times kept as long as 8 or 9 years. I don't know how long the other dogs (approximately 150 of them in cages stacked 3 high) had been there. I was only able to read the dates on the two cages which I've mentioned. At this same medical school I saw poultry in cages which measure only 1011⁄2 inches in height. The fowl were taller than the cages their backs were touching the top of the cages, their heads were bent over because it was impossibel to raise them. An employee at Presbyterian-St. Luke's Hospital told me that when she came there to work, the dog cages were encrusted with dirt and crawling with vermin. Now they may be clean, but they are still inadequate in size. No exercise areas is available at this institution either and dogs remain in these cages from the time they are received until they are no longer needed. The rabbits at this institution are jammed into antiquated cages which measure 12 by 18 by 10 inches. The addition of a feed bowl and a water bowl, each approximately 5 inches in diameter, cut the length of the cage to a mere 13 inches. The rabbits are unable to move in any direction. These same rabbit cages were in this hospital in 1929 and I don't know how many years they were there before that. At Washington University in St. Louis I saw German shepherd puppies, approximately 4 months of age, housed in cages which must have been designed to hold nothing larger than a rabbit. As I entered the dark basement room, the puppies tried to stand up to greet me. In doing so, they bumped the tops of their heads on the top of the small cages. At all of these institutions the dogs remain in their cages while the cages are hosed down by the caretaker. While I was in the Surgery Department of Washington University I watched the caretaker as he hosed the cages with the dogs in them. The room was filled with steam. I watched as the dogs picked up their feet in an effort to dodge the hot spray. Others, too sick to move, or too tired to care any more, just sat in quite resignation. I would like to have you look at these pictures, if you will. I have pictures of dogs being hosed while in their cages, and you can see that the dogs, actually, do get wet. It is impossible to do it without wetting the animals. Such inadequate housing is not restricted to Chicago and St. Louis, Charles Hazzard, who raises and boards dog for medical research, was arrested last November when investigating agents found between 85 and 100 dogs living under "filthy and deplorable conditions." A dead dog was found in a chicken coop with live dogs. A large female dog and puppies were found in a turkey pen. Three of the puppies had their forelegs encased in foul smelling bandages which were filthy with dirt. Dr. Hopkins, a veterinarian with the women's SPCA in Philadelphia, testified that when the three puppies were brought to him for examination he found a disagreeable odor emanating from the bandages. When he removed them from the legs of the puppies he found several layers of flesh rotting away. Dr. Mary K. Baxter, a veterinarian in the University of Pennsylvania veterinary research department, testified that she is working on bone graft experiments and that she had obtained dogs from Hazard for research purposes. She said that she had operated on the three puppies and testified that she stopped almost daily at the Hazzard kennels and "found nothing objectionable to her." Dr. Schneider of Hahnemann Medical College and the Einstein Medical Center, and head of the Philadelphia Animal Care Panel Committee, testified that he found nothing wrong with the ghasty conditions at the Hazzard dog farm. He praised Hazzard's "modern open-range" method of keeping dogs and added that "he had inspected the kennels that week and saw no cruelty or neglect whatsoever." Despite Dr. Schneider's testimony on behalf of the dog farmowner, Mr. Hazzard was found guilty and fined $100. Mr. Hazzard was arrested again the following week on similar charges. On November 27th Mr. Hazzard's lawyer asked that the second cruelty charge be dismissed because Pennsylvania law forbids the issuance of a search and seizure warrant for any research project. Mr. Hazzard claims immunity from further prosecution for cruelty to animals because his farm is actually a research project. On an earlier visit to Philadelphia I decided to visit the Pratt Laboratories. The Pratt Laboratories are listed as suppliers of laboratory cats in the booklet published by the Institute of Laboratory Animal Resources, National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council. When I arrived at the address listed in the ILAR book I thought surely I must be at the wrong place. I found myself at an old, small two-story building which looked abandoned. There is no name on the building, but a letter sticking out of the mail box confirmed the fact that mail addressed to Pratt Laboratories was being delivered here. I opened the outer door and saw the name "Dr. Pratt" inscribed on a filthy glass door. Dr. Pratt appeared and after identifying myself I asked him if I might see his laboratory cats. He said he no longer keeps dogs or cats in the house because the neighbors had complained. He said that when he gets an order for dogs or cats he simply calls another dealer and has them delivered directly to the laboratories. I asked him if he had ever visited the other dealer's farm to see if the animals were properly cared for and he said "No." Dr. Pratt explained that he has a Ph.D. in pharmacology and taught at Hahnemann Medical College for 15 years. He said he was one of the two instructors engaged to teach 100 medical students. He said he now raises rats and mice in the house and also maintains a breeding farm in New Jersey. He showed me the mouse breeding room on the second floor. It was hard to see the mice because everything was covered with vast quantities of dust. I have never seen so much dust in one place in my life. Some of the mice were in metal cages; the majority, however, were in old wooden cages which were literally falling apart. We then went downstairs to see the albino rats which are raised for scientific research. The room was incredibly dirty, cobwebs hung from the ceiling, the room was covered with dust, and the floor was in dire need of repair. One had to look carefully before taking a step. Occasionally rats will get out of the dilapidated cages and a scrawny cat who lives there catches them when they do. Broken cages were strewn casually on the floor where they had been discarded. Pepsi-Cola bottles are used as water bottles for the rats. This was my first visit to an animal dealer listed in the Institute for Laboratory Animal Resources book and I left there wondering what kind of a 60-678-66- -12 program the National Research Council had which would permit them to list a supplier of laboratory animals bred and housed in such a manner. No less shocking, although in a different way, were endless rows of cramped dog cages at the University of Minnesota. The photo graphs herewith submitted are graphic evidence of conditions there. The first photograph shows experimental dogs housed in small cages stacked three high in a dark, windowless basement. The 11 photographs which follow show the manner in which large-sized dogs are squeezed into small, mesh-bottom cages. Note the back of the big dog in photograph No. 9 at the top of the cage. If you will look closely you will see that there are five incisions on this dog's side and back. The incision on his back is in direct contact with the metal top of his cage because it is so low. His head is hanging. He could not hold it up for there is no room to do so. In conclusion, I wish to read a letter from the health commissioner of the State of Michigan, Dr. Albert Heustis, who was unable to be here today. Dr. Heustis set forth the following requirements for Wayne State University Medical School when he put it on probation for 30 days in 1964 following a serious incident of neglect of postoperative dogs. The requirements are as follows: 1. The improvement of the dog recovery quarters. 2. The provision of adequate medicines to provide for humane care both in the postsurgical procedures and otherwise. 3. The availability of a person properly trained and instructed in the care of the sick animals, who will make rounds during the hours that scientific personnel are not on duty, and who will administer first aid and call a responsible physician to aid any animals in pain or difficulty. 4. The assurance of the availability of a responsible doctor at all times. 5. The establishment of a procedure for the better identification of surgical cases, including a record of the physician responsible for medications, the anesthesia used, and other pertinent information. 6. The replacement of the smaller cages (found in a few instances) with those of adequate size. 7. The provision of more adequate exercise for postoperative dogs. 8. The movement of dogs on long-term experiments to outside boarding kennels with outdoor runways so that the animals can live a more normal life. I agree with Dr. Heustis and request the committee to give a favorable report to H.R. 12488 or a bill embodying all its major provisions and requiring humane standards of care and housing for animals in laboratories, in transit, and in the premises of suppliers. I have letters from three medical doctors in Washington, D.C., and a statement submitted by Dr. William B. Walsh. I would like to submit these letters for the record. Mr. POAGE. They may be made a part of the record at this point, without objection. 2 See p. 139 for the complete letter, with enclosures, from Dr. Albert Heustis. (The letter dated March 7, 1966, from the Washington Clinic, the letter dated March 5, from Dr. John W. Walsh, and the letter dated March 7, 1966, from Dr. William B. Walsh, follow :) Hon. WILLIAM POAGE, House Office Building, Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON CLINIC, Washington, D.C., March 7, 1966. DEAR CONGRESSMAN POAGE: The provisions of H.R. 12488 are, in my opinion, sound and fair. To better insure humane care and handling of all animals used in investigative laboratory work, I endorse this bill. Respectfully, PAUL C. KIERNAN, M.D. Hon. WILLIAM R. POAGE, House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. WASHINGTON, D.C., March 5, 1966. DEAR SIR: As a practicing physician and surgeon in the District of Columbia for the past 20 years, I cannot understand the existence of any valid objections to the passage of H.R. 12488. I have spent a great deal of my time during these same 20 years teaching my specialty of obstetrics and gynecology to medical students and residents in training. I would like to mention a few points as they come to mind. Why should institutions in which vertebrate animal experimentation is carried out object to licensure? Physicians are licensed, hospitals are licensed and always open to inspection. Without inspection, high standards of hospital practice might not be maintained. The opponents of humane treatment for animals bills constantly cry out the tired label of "antivivisectionist." This is an old familiar scare technique to which legislators should pay no heed. There is nothing of antivivisectionist nature in the Poage bill. Animal experimentation must go on in any orderly society which seeks to advance its knowledge in medical and surgical technology. However, how valid are the reactions of frightened, abused, ill-fed, and poorly housed animals? How "normal" can animals be when subjected to abnormal, cramped, and otherwise undesirable living conditions? If the antagonists of humane animal care legislation have nothing to hide why is it that they fight this type of legislation? Good research and animal experimentation are not incompatible with humane care of the laboratory animal. If I thought so, I could not as a surgeon, wholeheartedly endorse H.R. 12488, the Poage bill. Sincerely yours, JOHN W. WALSH, M.D. THE PEOPLE-TO-PEOPLE HEALTH FOUNDATION, INC., Hon. W. R. POAGE, MY DEAR CONGRESSMAN POAGE: It is indeed a privilege for me to strongly endorse the provisions of H.R. 12488 which would insure humane treatment of laboratory animals. The provisions of the bill provide for the licensing of the handlers of the animals and the inspection of the animal shelters used for the housing of laboratory animals. No one should be misled by the accusation that all who support this bill are antivivisectionists, for nothing could be further from the truth. I, as a physician, and many of my colleagues have been appalled by the recent disclosures of the abuses of laboratory animals. It is not only inhumane but also unscientific to utilize animals that are underfed and are not in the best of physical condition, particularly in the fields of surgical experimentation, shock, and other studies. Supporters of this bill are well aware of the continuing need for the use of laboratory animals which has as its purpose the eventual saving of human life. It is inconceivable to me that any medical school or medical association could in good conscience justify its opposition to the provisions of this bill. Certainly men dedicating their lives to the savings or prolongation of their fellow man cannot hold in disregard any living thing. I would urge, therefore, that serious consideration be given to the passage of this bill so that those animals who do give their lives for the progress of humanity be guaranteed good and humane treatment during this period. Only the licensing of animal handlers and the stringent enforcement of laws which will insure proper housing, feeding, and transportation of those animals will accomplish the aims outlined above. Sincerely yours, WILLIAM B. WALSH, M.D. Mr. POAGE. Our next witness is Mr. George W. Jones, to be followed by Sloan. We will be glad to hear from you now, Mr. Jones. STATEMENT OF GEORGE W. JONES, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, MASSACHUSETTS SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, BOSTON, MASS. Mr. JONES. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am George W. Jones, assistant director of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals located in Boston. I appear today as a representative of this society, and with me is Mr. David S. Claflin, executive vice president of the society. We appreciate this opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and express our views on this most important subject. The presentation will be brief since the majority of points have been adequately covered in earlier hearings in September 1965 and also yesterday and this morning. The problem of illegal animal procurement is not only creating interest here in Washington but also throughout the country. As Dr. Buttrick has already stated, on Tuesday of last week, I appeared before the Joint Legal Affairs Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature regarding a bill for increasing the penalty for animal theft in Massachusetts. If this bill is passed, perhaps some cases of animal theft will be eliminated; however, this is not the answer to the entire problem. The problem is great and cannot be adequately covered by the acts of one State legislature. Animal procurement and their proper care is a Federal responsibility since a great majority of the research facilities receive Federal grants and other types of assistance. According to Representative Joseph Y. Resnick, over one and three-quarter million dogs and onehalf million cats were used last year in hospitals and research laboratories receiving Federal money. From $30 to $50 million was spent by these institutions for these animals. I think it would be safe to say that this amount of Federal aid and the amount of animals needed will certainly increase in the years to come which would indicate a worsening of the present situation. Of the many bills before this subcommittee, we feel that H.R. 12488, introduced by Representative Poage, to be one of the better bills. This bill covers not only dogs and cats but all vertebrates. This bill would license research facilities, dealers, and also the middlemen handling animals. It also would authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to issue humane standards regarding handling, transporting, and promoting animal health, well-being, and safety for dealers and research facilities. All animals are identified. Records of transactions are kept. |