Dissecting the Animal Welfare Act

In June of 1965, Pepper the Dalmatian disappeared from her family’s farm in Slatington, Penn.

Despite her desperate owner’s efforts to find her, it was discovered that Pepper had been stolen by a dog napper and sold to a hospital in New York, “where her body was used in a scientific experiment and then cremated.” (Phinizy, Coles, “The Lost Pets that Stray to the Labs.” Sports Illustrated, November 1965).

It’s fairly common knowledge that animals have been used in research and experimentation for over a century. Pepper’s story revealed the dark reality that pets were being stolen and sold to researchers by, as Phinizy put it, “soulless men.”

Public outcry was intense, and Washington responded. Rep. Joseph Resnick (D-NY) introduced what ultimately became the Laboratory Animal Welfare Act, signed into law by Lyndon Johnson in August 1966. The law required those who dealt in dog and cat procurement and sale to research facilities to be licensed by the federal government.

It also set standards regulating the transportation and handling of animals listed in the act, which initially included cats, dogs, non-human primates, guinea pigs, hamsters and rabbits. In 1970, it was renamed the Animal Welfare Act and amended to include “all warm blooded animals” used in medical and psychological research and/or exhibition.

It established regulations for facilities to follow regarding the care of animals during the entire process they are subjected to, and added animals used in circuses, zoos and carnivals. One year later, the act took a hit when the secretary of agriculture initiated the exemption of rats, mice, birds, horses and farm animals from the definition of “animal.”

Although these species were not already protected under the AWA, this new regulation made certain their exclusion. In the 50-plus years since, the AWA has seen additions and reversals of animal species under protection, regulations protecting pet owners by requiring longer stray holds in shelters, amendments meant to crack down on animal fighting and more.

Reading through the act on the USDA website is somewhat dizzying, but very interesting. I appreciate the definition of “painful procedure,” which likens it to any procedure done to an animal that a human may find more than mildly distressing. The language used to define the scope of protection from pain and suffering however, allows for some subjectivity regarding what levels (measured as A-E) are allowed if it’s “necessary” to complete the task at hand.

As the American Psychological Association states in their guidelines, “when the goals of the research cannot be achieved by other methods.” In the end, the reasons for allowances seem to be to ensure that we, humans, benefit from the outcome.

Also interesting are the exemptions within laws that further protect or don’t protect certain animals, and laws that don’t have the “teeth” to strengthen enforcement, like the current Horse Protection Act. Violations of the AWA are rampant across all industries (this is well documented), but oversight and enforcement of the AWA has long been criticized for being slow, weak, and problematic. Reasons for that include the sheer numbers of facilities licensed and deemed “legitimate” that outweigh the government’s ability to consistently monitor them (lists of companies that do receive violations appear on the website).

Inspectors with the USDA, those employed directly within industries (self-policing), and “third party” inspectors are in charge of citing violations, but they can be duped when facilities clean up their acts prior to an inspection, bribed to look the other way when they find violations, or (sadly) threatened with job loss or physical harm if they report.

Companies receiving fines for violations often refer to them as the “cost of doing business” — insignificant in relation to the company’s overall profit. The stages of legal enforcement of violations are relatively minor at first and take time to follow through, which can leave animals suffering and give offenders time to disappear.

The AWA began with good intentions. If those have changed over time and enforcement is difficult, I believe it’s due to a lack of regard for our animal relatives in favor of human greed, ego, and fear, and those “soulless men” (and women) Phinizy wrote about.

There’s much more to this story, including additional legislation proposed over the years to protect species already not listed in the AWA, recent strides to reduce animal testing in the U.S., the effects of these issues on civilization and the environment, and how we can become more mindful of our actions toward animals and the sacrifices they make for us.

(Colleen Dougherty is a writer, educator, artist and behavioral health therapist. She has worked and volunteered in animal welfare for more than 20 years, and has spoken at several animal welfare conferences. She holds degrees in art and counseling therapy, and graduate certificates in eco-psychology and humane education. Her passion is fostering joyful and respectful relationships between animals, humans and the earth. She’s been writing Paw it Forward since 2016.)