Intermediate handlers are enterprises
taking custody of animals in connection
with their transportation in commerce. In
practice, most are kennels that offer air-
port pickup and delivery service for pets.

Dealers, research facilities, and exhibi-
tors may function as carriers and inter-
mediate handlers but need not have a
separate registration. Departments,
agencies, or instrumentalities of Federal,
State, or local governments can also be
intermediate handlers.

At the end of 1980, 97 carriers and 177
intermediate handlers were registered
(appendix, table 1). Five carriers and
one intermediate handler voluntarily
terminated their registrations during the
year.

Animal Exhibitors

Exhibitors must obtain a license if their
animals are exhibited for compensation and
these animals were purchased, sold, or
transported in commerce (or if their sale,
transportation, or exhibition affects
commerce). Compensation received by
exhibitors can be gate receipts or
indirect income, such as sales to cus—
tomers attracted by the animal exhibit.
Exhibits specifically required to be
licensed include animal acts, carnivals,
circuses, and zoos whether operated for
profit or not. All exhibitors, including
those who qualify for registration instead
of licensing, as well as Federal agencies
exhibiting animals, are required to comply
with USDA standards of animal care.

At the end of 1980, there were 1,101
licensed exhibitors and 170 registered
exhibitors (appendix, table 1). During
the year, 105 exhibitors voluntarily ter-
minated their licenses and 61 voluntarily
terminated their registrations; many of
the canceled registrations came about
because the exhibitors were required to
become licensed.

Research Facilities

State-owned and privately owned clinics,
hospitals, laboratories, universities,
colleges, drug firms, cosmetic testing
firms, and most diagnostic laboratories
are required to register with USDA if they
use animals regulated under the Act. They
must have an attending veterinarian as a
consultant, a member of the staff, or a
member of the institutional animal care
committee. The veterinarian supervises
compliance with USDA standards on the care
and treatment of laboratory animals,
including the maximum possible protection
under the Act from painful research
procedures.

Registered research facilities can be
placed into an “inactive” status if
research or experimentation on regulated
laboratory animals is temporarily
suspended. (No other registrants are put
into an “inactive” status.) At the end
of 1980, there were 62 inactive research
facilities. Officials are studying the
possibility of terminating inactive
registrations after a reasonable period.

At the end of 1980, there were 1,092
active research facilities, 71 of which
became registered during the year
(appendix, table 1).

Exempt from registration as research
facilities are elementary and secondary
schools, institutions using exempted
species of live animals in research, and
Federal agencies. However, Federal
agencies, just as registered research
facilities, must comply with USDA stand-
ards for animal care and treatment, and
they must submit an annual report on the
use of laboratory animals (see following
section).

Reports from Research Facilities

Registered research facilities, both
active and inactive, and all Federal
research facilities are required to send


Table 2.--Animals used in experimentation (FY 1980)

Number of animals

Number of
State | reporting (Guinea Wild
facilities | Total | Dogs | Cats | Primates | Pigs |Hamsters | Rabbits |Animals
TOTAL U.S. 975 1,661,904 188,783 68,482 56,024 422,390 405,826 471,297 49,102
Alabama 6 12,060 3,550 870 372 608 3,728 2,836 96
Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Arizona 8 6,751 886 342 165 1,358 1,337 2,348 315
Arkansas 2 4,321 1,014 554 35 798 1,295 621 4
California 81 148,627 9,293 4,480 4,030 29,248 40,466 53,866 7,244
Colorado 20 26,470 5,345 910 212 6,674 4,291 8,118 920
Connecticut 10 17,757 788 500 213 6,749 3,662 5,676 169
Delaware 5 21,320 389 98 27 10,313 8,050 2,035 408
Florida 32 30,102 3,510 1,973 600 2,942 2,766 16,918 1,393
Georgia 5 30,811 1,401 594 2,021 351 24,540 1,745 159
Hawaii 4 1,685 38 230 295 306 300 406 110
Idaho 3 856 19 13 0 536 oO 141 147
Illinois 50 84,557 12,128 2,357 2,686 21,174 11,598 30,765 3,849
Indiana 14 20,926 4,299 738 104 7,962 2,192 5,479 152
Iowa 8 29,417 3,640 1,413 303 5,796 12,152 5,742 371
Kansas 16 49,600 2,243 845, 26 10,124 27,672 7,450 1,240
Kentucky 4 8,099 1,738 290 41 615 4,382 1,013 20
Louisiana 9 13,975 2,656 1,087 3,656 1,549 687 3,377 963
Maine 5 669 1 3 1 73 249 323 19
Maryland 14 49,776 4,378 1,417 5,789 9,401 17,057 11,598 136
Massachusetts 48 67,292 6,188 1,646 1,271 10,451 23,764 20,200 3,772
Michigan 37 65,265 9,926 2,185 1,366 23,020 5,744 22,717 307
Minnesota 15 27,852 6,911 1,844 156 6,515 923 9,392 2,111
Mississippi 3 3,020 853 102 55 455 415 1,070 Ju
Missouri 21 43,332 7,712 2,547 673 8,752 4,543 17,476 1,629
Montana 1 667 8 32 0 332 0 283 12
Nebraska 6 34,142 1,393 405 0 2,177) 27,241 2,857 69
Nevada 1 635 0 40 0 396 12 125 62
New Hampshire 2 1,586 60 458 0 16 507 382 163
New Jersey 48 172,221 13,425 2,336 3,213 59,450 33,724 59,392 681
New Mexico 5 10,551 2,114 104 765 1,078 5,245 823 422
New York 95 154,036 18,171 10,679 3,983 58,417 9 21,598 36,928 4,260
North Carolina 14 36,060 4,206 2,492 2,253 10,985 3,785 8,026 4,315
North Dakota 2 613 141 14 0 103 oO 326 29
Ohio 52 51,533 6,936 9,698 514 14,296 2,706 16,260 1,123
a

Oklahoma 8 4,629 1,145 519 177 650 119 1,549 470
Oregon 14 10,153 607 425 2,478 1,036 2,675 2,253 679
Pennsylvania 72 111,289 8,574 3,346 1,455 38,933 25,694 31,316 1,974
Rhode Island 6 2,054 210 303 141 51 1,103 136 110
South Carolina 4 6,735 1,795 178 43 138 3,576 904 101
South Dakota 1 120 14 0 O 65 0 36 5
Tennessee 10 33,688 4,794 477 518 6,254 14,262 7,171 212
Texas 36 74,928 13,209 2,941 5,499 8,084 17,411 24,976 2,808
Utah 8 7,034 1,013 571 10 417 93 4,494 436
Vermont 4 2,583 19 7 10 324 365 1,654 204
Virginia 7 10,451 1,185 299 2,618 3,849 650 1,784 66
Washington 15 34,143 3,845 1,152 1,405 15,511 4,553 6,273 1,404
West Virginia 2 5,125 391 155 95 2,647 465 1,254 118
Wisconsin 13 35,577 2,862 1,378 1,390 5,760 19,924 3,791 472
iyoming 4 708 26 36 0 101 41s n 59
Puerto Rico 5 7,853 480 20 1,892 125 60 5,236 40
District of

Columbia 2 198 101 11 9 23 0 54 0
Federal

Agencies 118 88,052 13,153 3,368 3,459 25,402 17,830 21,631 3,209

“19


Recently, some exhibitors have said that
APHIS has set some required pool sizes
too high because officials erred in
determining the average size of certain
marine mammals; and that minimum dry
resting areas for some species also were

set too high. Officials are studying
these problems and may consider reducing
the pool size and resting area required
for some marine species.

APHIS and the U.S. Department of
Commerce's National Marine Fisheries
Service, the U.S. Department of the
Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service, and
the Marine Mammal Commission have a four-
way agreement on assuring adequate care
and treatment for marine animals. The
agencies have agreed that no permits to
obtain new marine mammals are to be
granted to exhibitors who cannot fully
meet USDA standards. Agriculture,
Commerce, and the Commission conducted
joint inspections during the year to
implement the agreement.

Investigation of Public Complaints

APHIS officials put a high priority on
investigating public complaints about
conditions at licensed or registered
establishments, and during 1980 they
continued to receive many reports of
apparent problems.

After reviewing the public complaints,
747 on-site inspections were made
,appendix, table 5).

Prelicensing Inspections

Prelicensing inspections of dealers and
exhibitors are made to assure that their
facilities, housing, equipment, and
programs of veterinary care meet Federal
standards.

APHIS representatives conducted 1,838
such inspections during 1980 (appendix,
table 5).

Compliance Inspections

All licensees and registrants are
inspected periodically to determine if
they continue to meet USDA regulations
and standards. Unannounced inspections
are made at their place of business and
all premises where they keep regulated
animals.

Inspectors attempt to secure needed
corrections when deficiencies in animal
care are observed. Deficiencies are noted
on an inspection sheet, with a copy for
the licensee or registrant involved, and a
time limit is set for making corrections.

A total of 37,830 compliance inspections
were completed during the year (appendix,
table 5). This constitutes an average
rate of 2.8 compliance inspections per
licensee or registrant, exclusive of
inspections at airports and intermediate
handlers.

13


Carriers are checked to see that they have
adequate facilities and personnel to
handle the animals and are enforcing the
conditions they must require from
shippers. The overall care provided to
animals by the shipping licensee is
assessed by checking the health and condi-
tion of animals as they pass through the
airport. Attention also is given to the
amount of time animals spend in transit;
size and construction of the container;
temperature and ventilation; and feeding,
watering, and health care for the animals.

Inspections at airports are made more fre-
quently than at other locations because
the turnover rate of animals is high.
Animals shipped by several licensees can
be checked in a single visit, and the

facilities of several carriers can be
visited at a typical airport.

During the fiscal year, 19,134 inspections
were made at airports.

A special effort was made to improve the
ventilation provided to animals shipped
during the summer. APHIS has continued
funding research on ventilation and tem~
perature requirements of animals in
transit, with work being done at the
veterinary colleges of Kansas State
University and the University of Florida,
as well as at a Federal Aviation Adminis—
tration unit in Oklahoma.

Extensive public complaints indicated that
the interim ventilation requirements were

ll


This requirement no longer protects
licensees and registrants, inasmuch as

the information published in the report

is available in other documents accessible
through the Freedom of Information Act.
Distribution of this report, therefore, is
needlessly delayed, and needless efforts
are made to safeguard copies until distri-
bution is specifically approved by the
Congress. Thus, it would be helpful if
this paragraph of section 25 were
repealed.

The Department is continuing to analyze
other problems and concerns related to
enforcing the Act. At this point, no
further suggestions for amending the Act
are ready for submission. However, the
thorough review of the regulations planned
for 1981 is likely to uncover areas in
which the Act, as well as its regulations,
needs to be amended.

17


& uso, Animal Welfare

Agriculture

dos ang Enforcement
so FY 1980

Report of the Secretary of Agriculture
to the President of the Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives


Table 6.--Number of cases closed (FY 1980)

State

Total
closed

By
Prosecution

Cases closed

Warning

without prejudice* issued

TOTAL U.S.

Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California

Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia

Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa

Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland

Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
lississippi
Missouri

Montana
Nebraska
Nevada

New Hampshire
New Jersey

New Mexico

New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio

Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina

South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas

Utah
Vermont

Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
yoming

Puerto Rico
District of
Columbia

“Includes cases for which further action is not warranted.

179

VOBONE wHNON

uNAoO

.

w
NUDNo NNaHe

FOONE RONDO FHKONN

e
eotoco

Ororn

w

oO

y
3

eor oo NOSOG COOrG FO000 CrooN COoKOw ZFOOCO HKHOOY conor

So eccceo

te)

100

e e
©0999 SCCOTH FONFO FRORN BWOLUF HORE UNEOO CWOOH error

Oroon

oO

w
a}

MOSHO BWOOrKO FrRUCD HFNHKOF COKCO NFONK HFOoOoCcS

NoorH

© ec0c0HrO ocrOO

°

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE:

198 1-0 340-932/ APHIS=75


Table 4.--Animals to which pain-relieving drugs were administered to avoid pain or distress (FY 1980)

Number of Number of animals
State reporting Guinea Wild
facilities Total Dogs Cats | Primates | Pigs |Hamsters | Rabbits } Animals
TOTAL U.S. 673 481,716 129,014 39,227 21,610 82,683 86,944 111,253 10,985
Alabama 5 8,376 3,000 627 87 412 3,345 853 72
Alaska 0 0 0 0 0 oO 0 0 0
Arizona 7 2,589 674 342 39 724 343 452 45
Arkansas L 1,983 608 169 23 533 174 476 o
California 47 40,209 6,936 2,672 1,031 7,610 5,490 15,214 1,256
Colorado 13 6,228 3,126 508 15 678 227 1,653 21
Connecticut 7 4,930 450 430 97 2,242 695 976 40
Delaware 2 4,534 81 41 15 10 3,930 419 38
Florida 20 7 664 2,208 1,481 45 390 882 2,421 237
Georgia 4 3,025 1,069 449 6 173 379 926 23
Hawaii 2 118 13 0 95 6 oO 4 0
Idaho 1 76 19 0 0 o 0 57 O
Illinois 32 20,655 7,544 1,036 1,074 1,057 5,084 4,242 618
Indiana 8 9,252 3,396 559 31 2,347 1,280 1,604 35
Towa 6 5,993 2,929 983 142 261 540 1,138 0
Kansas 9 5,802 746 39 7 40 3,337 1,544 79
Kentucky 3 5,329 1,536 254 37 274 = =2,628 592 8
Louisiana 7 7,232 2,359 895 1,096 560 157 1,866 299
Maine 4 342 o 3 oO 1L 216 112 oO
Maryland 9 19,886 3,501 1,262 578 4,105 4,741 5,699 oO
Massachusetts 32 26,679 4,254 1,320 415s 1,123 10,673 8,611 283
Michigan 27 21,196 6,785 1,903 680 5,931 2,272 3,534 91
Minnesota 12 14,869 6,552 1,808 86 3,153 122 1,513 1,635
Mississippi 2 1,927 840 94 9 0 384 530 70
Missouri 15 14,276 4,121 584 187 3,954 1,061 4,235 134
Montana 1 28 8 0 0 0 O 20 o
Nebraska 4 4,738 320 106 0 152,739 1,558 oO
Nevada 1 70 0 20 0 i) 0 50 u
New Hampshire 2 614 60 458 0 O 68 28 oO
New Jersey 28 28,985 6,455 1,390 1,328 14,580 2,093 3,130 9
New Mexico 5 1,406 22 i) 621 70 450 63 180
New York 65 37,256 10,346 5,439 2,403 5,930 4,809 7,956 373
North Carolina 12 12,745 3,424 1,605 226 1,190 2,191 3,167 942
North Dakota 1 310 89 5 0 35 Oo) 163 18
Ohio 40 14,481 5,323 1,545 125 1,673 1,547 4,166 102
Oklahoma 5 3,475 1,059 481 114 523 78 1,113 107
Oregon 8 5,452 + 305 242 1,238 769° 2,214 590 94
Pennsylvania 44 27,295 5,517 2,430 699 8,284 5,219 4,132 1,014
Rhode Island 4 1,730 210 303 0 34 = 1,102 81 0
South Carolina 4 1,286 836 100 43 29 120 118 40
South Dakota 1 14 14 0 oO 0 oO 0 oO
Tennessee 7 7,385 3,652 274 154 1,073 200 1,865 167
Texas 25 29,480 10,419 2,420 3,681 1,274 5,257 6,093 336
Utah 6 2,143 974 563 7 2 oO 553 44
Vermont 2 154 i) 2 0 0 oO 152 0
Virginia 7 9,834 1,180 295 2,618 3,849 623 1,203 66
Washington 7 10,262 1,912 448 588 398 2,646 3,190 1,080
West Virginia 2 645 240 10 1 292 O 102 oO
Wisconsin 10 9,177 1,430 444 391 2,382 2,317 2,107 106
iyoming 3 655 26 36 0 95 415 64 19
Puerto Rico 2 212 120 5 22 25 15 15 lu
District of
Columbia 2 171 93 il 7 12 O 48 0

Federal
Agencies 100 38,543 12,233 3,136 1,539 4,555 4,881 10,875 1,324


cases, penalties were imposed, including
ticense suspensions, license revocations,
cease-and-desist orders, and fines total-
ing $4,470. The fines, imposed in six
cases, ranged in amount from $170 to
$2,000.

The 1980 prosecutions included the first
violations charged against a public
carrier and an intermediate handler. A
major airline was charged with transpor-
ting dogs in substandard shipping con-
tainers and shipping a dog in obvious
physical distress. This case was settled
with a $2,000 fine and an agreement that
the airline be more effective in educating
its employees on animal transportation
standards. An animal delivery service was
charged when three puppies in its care
died from heat prostration after being
left in a parked van on a hot day. This
case was settled by imposition of a cease~
and-desist order.

Letters of Warning

some reports of alleged violations are
closed by letters of warning which caution
those responsible against committing
further violations. Warning letters
generally deter further violations, but
when they are not heeded, they strengthen
the case for future prosecution.

In 1980, APHIS closed 59 cases with
letters of warning (appendix, table 6).

Warning notices also are sent in cases
where minor violations appear to be
cumulative, such as animal handling
deficiencies by airline personnel. Such
cases remain open, for later prosecution
if the cited infractions continue. In
1980, APHIS sent seven such notices.

Public Information

Public information to support APHIS animal
welfare activities is handled by the APHIS
Information Division. Information

aterials about animal welfare are distri-~

buted through newspapers, magazines,
radio, television, and group meetings. In
addition, staff officers, field officials,
and information specialists cooperate in
bringing talks, exhibits, and information
materials to conventions and exhibitions
sponsored by industry and humane
associations.

During 1980, APHIS launched a written
information service directed specifically
to licensees and registrants-~in part to
supplement the declining number of
personal visits made by inspectors.
Readers are informed about inspection
trends and receive suggestions on how to

‘avoid problems.

Press releases are issued to announce when
charges are filed on animal welfare viola-
tions and when the matter is resolved.
APHIS finds that when it publicizes animal
welfare violations, people take notice and
become more diligent in upholding Federal
standards of animal care. Major program
changes also are publicized. Press
releases are mailed to target audiences,
such as humane societies and publishers of
trade magazines. USDA regional informa-
tion offices also distribute this news to
local newspaper publishers and television
and radio stations.

During 1980, APHIS issued 35 press
releases and four feature articles on the
animal welfare program.

In addition, APHIS filled requests for a
large quantity of various program informa-
tion materials. Newly prepared during the
year was a 19-page booklet, “Prosecutions
for Animal Welfare Violations (1968-
1980),” which gives individual summaries
of 124 cases and their resolution; and a
10-page brochure, “Dealing in Animals?
They Need Proper Care,” directed at
animal dealers and transporters.

APHIS also issued revised versions of an

8-page folder for the general public,
titled "The Animal Welfare Act--How It

15


violations for prosecution or other
effective action. Staff members include
specialists on laboratory animals, exhibi-
tion animals (including marine mammals),
pet animals, animal transportation, and
compliance methods and procedures.

Training

APHIS designs and conducts training
courses on animal care for the field
force. Two courses were conducted, pri-
marily for animal care specialists and
animal care compliance officers. One
course on care and treatment of marine
mammals was attended by 75 people, and the
other, on laboratory animal care and
animal transportation, was attended by 67
people.

APHIS also arranges for outside training.
Animal care specialists and compliance
officers are encouraged to attend seminars
and conferences conducted regionally by

organizations involved in animal welfare
such as the American Association for
Laboratory Animal Science, the American
Association of Zoological Parks and
Aquariums, the Humane Society of the
United States, and the American Humane
Association.

Licensing and Registration

Persons subject to the Animal Welfare Act
must be licensed or registered by USDA.
Lists of licensees and registrants are
added to this report as separates.

Dealers, operators of auctions selling
dogs and cats, and most exhibitors are
required to be licensed and they must pay
an annual fee. Licenses remain valid

until terminated voluntarily by the
licensee, revoked or suspended by USDA,
or canceled automatically if not renewed
when the annual fee is due.



REPORT OF 1980 ACTIVITIES

The Secretary of Agriculture annually
prepares a report on enforcement of the
Animal Welfare Act (7 U.S.C. Sections
2131 et. seq-), as required by Section

25 of the Act. The present report covers
fiscal year 1980, which began October 1
and ended September 30, 1980.

In summary, the year saw progress in
improving the care and handling of animals
covered by the Act. Heavy emphasis was
placed on two new areas of responsibility,
animal transportation and marine mammal
exhibits.

During the fiscal year, the average rate
of compliance inspections was 2.8 per

licensed or registered facility, exclud~
ing registered carriers and intermediate
handlers. Inspection, however, plummeted
to near zero during the fourth quarter
because officials determined that the
inspection rate during the first 9 months
of the year could not be maintained with-
out exceeding the appropriation for the
year ($4.3 million). As a result, only
three staff members worked on animal care
and virtually no field work could be
performed during the fourth quarter.

Legislation

Animal welfare legislation, first enacted
in 1966 (PL 89-544), originally regulated
trade in dogs and cats procured for labo~
ratory research, as well as dogs, cats,
hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, and non-
human primates held by certain research
facilities.

Amendments in 1970 broadened coverage to
most other warmblooded animals, including
those used in research, exhibitions, and
the wholesale pet trade. At that point,
the law became known as the Animal Welfare
Act. An amendment in 1976 (PL 94-279)
extended coverage further, notably over
live-animal transportation. Adminis-
tration and enforcement of the Act is
assigned to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA).

Regulations

The Act requires USDA to set minimum
standards for the care and treatment of
animals. These standards cover handling,
housing, feeding, watering, sanitation,
ventilation, shelter from extremes of
weather and temperature, separation of
incompatible animals, veterinary care,
and transportation.

Not included under the Act are farm
animals used for production or agricul-
tural research; and all coldblooded
animals, such as reptiles and fish. In
addition, birds and laboratory rats and
mice are exempted by regulation.


CONTENTS

Legislation(5)
Regulations(5)

Field Enforcement (6)
Staff Support (6)
Training(7)

Licensing and Registration(7)
Licensed Dealers(8)

Carriers and Intermediate Handlers(8)
Animal Exhibitors (9)

Research Facilities (9)

Reports from Research Facilities(9)
Inspections and Investigations(10)
Inspection of Animals in Transit(10)
Animal Fighting Ventures(12)

Marine Mammal Care(12)

Investigation of Public Complaints(13)
Prelicensing Inspections(13)
Compliance Inspections (13)
Searches(14)

Apparent Violations(14)

Summary Suspensions and Confiscations(14)

Legal Action(14)
Letters of Warning(15)

Public Information(15)

Discussions on Farm Animal Welfare(16)
Public Correspondence(16)

Freedom of Information Requests(16)
Legislative Recommendations (16)

Issued
March 1981

Appendix
Table 1.

Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 5.
Table 6.

Separates

Number of active licensees and
registrants(18)

Animals used in experimentation(19)
Animals experiencing pain or
distress (drugs omitted because
they would interfere with the
purpose of research or
testing)(20) |

Animals to which pain-relieving
drugs were administered to avoid
pain or distress(21)

Number of inspections(22)

Number of cases closed(23)

List of Licensed Dealers

List of Registered Research Facilities
List of Licensed Exhibitors

List of Registered Exhibitors

List of Registered Carriers and
Intermediate Handlers