|
A petition to include birds, rats and mice under the Animal Welfare
Act (AWA) was filed with the U.S. Department of Agriculture in April
1998. On January 28, 1999, USDA announced it is soliciting comments on
the petition. The petition requests that the Secretary of Agriculture
amend the definition of "animal" in the AWA regulations to remove the
current exclusion of birds, rats, and mice. Please request that the
petition be granted. Comments must be submitted on or before May 28,
1999.
- For comments submitted in hard copy send an original and three
copies to:
Docket No. 98-106-1
Regulatory Analysis & Development, PPD
APHIS
Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road, Unit 118
Riverdale, Maryland 20737-1238
- To submit your comments electronically, please use a form
located at http://comments.aphis.usda.gov.
Electronically submitted comments need only be submitted once.
Note: A short letter is fine, but the important thing is that the U.S.
Dept. of Agriculture hear from the public that the public wants birds,
rats and mice to be included in the Animal Welfare Act regulations. One
of the arguments USDA has used not to include birds, rats, and mice, is
that (they claim) the public has not shown sufficient interest in birds,
rats, and mice. We must demolish that argument! This is our chance.
Letter from Karen Davis, Phd. follows:
UNITED POULTRY CONCERNS, INC
PO BOX 150, 12325 SEASIDE ROAD
MACHIPONGO, VA 23405
PH: 757-678-7875; FAX: 5070
WEBSITE: WWW.UPC-ONLINE.ORG
February 18, 1999 Docket No. 98-106-1
Docket No. 98-106-1
Regulatory Analysis and Development
PPD
APHIS, Suite 3C03
4700 River Road, Unit 118
Riverdale MD 20737-1238
United Poultry Concerns Comments on the Petition for Rulemaking
on Animal Welfare Regarding the Regulation of Birds, Rats, and
Mice Under the Animal Welfare Act
United Poultry Concerns welcomes this opportunity to provide
comments on the Petition for Rulemaking: Animal Welfare. United
Poultry Concerns, Inc is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization
incorporated in the state of Maryland. We represent 10,000
members throughout the United States. United Poultry Concerns
addresses the treatment of chickens and other domestic fowl in
the areas of food production, science, education, entertainment,
and human companionship situations.
The Petition for Rulemaking on Animal Welfare requests that
the Secretary of Agriculture amend the definition of "animal" in
the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations to remove the current
exclusion of birds, rats, and mice from coverage, and to grant
such other relief as the Secretary deems just and proper.
The term "animal" is defined in the AWA as "any live or dead
dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster,
rabbit, or such other warm-blooded animal as the Secretary may
determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research,
testing, experimentation or exhibition purposes (7 U.S.C. Sec.
2132[g][1994]).
United Poultry Concerns Supports the Petition. The U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) has arbitrarily and, we believe,
illegally, defined "animal" in such a way as to exclude birds,
rats, and mice from regulatory oversight. As a result, there
currently is no federal oversight of the use of these animals in
research, teaching, exhibits, pet stores, and other areas in
which other, similarly sentient animals are afforded protection.
Moreover, there is no requirement or incentive for researchers to
consider alternatives when experimenting on birds, rats, and
mice. In our view, birds, rats, and mice are disproportionately
used in cruel, desensitizing, frivolous, and redundant
experiments in large part because they can be used with impunity
as a result of not being regulated. United Poultry Concerns
therefore supports the petition to amend the definition of
"animal" in the Animal Welfare Act so as to include birds, rats,
and mice. These animals are entitled to the same regulatory
protection as is currently accorded to other sentient, warm-
blooded vertebrate animals under the Animal Welfare Act.
Background United Poultry Concerns has repeatedly requested,
in writing, that the USDA include birds in its regulations in
compliance with the intent of the AWA. In response to our
requests, we have received letters from APHIS dated as follows:
March 8, 1994; May 6, 1994, June 7, 1994; February 2, 1994;
October 7, 1994; and November 17, 1998. The following arguments
for denying our request have been made:
(1) The USDA has the right to exclude certain species, such as
birds, according to its interpretation of the AWA. It has chosen
to exclude birds because:
|
(a) "[M]ammals such as dogs, cats, primates, and additional
warm-blooded animals [?] have captured public sentiment and have
resulted in a public outcry against any procedure which they may
deem ethically or morally unsound";
(b) "While there have been humane problems with these
species [dogs, cats, primates], known problems of birds within
the research process have not been brought to our attention."
(c) "Since Federal resources continue to be reduced, and we
are experiencing a downsizing of government, we have no plans to
regulate birds under the AWA at this time."
(d) "If we were to amend the definition to include birds, we
would then be legally required to develop, publish, and enforce
standards for birds and inspect all bird facilities. Besides
being a tremendous task to develop standards for all the
different species of birds used in research, exhibited to the
public, and sold into the pet trade, we have neither the staffing
nor the funds to handle the regulation of additional species of
animals."
(e) "[L]isting birds as AWA-regulated animals would result
in a tremendous increase in our Agency's enforcement
responsibilities and a commensurate increase in staffing and
funds."
(f) "To conduct annual inspections of research facilities
that use rats, mice, and birds, we would need to reduce by
approximately one third our inspections of other regulated
facilities, such as breeders and dealers of dogs and cats,
commercial carriers, large and small zoos, and circuses."
|
United Poultry Concerns' Response to These Arguments
| I. |
Public preference for some animals over other animals
that are similarly constituted in regard to sentience should have
nothing to do with the issue of regulatory protection. The issue
is providing comparable moral and legal protection to all
sentient warm-blooded vertebrate species of nonhuman animals.
That is the purpose of the Animal Welfare Act: to protect these
animals. The USDA should not shift ground from "science" to
"public opinion" in order to escape its obligation.
| |
| II. |
A major reason that so many birds (and rats and mice)
are currently being used in research, teaching and other areas is
that they are ignored by the agency that should protect them. If
the USDA-APHIS were to assume its duty to regulate the use of
these animals, the number of animals whom the agency would have
to oversee would probably shrink as a result. The huge numbers of
birds, rats, and mice now being used and requiring federal
protection reflect in large part the free-for-all atmosphere
created by the USDA's neglect of these animals. Those who have
argued against the redefinition and regulatory inclusion of
birds, rats, and mice, such as FASEB, the American Psychological
Association, and the Federation of Behavioral Psychological and
Cognitive Studies, have made it all the more clear as to why
these animals should be defined as "animals" and protected as
such: the widespread use of these species. They thus argued at a
meeting at the National Academy of Sciences on February 2, 1999,
that if they had to comply with government regulations, the
widespread use--and by implication much unlawful abuse--of these
animals would be curtailed.
Exactly. An important point here is that fear of government
regulation amounts to a confession on the part of these people
that they regularly abuse birds, rats, and mice according to
criteria contained in the Animal Welfare Act; they therefore fear
accountability. Another point is that the granting of the
petition would very likely reduce the number of animals being
used, because what is currently being done to many birds, rats,
and mice could no longer be done if the law were enforced. By
regulating the use of birds, rats, and mice, the USDA would, if
it did its job, effectively reduce the number of animals it had
to regulate and protect.
| |
| III. |
In this regard, a primary argument of the petition is
that if it is granted, an incentive will arise to develop and
adopt nonanimal methodologies in laboratories and classrooms. The
petition argues that because the USDA is not fulfilling its
obligation to protect birds, rats, and mice under the AWA,
researchers using alternatives, educators, organizations working
to promote nonanimal alternatives, and manufacturers who would
otherwise develop and merchandise nonanimal alternatives, are
being hindered or injured by the failure of the government to do
its job. Once again, arguments used by the USDA to avoid
regulating birds, rats, and mice actually argue in favor of the
regulation the petition seeks.
| |
| IV. |
It is not true that no known cases of inhumane treatment
of birds within the research process have been brought to the
USDA's attention. A primary reason that United Poultry Concerns
supports the petition is that our effort to get the USDA-APHIS to
investigate allegations of bird abuse has repeatedly been
frustrated by APHIS's insistence that it has no regulatory
authority to investigate complaints involving birds.
For example, in 1992, United Poultry Concerns sought
unsuccessfully to get the USDA-APHIS to assist our investigation
of an experiment on hens at California Polytechnic State
University in San Luis Obispo, California. The experiment
consisted of the insertion of non-gas-permeable red plastic
contact lenses into the eyes of several thousand hens as a
student senior project. The experiment was so demonstrably cruel
and unregulated that a student employee and a full-time employee
in the Cal Poly poultry unit wrote separate letters to animal
protection organizations begging for help. The hens were
subjected to gross cruelty, which caused them to develop infected
corneas, to go blind, and try to pick the lenses out of their
eyes with their claws. Many members of the university suffered
emotionally as a result of having to witness the suffering of the
hens, the callous attitude of the principal researcher Robert
Spiller, and the lack of interest or intervention on the part of
any university or government official.
The refusal of the USDA to regulate the treatment of birds
in teaching and research amounts to an illegal and immoral
abandonment of these birds to the callousness of people whose
very callousness is encouraged by the lack of regulation, while
subjecting compassionate and morally responsive people to
emotional suffering and to a justified sense of frustration that
their government will not intervene to protect nonhuman animals
against the worst forms of cruelty.
The contact lens experiment is one of many cases that have
been brought to the attention of United Poultry Concerns since
1990. Here is another example: in 1997, we received a complaint
from two students at a community college in Colorado where a
teacher had students sticking the heads of fully conscious
chickens into a container filled with gas to asphyxiate them in
what was described in the course curriculum as an embalming
experiment. The chickens struggled, choked, and wouldn't die. The
teacher, we learned from investigation, conducts this experiment
year after year. School administrators normally will not take
action if they have no government mandate to act, while teachers
who cannot regulate their own moral conduct are encouraged by the
lack of sanctions. Students are cynically taught that their
school, with the support of the federal government, turns a blind
and indifferent eye to animal cruelty in the classroom.
By continuing to refuse to regulate birds, rats, and mice,
the USDA is ignoring the will of the majority of society as
reflected in the Animal Welfare Act. The majority of citizens
mistakenly assume that the federal government will take
appropriate action. A single experience such as those mentioned
above serves as a rude awakening. By refusing to define birds as
animals in order to avoid regulating their use, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture betrays not only the birds but society.
| |
| V. |
Birds should not be excluded from the definition of
"animal" and thereby excluded from the protection of the Animal
Welfare Act. Birds are animals. Birds have been shown to have
complex cognitive capabilities. They have been shown to
experience pain, fear, bodily injury, and other forms of
suffering comparable to the experience documented in dogs, cats,
and primates. According to Lesley Rogers, an avian physiologist
and the author of The Development of Brain and Behaviour in the
Chicken (1995), "it is now clear that birds have cognitive
capacities equivalent to those of mammals, even primates" (p.
217). In a letter to United Poultry Concerns dated April 28,
1996, Dr. Roger wrote: "I did not know that the US Animal Welfare
Act excludes birds, and I am very surprised to hear so. . . .. The
assumption that birds are not as highly evolved as mammals is
incorrect."
Birds have cognitive capacity, nociceptors and all the
other apparatus of feeling and intelligence characterized in
dogs, cats, and primates. As Michael Gentle states in "Pain In
Birds" (Animal Welfare 1992, 1:235-247):
The close similarity between birds and mammals in their
physiological and behavioural responses to painful stimuli
would argue for a comparable sensory and emotional
experience. . . . Birds do . . . have the physiological,
biochemical and anatomical mechanisms similar to those that
in the human are known to be correlated with painful
experiences. With regard to animal welfare and pain in
birds, it is clearly essential that the ethical
considerations normally afforded to mammals should also be
afforded to birds. (243)
If segments of the public are ignorant of the feelings and
intelligence of birds, the USDA bears some of the major
responsibility for this ignorance and the perpetuation of it.
| |
A primary goal of the petition is to upgrade the moral
status of birds in society and to challenge the misconception
that birds do not suffer or that their suffering doesn't matter.
It is equally important that researchers, teachers, students, and
others who use birds be given a clear message to dispel their
ignorance as an excuse for abuse. It is time to encourage those
who still use birds and other sentient beings to invest their
resources in nonanimal alternatives. The do-nothing policy on the
part of the USDA has created a vacuum filled by despicable
attitudes and behaviors in many areas of teaching and research.
People with a conscience and compassion for other forms of life
do not want their government acting as shield to protect cruel
and brutal treatment of birds and other sentient creatures under
the cloak of "science," "education," and ignorance. It is
inappropriate, in any event, for the USDA to invoke public or
professional ignorance and prejudice as an excuse for refusing to
regulate the treatment of birds, rats, and mice in accordance
with the intent of the Animal Welfare Act. As citizens and
taxpayers, we expect our government to embody the will of society
at its most progressive. In this capacity, United Poultry
Concerns requests the U.S. Department of Agriculture to amend the
definition of "animal" in the Animal Welfare regulations to
include birds, rats, and mice, and to regulate the use of these
animals according to the provisions of the Animal Welfare Act.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this petition
and look forward to its success.
Sincerely,
Karen Davis, PhD
President
United Poultry Concerns, Inc.
Ph: 757-678-7875; fax: 5070
Website: www.upc-online.org
February 18, 1999
|