49 voluntarily terminated their registra-
tions; many of the terminated registra-
tions came about because the exhibitors
were required to become licensed.

4. Research Facilities

Almost all registered research facilities
are State-owned and privately owned
clinics, hospitals, laboratories, univer-
sities, colleges, drug firms, cosmetic
testing firms, or diagnostic labora-
tories. Exempt from registration as
research facilities are elementary and
secondary schools, institutions using
only exempted species of live animals in
research, and Federal agencies.

At the end of fiscal 1981, there were
1,120 active research facilities, 56 of
which were registered during the year
(appendix, table 1).

Registration of a research facility is
automatically canceled if officials of
the facility report no regulated animals
were used there for 2 years in succes—~
sion. However, the officials can request
the area veterinarian-in-charge to place
the facility on an “inactive” status if
future use of regulated animals is fore-
seen. (No other types of registrants are
eligible for “inactive” status.)

At the end of fiscal 1981, there were 49
inactive research facilities.

Registered research facilities and
Federal agencies must comply with USDA
standards for animal care and treatment.
Federal agencies have internal systems
for monitoring compliance, and registered
facilities are monitored by USDA in-
spectors.

During the fiscal year, APHIS inspectors
found seven instances in which registered
research facilities were violating the
standards for the proper care and
creatment of laboratory animals, problems
that could have been avoided by proper
supervision. APHIS is insisting that all

research facilities have a written
program of veterinary care under the
supervision of an actively involved
veterinarian. The attending veterinarian
must be a consultant, a member of the
staff, or a member of the institutional
animal care committee. APHIS inspectors
are working with these veterinarians to
be sure that they use recognized
techniques to give laboratory animals
proper care and treatment.

5. Reports from Research Facilities

Registered research facilities, both
active and inactive, and all Federal
research facilities are required to send
USDA an annual report by December 1 of
each year. The report must list the
species and number of laboratory animals
used during the year and must identify
any animals that were exposed to proce
dures involving pain or distress. The
reporting requirement is not intended to
interfere with research procedures.
Rather, it assures that research and
experimentation deemed necessary by the
institution is done with proper attention
to the care and treatment of laboratory
animals.

The report must verify that the institu-
tion's veterinarian or its animal care
committee has approved the types and
amounts of anesthetic, analgesic, or
tranquilizing drugs that were used. If
pain relief is not provided, the report
must indicate that use of the drugs would
have interfered with the intended purpose
of the research, tests, or experiments.

During fiscal year 1981, APHIS received
919 reports from active registered
research facilities. In addition, 131
Federal research facilities submitted
annual reports (appendix, table 2).
Reports were neither required nor
received from the 49 inactive research
facilities.

Negative reports were filed as required
by 138 research facilities. These neg~


{Table 2.--Animals used in experimentation (FY 1981)

T Number of Number of animals
State | reporting | T T T Téuinea | T T wild
| facilities | Total | Dogs | Cats | Primates | Pigs |Hamsters | Rabbits | Animals

TOTAL U.S. 1,050 1,658,439 188,649 58,090 57,515 432,632 397,522 473,922 $0,111
Alabama 7 14,084 4,017 “879 462 582 5,020 2,558 566
Alaska 1 252 3 0) 0 50 0 2 197
Arizona 8 9,998 1,432 647 199 1,739 2,350 3,312 319
Arkansas 2 1,477 403 129 7 631 0 302 5
California 103 179,451 10,848 4,034 10,604 20,788 63,267 64,518 5,392
Colorado 19 20,758 4,562 1,016 197 4,217 3,686 6,835 245
Connecticut 13 15,239 2,251 568 448 4,891 2,007 4,971 103
Delaware 6 21,968 615 163 48 6,955 11,421 2,511 255
Florida 29 28,613 3,020 1,026 1,183 4,928 3,412 10,916 4,128
Georgia 3 34,779 1,689 389 = 2,056 801 23,882 5,880 82
Hawaii 2 1,933 30 200 277 500 400 500 26
Idaho 1 253 19 0 0 0 0 84 150
Illinois 45 85,380 9,674 1,512 1,193 21,508 16,505 29,093 5,895
Indiana 16 43,464 6,696 2,374 139 20,100 3,761 9,583 811
Towa 10 30,773 2,589 1,098 217 4,110 16,364 5,975 420
Kansas 14 20,988 1,924 319 39 2,110 12,792 3,197 609
Kentucky 5 7,614 1,453 238 26 2,109 2,790 988 10
Louisiana ul 18,122 3,108 1,285 3,383 2,901 1,035 5,412 998
Maine oe 5,758 0 6 1 80 270 5,125 276
Maryland 7 24,061 4,004 404 1,834 2,946 7,789 7,075 9
Massachusetts 57 62,433 6,081 1,854 1,272 10,703 19,708 19,661 3,154
Michigan 37 74,951 10,900 2,088 1,320 30,024 8,327 21,968 324
Minnesota 15 23,873 6,319 1,965 110 5,303 1,304 8,362 510
Mississippi 3 2,808 124 149 149 678 247 1,374 87
Missouri 21 39,991 6,305 1,668 394 7,612 14,331 8,315 1,366
Montana 2 447 16 70 0 80 5 142 134
Nebraska 6 28,693 1,887 519 63 2,527 20,783 2,827 87
Nevada 1 1,005 1 ll 0 380 200 293 120
New Hampshire 3 2,640 125 311 C) 421,559 256 347
New Jersey 54 152,744 10,602 2,186 1,714 65,789 13,757 57,507 1,189
New Mexico 8 10,222 2,037 30 894 1,248 4,738 748 527
New York 96 164,570 15,760 10,391 4,125 67,873 17,725 = 42,124 6,572
North Carolina 17 37,257 5,185 2,250 2,008 13,789 3,065 7,263 3,697
North Dakota 2 590 131 9 ) 96 20 305 29
Ohio 50 60,236 9,081 2,860 453 25,789 «5,508 =: 15,579 996
Oklahoma 8 3,724 900 428 149 364 114 1,263 506
Oregon 12 8,000 544 350 2,849 1,827 759 985, 686
Pennsylvania = 71 106 ,829 10,031 3,047 1,911 32,622 22,787 «= 35,463 968
Rhode Island 8 1,950 348 613 116 422 37 304 110
South Carolina 5 5,195 1,470 182 36 404 2,198 766 139
South Dakota 2 1,466 160 30 0) 992 () 279 5
Tennessee 10 31,135 4,931 343, 383 5,685 13,676 5,872 245
Texas 40 65,706 11,943 1,977 5,197 7,843 12,464 24,161 2,121
Utah 7 8,358 1,132 685 10 1,050 102 4,710 669
Vermont 4 2,246 78 4 v7 314 449 1,129 255
Virginia u 21,703 2,676 1,577 = 4,072 5,255 859 5,373 1,891
Washington 14 23,525 2,822 751 1,669 1,294 12,437 4,427 125
West Virginia 4 4,027 383 97 29 2,385 413 669 51
Wisconsin 12 26,436 3,543 1,387 1,435 4,178” 10,166 5,214 513
Wyoming 4 676 25 12 0 46 386 31 176
Puerto Rico 6 7,729 307 79 1,734 90 125 5,394 °
District of

Columbia 6 2,284 535 697 12 487 155 359 39
Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0 0 0) 0 )
Federal

Agencies 131 110,025 13,930 3,183 3,081 33,495 32,367 = 21,962 2,007

19


APHIS representatives conducted 1,399
such inspections during fiscal 1981
(appendix, table 5).

7. Compliance Inspections

Unannounced inspections are made at the
places of business of all licensees and
registrants and at the more than 7,000
sites at which they keep regulated
animals. Whenever inspectors find that
USDA regulations and standards are not
being met, they attempt to secure needed
corrections. To avoid misunderstandings,
inspectors note deficiencies on an
inspection form and give a copy to the
licensee or registrant involved. A time
limit is set for making corrections.

A total of 20,142 compliance inspections
were completed during the fiscal year
(appendix, table 5). This constitutes an
average rate of 2.3 compliance inspec~
tions per licensee or registrant, exclu-
sive of inspections at airports and
intermediate handlers. Included in this
total are follow-up inspections conducted
to verify that earlier deficiencies were
corrected.

To improve the effectiveness of their
inspections, inspectors concentrated on
facilities that have a long history of
deficiencies or that operate illegally
without a USDA license or registration.
Resources also were shifted among regions
to concentrate enforcement in the areas
of greatest need.

As a result, a good facility received
fewer than the average number of inspec~
tions. Unfortunately, one or two inspec-

tions done in the course of the year
provided no assurance that a facility was
in compliance most of the time, even if
no deficiencies were noted.

8. Searches

Investigations are conducted to find
persons subject to regulation under the
Animal Welfare Act who have not become
licensed or registered.

During fiscal 1981, APHIS conducted 1,625
searches (appendix, table 5).

Apparent Violations

APHIS conducts investigations whenever
officials become aware of apparent
violations that have not been corrected
by the deadline.

During fiscal 1981, APHIS conducted 912
investigations of apparent violations
(appendix, table 5), of which 283 were
considered for legal action. Some 113 of
these violations were caused by 56 repeat
violators.

Analysis of the violations showed that 90
(32 percent) of the 283 violations
involved technical or "paperwork" infrac-
tions and 193 (68 percent) involved the
standards relating to the actual care and
treatment of animals.

The 283 violations involved the following:

Type Number Percent
Dealers 125 44
Research facilities 51 18
Carriers only 38 13

Carriers and dealers 27 10

Carriers and re-

search facilities 2 0.7

Carriers and inter-

mediate handlers 1 0.4

Carriers and

exhibitors 1 0.4
Exhibitors 34 12
Intermediate handlers 1 0.4
Dogfighting 1 0.4


blatant violations of the reporting
requirement. In both cases, a cease-and-
desist order was issued by a Federal
administrative law judge.

Improvements were noted in that only 13
facilities did not submit reports for
inclusion in this report covering fiscal
year 1981. Nonetheless, some researchers
still are treating the annual report with
indifference or even scorn in private and
public discussions.

APHIS officials reviewing this year's
reports again noted a lack of uniformity
in the reports on pain relief. This
problem develops because pain and dis—
tress are highly subjective concepts that
depend on the observer's own experience
with pain. Further, the observer has to
interpret subtle behavioral changes
indicating that animals are suffering,
because animals are unable to communi-
zate pain as an abstract concept.

To pull together scientific approaches to
pain and stress in animals, the American
Veterinary Medical Association will hold
a symposium, “Pain Perception in Ani-
mals," in April of 1982. An APHIS
representative will attend to gather
information that can help researchers
know more precisely what constitutes
“pain” for the purposes of the animal
welfare program.

Inspections and Investigations

Central to enforcement of the Animal
Welfare Act are various inspections and
investigations by APHIS to assure that
Federal laws, regulations, and standards
are being followed.

During fiscal 1981, APHIS conducted
21,541 inspections of all kinds, a
decrease of 46 percent from the number
inspected in 1980.

1. Inspections of Animals in Transit

Most inspections of animals in transit
are made at airports. Airport inspec-
tions permit APHIS to assess compliance
by both the carriers and the shippers.
The carriers must have facilities and
personnel adequate to handle animals.
They also must make sure that nonregu-
lated shippers follow the Federal
shipping requirements.

Compliance by licensed and registered
shippers can be monitored effectively at
airports by checking the health and
condition of animals as they pass through
the airport facilities. Inspectors
monitor the length of time animals spend
in transit; size and construction of the
container; temperature and ventilation;
and feeding, watering, and health care
for animals in transit.

Inspections at airports are made more
frequently 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, 5,184 inspections
were made at airports.

APHIS-funded research on ventilation and
temperature r:quirements of animals in
transit continues at the veterinary
college of Kansas State University and
the Federal Aviation Administration unit
in Oklahoma. Research at the veterinary
college at the University of Florida was
terminated, however, because of lack of
funds.

2. Federal Health Certificates
The 1976 amendments to the act required a
health certificate for any dog, cat, or

nonhuman primate to be transported, but
the law did not specify the type of

ll


was then submitted and an administrative
law judge imposed 2 cease-and-desist
order.

5. Interference with Inspections

Two types of remedies have been tried in
cases where licensees and registrants
obstruct or interfere with inspectors.
One approach, administrative action, was
used in the case of a licensed dog dealer
in Iowa. During an inspection in July
1980, the dealer's husband interfered,
threatening that he would get a shotgun.
The case is scheduled for a hearing
before an administrative law judge on
March 31, 1982.

A second method is to refer such cases to
the U.S. Department of Justice. This
approach was used after a dealer angrily
confronted and obstructed a USDA
‘nspector. The U.S. attorney in that

{strict was informed of the matter and
issued a strongly worded warning letter
to the licensee.

Legislative Recommendations

Section 25 of the Animal Welfare Act,
which mandates an annual report on animal

welfare enforcement, requires that:

“This report as well as any supporting
documents, data, or findings shall not be
released to any other persons, non-
Federal agencies, or organizations unless
and until it has been made public by an
appropriate committee of the Senate or
the House of Representatives."

Many people have complained to APHIS that
they cannot secure the report before the
data in it become outdated. The infor-
mation published in the report is avail-
able in other documents accessible
through the Freedom of Information Act,
so that it may not be necessary to safe-
guard the annual report to Congress until
the appropriate committee specifically
approves its release.

For these reasons, 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 Animal Welfare Act. At
this point, no further suggestions for
amending the act are ready for submis—
sion.

17


ga United States
ue );; Department of
Ne’ Agriculture

Animal and
Plant Health
Inspection
Service

Animal Welfare
Enforcement
FY 1981

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 1981)
T T T

T T
| Total | By | Cases closed | Warning | Information
State | closed | Prosecution | without prejudice* | issued | Letters
|

TOTAL U.S. 259 23 61 156 19
Alabama 7 1 5 0) 1
Alaska 0 0 0 t) 0)
Arizona 0 0 0 0 oO
Arkansas 1 0 0 1 oO
California 18 2 2 12 2
Colorado 4 0 1 3 0
Connecticut 0 0 0 0 0
Delaware ° 0 ) 0 0
Florida ul 2 5 4 0
Georgia 15 0 5 7 3
Hawaii 1 0 0 1 0)
Idaho 0 0 0 0 o
Illinois 7 0 2 14 1
Indiana 0 0 OC) 0 0)
Towa 8 4 0 4 0
Kansas 4 1 0 3 0
Kentucky 1 ° 1 0 0
Louisiana 9 0 4 5 0
Maine 0 0 0) 0 0
Maryland 5 0 0) 4 1
Massachusetts 24 1 1 21 1
Michigan 4 1 0 3 C)
Minnesota 12 0 4 8 0)
Mississippi 0 0) 0 0 0
Missouri 25 4 6 15 C)
Montana 1 0 CY) 1 0)
Nebraska 3 1 0 2 0
Nevada 0 C) 0 0 0
New Hampshire 0 0 0 0 0)
New Jersey 3 0 1 2 Co)
New Mexico 0 0) to) 0 0
New York 16 1 1 13 1
North Carolina 2 0 0 1 1
North Dakota 0 ) 0 0 t)
Ohio 20 3 2 13 2
Oklahoma 1 1 0 0 0
Oregon 1 0 1 O) 0
Pennsylvania 3 0 0 3 0
Rhode Island 0 ) 0) 0 O)
South Carolina 1 0 1 0 0
South Dakota 1 1 0) 0 0)
Tennessee 3 0 2 1 0)
Texas 16 0 6 7 3
Utah 0 0 0 0 0
Vermont Co) 0 0 0 ty)
Virginia 14 0) iL 1 2
Washington 1 0 ° 1 0
West Virginia 0 0 0 0 0
Wisconsin 4 ° O 3 1
Wyoming 0 0 0 0 0)
Puerto Rico 3 0 0 3 O°
District of

Columbia 0 0 0 0 0
Virgin Islands 0 0 0 0 0

*Includes cases for which further action is not warranted.

SY U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1982~360-932:APHIS- 1067


Animals to which pain relieving drugs were admini 0 avoid pain or distress (FY 1981)

Table 4,

ber of animals

Number of |

State | reporting T TOT {Guinea | T T “wild
| facilities | Total | Dogs | Cats | Primates | Pigs |"amsters | Rabbits | Animals
TOTAL U.S. 726 493,681 136,584 40,104 18,311 95,363 66,882 128,894 = 7,543
Alabama 6 8,963 3,464 801 171 177—-2,509 1,627 214
Alaska 1 4 0 0 0) 0 ) 0 4
Arizona 8 3,988 1,016 647 891,124 475 603 34
Arkansas 1 1,294 403 129 7 631 0) 124 0)
California 59 44,705 8,880 1,984 1,272 6,513 4,396 21,089 S71
Colorado 10 5,895 2,850 378 9 522 aL 2,089 6
Connecticut 10 6,737 2,041 147 21l 2,516 426 1,378 18
Delaware 5 2,369 139 97 20 0 1,400 703 10
Florida 18 9,426 1,910 932 126 «1,184 2,218 2,878 178
Georgia 3 7,932 1,381 298 311 586 698 4,643 15
Hawaii 1 197 10 0 37 0 0) 150 0)
Idaho 1 253 19 ) 0 0 co) 84 150
Illinois 33 25,580 6,412 885 323. 6,639 «= 7,006 3,955 360
Indiana u 12,191 4,830 2,080 423,077 294 1,585 283
Towa 6 5,211 1,796 726 73 747 202 1,628 39
Kansas 6 3,312 835 70 0 108 425 1,855 19
Kentucky 3 4,058 1,211 227 2 234 1,970 406 8
Louisiana 9 12,102 2,816 = 1,078 779° 2,128 587 4,297 417
Maine 10 328 0 6 0 5 132 175 10
Maryland 12 12,497 3,381 390 430 906 3,427 3,963 0
Massachusetts 39 28,795 4,643 1,764 536 3,588 8,759 9,347 158
Michigan 27 18,877 7,145 1,764 536 4,411 1,985 2,865 a7.
Minnesota 9 10,343 6,002 1,898 25 (1,362 0 1,044 12
Mississippi 2 1,028 110 142 12 0 247 $17 0
Missouri 16 8,312 3,465 410 152,649 777 994 2
Montana 2 59 12 2 0) ) 0 35 10
Nebraska 5 3,772 351 122 34 542,106 1,105 0
Nevada 1 105 0) oe 0 0) 14 0 20
New Hampshire 2 588 125 BLL 0 0 120 32 0
New Jersey 31 30,839 5,701 791 697 16,766 3,097 3,726 61
New Mexico 4 2,269 420 7 10-1, 167 280 377 8
New York 63 36,886 10,437 6,371 2,005 3,072 4,756 9,699 546
North Carolina 12 11,686 4,249 1,624 298 734 «1,627 2,771 383
North Dakota 2 309 118 0 0) 14 0) 153 24
Ohio 39 19,891 6,624 = 1,624 161 5,087 1,506 4,751 138
Oklahoma 6 2,845 869 404 104 351 82 958 77
Oregon 7 4,333 204 240 1,466 1,011 690 422 300
Pennsylvania 46 30,104 6,345 2,206 »=1,248 «11,773 1,659 6,442 431
Rhode Island 7 1,374 282 613 0 260 34 161 24
South Carolina 5 1,785 1,350 135 6 43 24 122 105
South Dakota 1 661 80 15 ° 466 ° 100 )
Tennessee 7 7,971 3,956 304 64 1,182 110 2,223 132
Texas 28 24,643 10,006 1,696 3,110 1,754 1,999 5,571 507
Utah 6 2,344 1,091 667 6 0) 0 441 139
Vermont 2 4a 2 2 0 i) O 40 i)
Virginia 8 14,238 2,066 1,464 2,149 4,444 686 2,679 750
Washington 8 9,119 1,732 570 645 371-3602 2,137 62
West Virginia 2 428 269 0 0 8 60 87 4
Wisconsin 9 9,262 2,063 732 382 1,227. 1,102 3,694 62
Wyoming 3 418 15 2 0) 19 285 6 91
Puerto Rico 1 361 280 65 0 ° 0) 16 0)
District of
Columbia 5 1,099 422 472 8 24 0 149 24
Virgin Islands 0 ) 0 0 0 0 0 0 °
Federal

Agencies 108 41,851 12,756 2,801 892 6,429 5,009 12,998 966


and exhibitions sponsored by industry and
humane associations. Such occasions
permit APHIS to better acquaint regulated
parties with APHIS requirements and
limitations.

1. Information Released

During fiscal 1981, APHIS issued 55 press
releases and four feature articles on the
animal welfare program. In addition,
APHIS filled requests for a large quan-
tity of various program information
materials.

APHIS also continued a written informa—
tion service directed specifically to
licensees and registrants. This service
provides news to regulated persons about
inspection trends and suggests how they
can avoid problems. Keeping regulated
persons in touch with APHIS animal wel-
fare concerns helps reduce some of the
negative effects caused by the ever
declining number of personal visits made
by inspectors.

Further, APHIS released three new slide
presentations, each less than 15 minutes
long. They are available from area
offices of APHIS Veterinary Services and
from the Animal Care Staff in Hyatts~
ville, Md.

“Who Speaks for the Animals?" gives an
overview of the humane movement and the
laws passed over the years to protect
animals. “Sanitation--The Sign of
Quality” tells commercial puppy breeders
about the standards of care and treatment
required under the Animal Welfare Act,
centering on sanitation as an indicator
of overall good management. “Regulating
Care of Exhibit Animals" covers the
principles of exhibit animal care and the
rationale behind USDA requirements.

2. Discussions on Farm Animal Welfare
There is continuing public interest in

the welfare of farm animals raised in
confinement, including veal calves, hogs,

and poultry. USDA takes no position in
the controversy, but officials try to act
as an intermediary or liaison between the
disparate groups active in this area.

APHIS staff officers discussed this
subject before State and national farm
organizations and at an international
conference on poultry welfare held in
Denmark. They also taped two video
presentations which were distributed to
nearly 90 TV stations as part of the USDA-
produced series, “Down to Earth.”

3. Public Correspondence

APHIS continued to receive inquiries
about animal welfare from citizens--
directly, or on referral from members of
Congress or other Departments of Govern-
ment. In addition to requests that were
filled by sending documents, lists, regu-
lations, and procedures, the inquiries
required 726 personal letters.

Topics on which responses were given
included:

--Hazards from wild exhibit animals (218)
--Inspection of research facilities (132)
--Prosecution of animal fighting (44)
~-Transportation of pets (31)
--Transportation of primates (28)

The balance (273) included such topics as
protection for laboratory rats and mice
under the Animal Welfare Act, animal
rights and farm animal. welfare, care of
dogs at breeding kennels, marine mammal
standards, use of the Draize eye irrita-
tion test on rabbits, inhumane treatment
of movie animals, alternatives to the use
of live animals in research, retail pet
stores selling sick puppies, and veter-
inary accreditation.

4. Freedom of Information Requests

Regulated persons and humane interests
use provisions of the Freedom of Informa-—
tion Act to obtain public documents on
animal welfare. In 1981, APHIS received
155 requests, mainly from humane socie-

15


2. Staff Support

The Animal Care Staff of Veterinary
Services prepares and publishes rules and
regulations, provides consultation about
investigations, and reviews reports of
alleged violations for prosecution or
other action. At the request of the
regional director, the staff also
conducts reviews in the field to assess
the effectiveness of animal welfare
enforcement. Staff members include
specialists on laboratory animals,
exhibition animals (including marine
mammals), animal transportation, and
compliance methods and procedures.
Except for the first few months of the
year, no specialist on pet animals and
the pet trade was available.

3. Training

APHIS designs and conducts training
courses for the field force on effective
enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.
Instructors are drawn from specialists
inside and outside of Government. When-
ever possible, field officers also have
the opportunity to attend outside train-
ing, such as seminars and conferences
conducted by such organizations 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.

New inspectors are required to take at
least 28 hours of instruction. This
includes both practical discussions and
field trips that show how to evaluate the
facilities of licensees and registrants.

During fiscal 1981, courses were held for:

--compliance officers in Kansas City,
Mo., in October of 1980 and in Dallas,
Tex., in December of 1980,

--newly hired veterinarians and
animal health technicians in Des Moines,
Iowa, in October of 1980, and

--regional animal care specialists in
Hyattsville, Md., in January and
September of 1981.

Licensing and Registration

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

Dealers, operators of auction sales
selling dogs and cats, and most exhib-
itors are required to be licensed and
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.

The amount of a license fee is determined
by two graduated schedules, one for
dealers and another for exhibitors.
Dealers (including operators of auction
sales) pay between $5 and $500; exhib-
itors, between $5 and $100. Collections
are deposited in the U.S. Treasury as
"miscellaneous receipts.” By law, no
portion of fees collected is available to
USDA for any purpose.

During fiscal year 1981, fees collected
from 4,832 license holders brought in
$86,754.

Research facilities, carriers, and
intermediate handlers are required to
register; certain exhibitors have the
option to register rather than become
licensed. Registrations require no fee
and continue in effect until facilities
are disbanded or merged into the opera-
tions of another registrant.

1. Licensed Dealers

Licensed dealers are breeders, wholesale

pet dealers, operators of auction sales,

suppliers of laboratory animals, traders

and importers of wild animals, and animal
brokers.

Exempt from the licensing requirement
are: (1) Retail pet stores that do not
sell wild animals; (2) persons who derive


REPORT OF 1981 ACTIVITIES

The Secretary of Agriculture annually
prepares a report on enforcement and
administration 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 1981,
which began October 1, 1980, and ended
September 30, 1981.

Summar

Compliance inspections to enforce the
Animal Welfare Act during fiscal year
1981 were made at an average rate of 2.3
times per year at licensed or registered
facilities, excluding registered carriers
and intermediate handlers. The majority
of these inspections were performed in
the last two quarters of the fiscal year;
earlier, inspections were severely cur-
tailed by budgetary restrictions.

This inspection rate does not represent
an intended target or objective--it is
merely the mathematical result when the
time available for inspections under
present funding is equally divided among
the approximately 7,000 sites at which
licensees and registrants keep animals.
The rate of inspection was inadequate for
proper enforcement although some progress
was made in improving the care and han-
dling of animals and in taking action
against flagrant and chronic offenders.

Legislation

Animal welfare legislation, as first
enacted in 1966 (PL 89-544), regulated
trade in dogs and cats procured for labor-
atory 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 Wel-
fare Act. An amendment in 1976 (PL 94-
279) extended coverage further, notably
over live-animal transportation.

Regulations

Administration and enforcement of the
Animal Welfare Act is assigned to the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The act requires USDA to develop
regulations assuring humane care and
treatment of animals. These regulations
include minimum standards for proper
handling, housing, feeding, watering,
sanitation, ventilation, shelter from
extremes of weather and temperature,
separation of incompatible animals, veter-
inary care, and transportation. Not
protected under the law are farm animals
used for production or agricultural
research; and all coldblooded animals,
such as reptiles and fish. (Birds and
laboratory rats and mice are exempted by
regulation.)

No new regulations were either proposed
or implemented during fiscal year 1981.
However, all animal welfare regulations
are being reviewed, as required of all
Federal regulations on a 5-year cycle.
Comments were solicited from the public
as to needed changes, and 114 people
responded. They made more than 200
suggestions, centering on 23 aspects of
regulation. A revision is being drafted
for part I of the regulations (Defini-
tions), which is expected to be published
as proposed rulemaking in 1982.


CONTENTS

Summary (5)
Legislation (5)
Regulations (5)
Implementation (6)
Field Enforcement (6)
Staff Support (7)
Training (7)
Licensing and Registration (7)
Licensed Dealers (7)
Carriers and Intermediate Handlers (8)
Animal Exhibitors (8)
Research Facilities (9)
Reports from Research Facilities (9)
Inspections and Investigations (11)
Inspections of Animals in Transit (11)
Federal Health Certificates (11)
Animal Fighting Ventures (12)
Marine Mammal Care (12)
Investigation of Public Complaints (12)
Prelicensing Inspections (12)
Compliance Inspections (13)
Searches (13)
Apparent Violations (13)
Summary Suspensions and
Confiscations (14)
Legal Action (14)
Letters of Warning (14)
Public Information (14)
Information Released (15)
Discussions on Farm Animal Welfare (15)
Public Correspondence (15)
Freedom of Information Requests (15)
Enforcement Problems (16)
Unrefurbished Zoos (16)
Hazards from Wild Animals (16)
Operation of Unlicensed Dealers (16)
Unregistered Research Facilities (16)
Interference with Inspections (17)
Legislative Recommendations (17)

Issued
March 1982

Appendix

Table 1. Number of active licensees and
registrants (18)

Table 2. Animals used in Experimenta-
tion (19)

Table 3. Animals experiencing pain or
distress (drugs omitted
because they would interfere
with the purpose of research or
testing) (20)

Table 4. Animals to which pain-relieving
drugs were administered to
avoid pain or distress (21)

Table 5. Number of inspections (22)

Table 6. Number of cases closed (23)

Separates

List of Licensed Dealers

List of Registered Research Facilities
List of Licensed Exhibitors

List of Registered Exhibitors

List of Registered Carriers and
Intermediate Handlers