raised the possibility of increasing the

number of breeding female dogs and cats that

may be owned without obtaining an AWA

license. USDA decided to not change these

numbers partly because many currently

licensed facilities, who would have no other

oversight mechanism, would have become

exempt. USDA determined that exempting

some wholesale facilities in order to provide

oversight at some retail outlets would not be in

the best interest of animal welfare.

During FY 1998 and 1999, AC worked to

finalize its long-awaited policy on

environmental enrichment for nonhuman

primates. In September 1999, AC published

the draft policy and requested public

comments to consider prior issuing a final

policy. More than 230 comments were

received.

The policy, which will serve as a resource for

inspectors and regulated parties, will

complement the National Research Council’s

fall 1998 publication on this same issue. The

goal is to use both documents to best attain

enrichment for primates as mandated by the

1985 amendment to the AWA.
30

On December 12, 1997, AC closed the

extended comment period on its request for

information concerning current "best" practices

for the training and handling of potentially

dangerous wild and exotic animals. Among

other things, the notice sought input on

suggested experience requirements for animal

handlers and trainers, as well as on

contingency plans for the recapture of escaped

or uncontrollable animals. More than 400

comments were submitted.

Perimeter Fencing Final

Rule Completed

More Comments Received on Training and

Handling of Dangerous Animals

During FY 1999, AC personnel drafted policy

on this issue, based on the comments

reviewed in FY 1998. When completed and

approved, a notice of the draft policy will be

published in the Federal Register to allow for

public comment prior to the policy’s issuance

in final form.

Work Progresses on

Swim-With-the-Dolphins

Rule

At the end of FY 1999, AC completed its final

rule on perimeter fencing requirement for

animals covered under the AWA, with emphasis

on wild and exotic animals. The rule does not

apply to nonhuman primates, which are already

covered under subpart D of the AWA

regulations. In general, the rule would require

a perimeter fence at least 6 feet high for most

animals and 8 feet high for dangerous animals,

such as elephants, bears, and large cats. All

requirements are designed to better contain the

animals and to keep out unwanted animals.

APHIS published a final rule that establishes

new requirements for “swim-with-thedolphins” programs. The new rule includes

requirements that facilities maintain three

separate pool areas: an interactive area, a

buffer zone, and a sanctuary where the

dolphins can swim free of public contact. In

early FY 1999, based on the nature of shallowwater interactive or wading programs, AC

suspended the attendant-to-participant ratio

requirements and the interactive space

requirements for wading programs. In April

1999, because of other considerations, APHIS

suspended enforcement of the rule overall and

solicited additional comments to evaluate the

appropriateness of the rule given the extensive

evolution of swim-with-the-dolphin programs

in recent years. AC plans to propose

amendments to the rule in FY 2000 that are

more supportable based on existing scientific

data and more appropriate to the nature of

existing programs, including the wading

programs.
31

Policies Completed

Additional Policies Near

Completion

Several additional regulatory initiatives were

also under development at the end of FY 1999.

Below is a listing of the initiatives not

discussed in detail earlier in this section. The

items are listed as either under consideration

and not yet published in the Federal Register,

published in the Federal Register and open for

comment, or previously open for comment and

now under review by the Department.

Affirmation of Interim Rules:

Resting surfaces for dogs and cats (completed)

Proposed Rules:

Licensing requirements for dogs and cats

(under consideration)

Identification of unweaned puppies and kittens

(under consideration)

Amendment of the definition of “exhibitor”

(under consideration)

Exotic canids and felids: minimum age for

transport (under consideration)

Veterinary medical records (under

consideration)

Incorporation of American Veterinary Medial

Association standards for euthanasia (under

consideration)

Final Rules:

Acclimation certificates for dogs and cats

(under review)

Standards for marine mammals: consensus

language (under consideration)

Clarifying definition of “field study" (under

review)

At the end of FY 1999, the following policies

had been issued in addition to those

mentioned above:

Necropsy requirements

Criteria for licensing hoofstock dealers

Adequate enclosures for flying species and

aquatic species

Proper diets for large felids

Regulation of agricultural animals

Capture methods for prairie dogs

Licensing sales of dead animals

Annual report for research facilities (revision)

At the end of FY 1999, AC was preparing to

publish additional AWA policies:

Space and exercise requirements for traveling

exhibitors

Veterinary care (revision to include “Health

Records” section)

Guidelines for farm animals used in

nonagricultural purposes

Listing of Other

Regulatory Initiatives
32

GLOSSARY OF TERMS

Airport inspection—Individual airline

inspections of terminal, cargo, and baggage

areas made at airports for compliance with the

AWA regulations and standards.

Alleged violation—A violation of the AWA

regulations or standards that has been

documented as existing but has not been

legally concluded.

Carrier—The operator of any airline,

railroad, motor carrier, shipping line, or other

enterprise that is engaged in the business of

transporting any animals for hire.

Commerce—Trade, traffic, or transportation

that is between a place in a State and any

place outside of such State (including foreign

countries), or between points within the same

State but through any place outside of the

State.

Complaints—(1) A civil or administrative

complaint informs the alleged violator of the

AWA about allegations charged against him/

her. (2) A public complaint is information

received from citizens, humane groups, or

others concerning possible violations of the

AWA, regulations, or standards at animal

facilities.

Compliance—The status of a facility that

meets all of the regulatory requirements set

forth in the AWA regulations and standards.

Dealer—Any person who, in commerce, for

compensation or profit, delivers for

transportation, or transports (except as a

carrier), buys, or sells, or negotiates the

purchase or sale of (1) any dog or other

animal whether alive or dead (including

unborn animals, organs, limbs, blood, serum,

or other parts) for research, teaching, testing,

experimentation, exhibition, or for use as a

pet; or (2) any dog for hunting, security, or

breeding purposes. The term dealer does not

include a retail pet store unless such store

sells any animals to a research facility, an

exhibitor, or to a dealer (wholesale); or any

person who does not sell, or negotiate the

purchase or sale, of any wild or exotic animal,

dog, or cat and who derives no more than

$500 gross income from the sale of animals,

dogs, or cats, during any calendar year.

Enforcement—The activities undertaken by

USDA and APHIS AC and IES personnel to

ensure that the AWA's regulations and

standards are met. Enforcement includes

developing alleged violation cases and taking

action in the form of Letters of Warning,

warning tickets, stipulations, administrative

complaints, hearings, trials, and other legal

procedures and methods to obtain compliance.

Exhibitor—Any person (public or private)

exhibiting any animals which were purchased

in commerce or the intended distribution of

which affects commerce, or will affect

commerce, to the public for compensation.

Exhibitors include carnivals, circuses, animal

acts, zoos, and educational exhibits, whether

exhibiting for profit or not. The term exhibitor

excludes most retail pet stores, horse and dog

races, organizations sponsoring, and all

persons participating in State and county fairs,

livestock shows, rodeos, field trials, coursing

events, purebred dog and cat shows, and any

other fairs or exhibitions intended to advance

agricultural arts and sciences.

Facility—A facility is the holder of the license

or registration. Each facility may have only

one license or registration number but may be

physically divided into two or more sites.

Inspections—

• Attempted inspection—An inspection

that could not be completed, including those

where representatives of the inspected

entities were not onsite or transportation

facilities were found to have no animals

present.

• Compliance inspection—An

unannounced inspection completed, after

licensing or registration, to determine the

facility's compliance with the AWA

regulations and standards. Compliance

inspections include reinspections.

• Prelicensing or Preregistration

inspection—An announced inspection

made, after application for licensure or

registration has been submitted, to ascertain

compliance with the AWA regulations and

standards prior to licensing or registering

the facility. Prelicensing inspections are

required. Preregistration inspections,

although not required, are often performed

upon request of the facility.

• Reinspection—An inspection made

specifically to follow up on one or more

violations documented during a compliance

inspection.

Intermediate handler—Any person who is

engaged in any business receiving custody of

animals in connection with their transportation

in commerce. This definition excludes

dealers, research facilities, exhibitors,

operators of auction sales, and carriers.

Investigation—Inquiries and examination of

allegation(s) that a person or facility is not

complying with the AWA or its regulations or

standards.

License classes—

• A Class A licensee is anyone meeting the

definition of "dealer" whose business

consists only of animals that are bred and

raised on the premises in a closed or stable

colony and those animals acquired for the

sole purpose of maintaining or enhancing

the breeding colony.
33

• A Class B licensee is anyone meeting the

definition of a "dealer" whose business

includes the purchase and/or resale of any

animal. Class B licensees include brokers

and operators of auction sales, as such

individuals negotiate or arrange for the

purchase, sale, or transport of animals in

commerce.

• A Class C licensee is anyone meeting the

definition of an "exhibitor" whose business

involves the showing or displaying of

animals to the public.

Random source dogs and cats—Animals

acquired from animal pounds and shelters,

auction sales, or from any person who did not

breed and raise the animals on his or her

premises.

Registrant—Any research facility, carrier,

intermediate handler, or exhibitor whose

primary business is not required to be licensed

by the AWA. If a registered facility conducts an

activity that requires a license, then it will also

be licensed for that activity. For example,

some research facilities have a dealer license

in addition to their registration because they

occasionally sell surplus animals to other

research facilities.

Research facility—Any school (other than

elementary or secondary), institution,

organization, or person that uses or intends to

use live animals in research, tests, or

experiments, and that (1) purchases or

transports live animals in commerce or

(2) receives funds under a grant, award, loan,

or contract from a department, agency, or

instrumentality of the United States for the

purpose of carrying out research, tests, or

experiments.

• An active registered research facility is

a USDA-registered research facility that

currently utilizes animals covered by the

AWA for teaching, testing, or

experimentation.

• An inactive registered research facility

is a USDA-registered research facility that

currently does not utilize animals covered

by the AWA for teaching, testing, or

experimentation.

Retail pet store—Any outlet where only the

following animals are sold or offered for sale,

at retail, for use as pets: dogs, cats, rabbits,

guinea pigs, hamsters, gerbils, rats, mice,

gophers, chinchillas, domestic ferrets,

domestic farm animals, birds, coldblooded

species, and other common small pets. Retail

pet stores do not include any establishment or

persons who (1) deal in dogs used for

hunting, security, or breeding purposes; (2)

exhibit, sell, or offer to exhibit or sell, any wild

or exotic or other nonpet species of

warmblooded animals (except birds) such as

skunks, raccoons, nonhuman primates,

squirrels, ocelots, foxes, coyotes, etc.; (3) sell

warmblooded animals (except birds and

laboratory rats and mice) for research or

exhibition purposes; (4) wholesale any

animals (except birds and laboratory rats and

mice); or (5) exhibit pet animals in a room that

is separate from or adjacent to the retail pet

store, or in an outside area, or anywhere off

the retail pet store premises.

Search—Activity associated with finding

unlicensed or unregistered entities.

Site—All regulated components of a licensed

or registered facility within the same

geographical location, typically within a 35-

mile radius.

Stipulation—An agreement by a violator to

accept assessment of a civil penalty, license

suspension, or combination of both. The

stipulation procedure is used instead of formal

administrative hearings. Alleged violators are

offered the opportunity to waive a hearing by

agreeing to enter into a stipulation, in which

case they will pay a specified civil penalty and/

or have their license suspended for a specified

period.

Violation—An area or item, at a registered or

licensed facility, found to be out of compliance

with the regulations or standards of the AWA.
34

TABLE 1. NUMBER OF LICENSEES AND REGISTRANTS,

BY FACILITIES AND NUMBER OF SITES (FY 1999)

Registered Licensed Licensed Active Inactive

intermediate Registered Class A Class B Licensed Registered research research

handlers carriers dealers dealers exhibitors exhibitors facilities facilities

Facilities Sites Facilities Sites Facilities Sites Facilities Sites Facilities Sites Facilities Sites Facilities Sites Facilities Sites

Total United States 276 432 86 893 2,986 3,039 1,085 1,169 2,276 2,702 17 19 1,199 1,594 33 50

Alabama 2 1 0 14 7 7 14 14 34 38 0 0 13 13 0 0

Alaska 3 1 4 14 0 0 0 0 7 7 0 0 4 4 00

Arizona 10 14 2 8 6 6 7 8 29 33 0 0 10 11 0 0

Arkansas 0 0 0 20 149 151 26 30 26 32 0 0 11 11 0 0

California 38 57 8 116 17 16 23 22 229 306 0 0 171 175 10 15

Colorado 7 10 2 11 8 8 6 6 28 30 0 0 21 22 2 2

Connecticut 6 10 0 9 0 0 7 10 37 39 0 0 18 22 0 0

Delaware 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 5 4 0 0 9 8 00

Dist. of Columbia 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 11

Florida 22 32 4 44 31 40 61 65 240 335 1 1 20 29 4 5

Georgia 12 15 3 9 20 21 10 12 47 54 2 2 15 43 0 0

Guam 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 21 21 5 32 0 0 0 0 16 19 0 0 2 2 0 0

Idaho 0 0 0 6 1 1 3 3 16 17 0 0 4 5 0 0

Illinois 11 14 1 12 44 44 37 39 136 149 2 2 38 38 0 0

Indiana 3 7 1 12 36 36 37 38 68 73 0 0 20 23 0 1

Iowa 0 3 1 26 280 287 59 60 37 42 0 0 17 44 0 0

Kansas 0 0 1 10 380 381 70 75 23 26 0 0 17 27 1 1

Kentucky 5 14 1 18 9 10 9 9 15 17 1 1 8 25 0 0

Louisiana 1 1 0 8 12 11 11 11 16 18 0 0 13 18 0 0

Maine 3 8 0 5 1 1 2 4 11 11 0 0 10 10 0 0

Maryland 5 14 0 17 6 6 8 9 19 23 0 0 39 46 0 0

Massachusetts 4 8 1 8 6 7 8 10 40 44 0 0 80 111 0 0

Michigan 5 14 3 37 13 16 31 39 82 89 4 4 32 38 0 0

Minnesota 1 3 2 13 71 73 37 35 54 58 2 2 25 33 0 0

Mississippi 0 0 0 0 5 5 4 4 11 11 0 0 6 6 0 0

Missouri 5 6 3 36 975 982 140 148 53 72 0 0 38 72 0 0

Montana 0 0 1 18 12 13 1 1 17 20 0 0 6 6 0 0

Nebraska 0 0 0 6 132 131 15 16 12 12 0 0 14 21 0 0

Nevada 3 6 2 10 3 3 9 9 53 62 0 0 2 2 0 0

New Hampshire 1 1 1 4 2 2 0 1 17 19 0 0 4 5 0 0

New Jersey 6 11 1 9 5 4 17 20 45 52 0 0 44 60 3 3

New Mexico 4 4 3 10 2 2 1 1 13 14 0 0 7 8 0 0

New York 18 25 4 39 22 23 33 35 112 130 0 0 89 103 1 2

North Carolina 6 12 2 22 12 11 22 27 31 37 0 0 24 56 0 2

North Dakota 1 1 0 23 24 25 3 4 14 18 0 0 3 3 0 0

Ohio 5 16 2 21 25 28 35 37 73 85 3 4 44 54 2 5

Oklahoma 1 3 0 14 326 327 52 54 25 26 0 0 17 23 2 3

Oregon 3 4 1 9 31 31 34 37 43 47 0 0 9 11 1 1

Pennsylvania 14 16 1 35 102 106 48 53 94 111 0 0 74 83 2 3

Puerto Rico 0 1 5 11 0 0 1 1 5 5 0 0 7 10 0 0

Rhode Island 1 2 0 2 0 0 1 1 8 9 0 0 6 7 00

South Carolina 1 2 0 10 8 10 4 4 17 18 0 0 10 19 0 0

South Dakota 0 0 0 23 83 83 15 17 16 19 0 0 6 9 0 0

Tennessee 3 6 2 23 11 11 11 13 31 36 0 0 17 17 1 2

Texas 19 31 4 65 76 82 112 122 173 214 0 0 81 131 0 0

Utah 3 4 2 10 1 0 1 1 11 12 0 0 8 8 0 0

Vermont 1 2 0 4 1 1 3 3 3 3 0 0 3 3 00

Virgin Islands 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00

Virginia 9 14 3 8 3 5 12 14 45 55 1 1 14 23 1 2

Washington 7 9 6 19 9 9 12 11 29 33 0 0 28 34 2 2

West Virginia 1 1 0 1 1 1 10 9 12 11 0 0 5 5 0 0

Wisconsin 3 4 4 8 17 21 21 25 96 103 1 2 28 49 0 0

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 3 00

APPENDIX
35

TABLE 2. ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH (FY 1999)

Other

Number of Guinea farm Other

all animals Dogs Cats Primates pigs Hamsters Rabbits Sheep Pigs animals animals

Total United States 1,217,998 70,541 23,238 54,927 266,129 201,593 280,222 23,559 77,042 54,808 165,939

Total research 1,110,449 69,053 22,805 49,987 256,940 184,367 270,053 12,621 65,459 30,700 148,464

Federal agencies 107,549 1,488 433 4,940 9,189 17,226 10,169 10,938 11,583 24,108 17,475

Alabama 8,056 1,699 422 735 376 226 2,031 108 560 378 1,521

Alaska 544 17 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 521

Arizona 5,852 447 123 114 257 393 874 24 393 25 3,202

Arkansas 3,298 649 16 162 659 0 1,622 0 150 3 37

California 140,309 3,913 3,363 4,059 32,594 10,747 58,394 2,171 5,525 4,581 14,962

Colorado 9,025 633 243 15 2,445 1,662 1,429 507 161 165 1,765

Connecticut 10,852 976 153 567 1,387 1,342 2,961 2 422 111 2,931

Delaware 39,328 1,703 548 24 4,738 15,791 4,077 56 4,038 737 7,616

Dist. of Columbia 11,001 125 68 349 784 633 1,271 85 1,276 10 6,400

Florida 6,781 276 299 182 1,026 450 1,452 253 786 264 1,793

Georgia 26,994 1,182 469 3,545 1,162 4,232 10,829 21 1,236 365 3,953

Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 215 0 2 11 70 10 51 0 30 15 26

Idaho 460 32 3 20 0 3 56 2 0 2 342

Illinois 35,671 2,928 705 908 8,615 3,731 8,867 447 3,744 881 4,845

Indiana 16,394 2,551 283 197 3,085 592 2,640 76 986 38 5,946

Iowa 65,660 2,052 2,213 32 7,021 40,915 5,792 885 3,269 2,572 909

Kansas 25,033 1,517 918 127 3,578 6,148 1,607 25 5,995 3,532 1,586

Kentucky 4,356 233 73 76 353 865 1,611 0 209 93 843

Louisiana 16,003 1,016 526 9,199 552 345 2,637 4 283 104 1,337

Maine 5,661 8 8 0 6 24 172 0 110 272 5,061

Maryland 62,793 942 681 5,317 15,317 13,007 10,707 598 2,765 374 13,085

Massachusetts 67,335 1,767 421 2,606 25,058 12,033 11,543 1,234 4,506 1,837 6,330

Michigan 30,839 3,832 910 1,292 11,854 1,111 5,937 248 274 236 4,695

Minnesota 17,352 2,128 428 190 4,829 838 4,437 670 2,676 362 794

Mississippi 1,482 317 37 98 4 277 243 16 217 67 206

Missouri 33,788 2,596 1,700 78 6,766 11,416 4,620 589 1,865 1,633 2,525

Montana 4,920 0 4 18 420 0 1,387 93 236 2,475 287

Nebraska 76,020 1,030 453 74 2,349 32,385 3,420 9,991 6,813 19,038 467

Nevada 6,517 372 0 2,197 1,750 0 162 354 200 17 1,465

New Hampshire 1,138 4 40 8 115 69 369 32 457 1 43

New Jersey 97,679 5,784 510 3,341 35,117 14,589 22,766 142 1,978 470 12,982

New Mexico 2,080 213 6 249 12 121 38 1 197 0 1,243

New York 50,200 4,782 1,397 2,121 10,006 8,331 6,585 561 1,900 487 14,030

North Carolina 34,662 1,896 871 1,657 10,318 1,116 9,818 291 2,900 1,879 3,916

North Dakota 696 26 24 0 40 0 6 180 403 19 0

Ohio 60,272 4,027 869 618 22,386 2,033 19,238 141 4,862 304 5,794

Oklahoma 3,939 1,076 138 78 674 229 448 35 94 437 730

Oregon 5,095 175 70 1,269 659 814 631 119 365 41 952

Pennsylvania 86,801 6,334 1,711 1,990 27,728 3,032 36,300 635 2,810 1,250 5,011

Puerto Rico 2,997 56 0 1,874 106 50 40 0 20 0 851

Rhode Island 2,863 43 82 2 62 374 319 168 332 302 1,179

South Carolina 5,657 196 57 247 205 144 470 1 1,020 18 3,299

South Dakota 4,681 56 56 2 26 52 220 80 137 4,004 48

Tennessee 9,084 789 161 285 1,117 1,081 2,787 100 1,436 447 881

Texas 45,561 2,731 996 3,379 7,804 3,104 17,078 891 2,660 2,424 4,494

Utah 5,903 316 60 20 509 509 600 189 112 64 3,524

Vermont 773 26 8 0 474 0 127 0 90 2 46

Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Virginia 13,958 1,919 196 1,931 308 1,470 4,204 111 1,639 445 1,735

Washington 19,102 833 243 916 3,286 1,865 2,941 421 604 148 7,845

West Virginia 911 40 55 2 437 12 133 68 32 4 128

Wisconsin 30,863 4,234 596 2,746 7,673 3,411 4,249 922 3,814 1,776 1,442

Wyoming 542 44 17 0 12 11 26 12 5 99 316
36

TABLE 3. ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH, NO PAIN OR DISTRESS—

NO DRUGS NEEDED FOR RELIEF (FY 1999)

Other

Number of Guinea farm Other

all animals Dogs Cats Primates pigs Hamsters Rabbits Sheep Pigs animals animals

Total United States 691,701 31,993 12,313 26,863 163,159 114,463 155,437 14,885 32,577 43,989 96,022

Total research 624,968 31,852 12,135 24,797 159,750 105,127 153,937 4,564 25,659 23,316 83,831

Federal agencies 66,733 141 178 2,066 3,409 9,336 1,500 10,321 6,918 20,673 12,191

Alabama 2,909 392 167 36 312 226 545 15 73 368 775

Alaska 280 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 274

Arizona 3,675 153 0 76 226 165 331 3 145 0 2,576

Arkansas 2,652 574 0 160 596 0 1,235 0 50 0 37

California 84,744 1,332 1,849 1,419 23,615 3,689 38,742 599 1,536 3,575 8,418

Colorado 4,477 325 243 0 765 873 879 141 43 74 1,134

Connecticut 4,362 314 24 49 658 225 1,368 1 88 105 1,530

Delaware 24,258 1,077 444 19 1,055 13,758 2,080 56 3,680 685 1,404

Dist. of Columbia 7,127 16 0 207 382 146 342 0 5 0 6,029

Florida 4,003 99 109 81 888 289 672 114 110 61 1,580

Georgia 3,444 409 158 122 172 562 435 21 114 310 1,141

Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 52 0 2 0 26 0 3 0 0 0 21

Idaho 176 3 0 0 0 3 39 2 0 2 127

Illinois 19,068 981 340 366 6,545 1,572 5,546 342 2,385 692 299

Indiana 10,279 1,100 196 125 1,709 350 1,783 6 568 36 4,406

Iowa 39,144 669 1,485 0 4,740 26,467 365 632 2,078 2,415 293

Kansas 13,427 1,278 770 0 503 266 117 20 5,857 3,420 1,196

Kentucky 526 8 0 0 205 0 0 0 0 33 280

Louisiana 6,386 158 84 5,518 65 345 166 0 18 14 18

Maine 5,463 0 0 0 6 24 172 0 26 261 5,000

Maryland 25,294 151 63 2,428 5,365 8,742 4,405 303 782 127 2,928

Massachusetts 31,954 311 18 884 16,772 4,954 3,433 493 462 353 4,274

Michigan 16,026 2,127 301 983 6,180 405 2,949 54 2 69 2,956

Minnesota 8,009 252 62 50 4,260 346 1,999 34 436 232 338

Mississippi 541 159 3 18 4 3 41 16 64 59 174

Missouri 17,384 1,555 1,461 16 4,601 2,936 3,006 383 1,171 1,297 958

Montana 4,335 0 4 18 218 0 1,336 21 0 2,454 284

Nebraska 61,813 523 314 65 1,890 22,248 2,767 9,752 5,863 18,088 303

Nevada 5,373 308 0 1,861 1,554 0 131 3 49 2 1,465

New Hampshire 93 0 0 0 38 0 33 0 0 0 22

New Jersey 63,557 3,330 289 1,505 21,868 11,495 14,626 142 219 377 9,706

New Mexico 1,556 107 6 80 12 121 12 0 6 0 1,212

New York 22,518 2,311 628 1,233 3,917 4,270 1,985 11 164 152 7,847

North Carolina 19,272 906 474 253 7,474 574 6,690 49 808 140 1,904

North Dakota 396 14 24 0 0 0 5 0 350 3 0

Ohio 41,076 2,074 279 424 20,142 900 14,700 17 518 120 1,902

Oklahoma 2,040 305 66 1 402 172 103 30 18 385 558

Oregon 1,835 52 12 181 1 619 33 26 4 26 881

Pennsylvania 57,038 3,490 1,371 1,314 15,424 719 28,267 222 967 914 4,350

Puerto Rico 1,930 0 0 950 106 12 40 0 20 0 802

Rhode Island 1,227 0 0 0 0 237 48 0 0 0 942

South Carolina 3,118 29 7 0 1 0 156 0 45 0 2,880

South Dakota 4,410 17 47 0 12 52 188 80 36 3,946 32

Tennessee 2,224 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 0 0

Texas 23,836 1,468 686 2,300 4,896 1,227 7,609 230 576 1,244 3,600

Utah 4,028 42 13 0 0 222 154 10 84 0 3,503

Vermont 543 1 2 0 443 0 49 0 0 2 46

Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Virginia 5,699 807 38 1,256 274 120 1,873 69 207 227 828

Washington 7,020 217 99 689 114 1,745 698 236 223 91 2,908

West Virginia 138 0 0 0 50 12 22 0 0 4 50

Wisconsin 20,596 2,483 136 2,133 4,528 2,503 2,905 742 2,644 1,574 948

Wyoming 340 18 0 0 2 11 5 10 5 38 251
37

TABLE 4. ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH, WITH PAIN OR DISTRESS—

DRUGS USED FOR RELIEF (FY 1999)

Other

Number of Guinea farm Other

all animals Dogs Cats Primates pigs Hamsters Rabbits Sheep Pigs animals animals

Total United States 418,774 37,509 10,734 27,181 66,268 41,125 112,008 8,618 43,195 9,682 62,454

Total research 383,852 36,220 10,479 24,572 63,162 34,795 103,642 8,022 39,104 6,294 57,562

Federal agencies 34,922 1,289 255 2,609 3,106 6,330 8,366 596 4,091 3,388 4,892

Alabama 5,147 1,307 255 699 64 0 1,486 93 487 10 746

Alaska 264 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 247

Arizona 2,177 294 123 38 31 228 543 21 248 25 626

Arkansas 464 3 16 0 53 0 297 0 92 3 0

California 47,616 2,506 1,514 2,603 3,299 7,058 19,543 1,572 3,832 250 5,439

Colorado 2,376 308 0 0 464 375 467 359 118 91 194

Connecticut 5,464 568 123 275 188 1,117 1,451 1 334 6 1,401

Delaware 12,572 595 72 5 3,683 13 1,928 0 358 52 5,866

Dist. of Columbia 3,551 109 68 115 188 447 918 85 1,257 10 354

Florida 2,696 177 190 101 138 161 698 139 676 203 213

Georgia 16,139 755 311 3,380 894 3,438 3,414 0 1,122 55 2,770

Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 150 0 0 11 31 10 48 0 30 15 5

Idaho 273 29 3 20 0 0 6 0 0 0 215

Illinois 15,043 1,876 365 534 1,245 2,104 3,052 80 1,321 98 4,368

Indiana 5,569 1,403 87 70 1,376 242 820 70 418 2 1,081

Iowa 11,299 1,339 673 32 2,048 161 5,427 232 661 110 616

Kansas 4,201 236 148 127 1,814 364 867 5 138 112 390

Kentucky 3,830 225 73 76 148 865 1,611 0 209 60 563

Louisiana 9,617 858 442 3,681 487 0 2,471 4 265 90 1,319

Maine 198 8 8 0 0 0 0 0 110 11 61

Maryland 33,346 759 618 2,816 6,806 4,020 5,876 292 1,973 247 9,939

Massachusetts 31,837 1,434 323 1,722 7,586 4,579 8,104 741 3,832 1,460 2,056

Michigan 11,070 1,634 609 280 3,036 706 2,744 194 722 21 1,124

Minnesota 8,973 1,876 366 140 569 492 2,068 636 2,240 130 456

Mississippi 941 158 34 80 0 274 202 0 153 8 32

Missouri 8,644 1,031 239 62 531 2,421 1,557 206 694 336 1,567

Montana 585 0 0 0 202 0 51 72 236 21 3

Nebraska 4,463 507 139 9 430 456 653 239 950 950 121

Nevada 1,136 60 0 336 196 0 31 351 147 15 0

New Hampshire 834 4 40 8 77 69 125 32 457 1 21

New Jersey 27,969 2,264 221 1,714 11,675 782 6,327 0 1,759 93 3,134

New Mexico 524 106 0 169 23 0 26 1 191 0 31

New York 23,874 2,377 766 808 4,409 2,387 4,567 550 1,736 335 5,939

North Carolina 12,998 988 397 1,404 794 533 2,996 242 1,913 1,719 2,012

North Dakota 302 12 20 0 40 0 1 180 53 16 0

Ohio 18,292 1,936 590 194 1,506 1,133 4,463 124 4,344 184 3,818

Oklahoma 1,899 771 72 77 272 57 345 5 76 52 172

Oregon 3,260 123 58 1,088 658 195 598 93 361 15 71

Pennsylvania 20,669 2,776 325 629 3,898 2,012 7,802 413 1,843 336 635

Puerto Rico 1,067 56 8 924 38 0 2 0 0 0 49

Rhode Island 1,605 43 82 2 62 137 240 168 332 302 237

South Carolina 2,539 167 50 247 204 144 314 1 975 18 419

South Dakota 130 39 9 2 14 0 32 0 13 5 16

Tennessee 6,811 692 128 242 974 223 2,438 100 1,332 433 249

Texas 20,461 1,239 310 961 2,821 1,210 9,137 661 2,054 1,180 888

Utah 1,870 274 47 15 509 287 446 179 28 64 221

Vermont 199 25 6 0 0 0 78 0 90 0 0

Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Virginia 8,227 1,112 158 643 34 1,350 2,331 42 1,432 218 907

Washington 5,736 616 144 227 234 120 2,243 185 381 57 1,529

West Virginia 773 40 55 2 387 0 111 68 32 0 78

Wisconsin 8,892 1,751 460 613 2,183 908 1,034 180 1,170 202 391

Wyoming 202 26 17 0 10 0 21 2 0 61 65
38

TABLE 5. ANIMALS USED IN RESEARCH, WITH PAIN OR DISTRESS—

NO DRUGS USED FOR RELIEF (FY 1999)

Other

Number of Guinea farm Other

all animals Dogs Cats Primates pigs Hamsters Rabbits Sheep Pigs animals animals

Total United States 107,523 1,039 191 883 36,702 46,005 12,777 56 1,270 1,137 7,463

Total research 101,629 981 191 618 34,028 44,445 12,474 35 696 1,090 7,071

Federal agencies 5,894 58 0 265 2,574 1,560 303 21 574 47 392

Alabama 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arizona 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arkansas 182 72 0 2 10 0 90 0 8 0 0

California 7,919 75 0 37 5,680 0 109 0 157 756 1,105

Colorado 2,172 0 0 15 1,216 414 83 7 0 0 437

Connecticut 1,026 94 0 243 541 0 142 0 0 0 0

Delaware 2,498 31 32 0 0 2,020 69 0 0 0 346

Dist. of Columbia 323 0 0 27 214 40 11 0 14 0 0

Florida 82 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 0 0

Georgia 7,411 18 0 43 96 232 6,980 0 0 0 42

Guam 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hawaii 13 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0

Idaho 11 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0

Illinois 1,560 71 0 8 825 55 269 25 38 91 178

Indiana 546 48 0 2 0 0 37 0 0 0 459

Iowa 15,217 44 55 0 233 14,287 0 21 530 47 0

Kansas 7,405 3 0 0 1,261 5,518 623 0 0 2 0

Kentucky 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Louisiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maine 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maryland 4,153 32 0 73 3,146 245 426 3 10 0 218

Massachusetts 3,544 22 80 0 700 2,500 6 0 212 24 0

Michigan 3,743 71 0 29 2,638 0 244 0 0 146 615

Minnesota 370 0 0 0 0 0 370 0 0 0 0

Mississippi 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Missouri 7,760 10 0 0 1,634 6,059 57 0 0 0 0

Montana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nebraska 9,744 0 0 0 29 9,672 0 0 0 0 43

Nevada 8 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0

New Hampshire 211 0 0 0 0 0 211 0 0 0 0

New Jersey 6,153 190 0 122 1,574 2,312 1,813 0 0 0 142

New Mexico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

New York 3,808 94 0 80 1,680 1,674 33 0 0 0 244

North Carolina 2,392 2 0 0 2,050 9 132 0 179 20 0

North Dakota 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ohio 904 17 0 56 738 0 75 0 0 0 74

Oklahoma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Oregon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pennsylvania 9,094 68 15 47 8,406 301 231 0 0 0 26

Puerto Rico 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Rhode Island 31 0 0 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0

South Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

South Dakota 141 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 88 53 0

Tennessee 49 49 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Texas 1,264 24 0 118 87 667 332 0 30 0 6

Utah 5 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Vermont 31 0 0 0 31 0 0 0 0 0 0

Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Virginia 32 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Washington 6,346 0 0 0 2,938 0 0 0 0 0 3,408

West Virginia 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wisconsin 1,375 0 0 0 962 0 310 0 0 0 103

Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
39

TABLE 6. NUMBER OF ANIMALS USED BY RESEARCH FROM

THE FIRST REPORTING YEAR (1973) TO THE PRESENT

Other

Guinea Farm covered

FY Dogs Cats Primates pigs Hamsters Rabbits animals animals Totals

1973 195,157 66,195 42,298 408,970 454,986 447,570 38,169 1,653,345

1974 199,204 74,259 51,253 430,439 430,766 425,585 81,021 1,692,527

1975 154,489 51,439 36,202 436,446 456,031 448,530 42,523 1,625,660

1976 210,330 70,468 50,115 486,310 503,590 527,551 73,736 1,922,100

1977 176,430 62,311 53,116 348,741 393,533 439,003 46,535 1,519,669

1978 197,010 65,929 57,009 419,341 414,394 475,162 58,356 1,687,201

1979 211,104 69,103 59,359 457,134 419,504 539,594 76,247 1,832,045

1980 188,783 68,482 56,024 422,390 405,826 471,297 49,102 1,661,904

1981 188,649 58,090 57,515 432,632 397,522 473,922 50,111 1,658,441

1982 161,396 49,923 46,388 459,246 337,790 453,506 69,043 1,577,292

1983 174,542 53,344 54,926 485,048 337,023 466,810 108,549 1,680,242

1984 201,936 56,910 55,338 561,184 437,123 529,101 232,541 2,074,133

1985 194,905 59,211 57,271 598,903 414,460 544,621 284,416 2,153,787

1986 176,141 54,125 48,540 462,699 370,655 521,773 144,470 1,778,403

1987 180,169 50,145 61,392 538,998 416,002 554,385 168,032 1,969,123

1988 140,471 42,271 51,641 431,457 331,945 459,254 178,249 1,635,288

1989 156,443 50,812 51,688 481,712 389,042 471,037 153,722 1,754,456

1990 109,992 33,700 47,177 352,627 311,068 399,264 66,702 257,569 1,578,099

1991 107,908 34,613 42,620 378,582 304,207 396,046 214,759 363,685 1,842,420

1992 124,161 38,592 55,105 375,063 369,585 431,432 210,936 529,308 2,134,182

1993 106,191 33,991 49,561 392,138 318,268 426,501 165,416 212,309 1,704,505

1994 101,090 32,610 55,113 360,184 298,934 393,751 180,667 202,300 1,624,649

1995 89,420 29,569 50,206 333,379 248,402 354,076 163,985 126,426 1,395,463

1996 82,420 26,035 52,327 299,011 246,415 338,574 154,344 146,579 1,345,739

1997 75,429 26,091 56,381 272,797 217,079 309,322 159,742 150,987 1,267,828

1998 76,071 24,712 57,377 261,305 206,243 287,523 157,620 142,963 1,213,814

1999 70,541 23,238 54,927 266,129 201,593 280,222 155,409 165,939 1,217,998