The USDA now has a basic breakdown of all the Comments submitted for Docket No. 98-106-4:
Postal Comments
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/LPOC/98-106-4.txt
E-Mail Comments
https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/regpublic.nsf/fc818cf6f3e7a7f585256eb5003ba6a9?OpenView
and the PoJ Comment is ID No. 5053!
Web Comments (NOTE: almost impossible to navigate and the server keeps going down)
I love animals in general, including mice. I see two areas of concern to this site - rodents being used for scientific research/testing, and rodents being used as feeders for pet snakes, etc.
As far as the first area…While I strongly agree that all animals need to be respected and treated as humanely as possible, I also contend that mice have proven invaluable to helping further legitimate (yes, there have been many illegitimate, but I do not put forth those examples as valid arguments, and rightfully condemn them…) research that has led to treatments and cures that have provided relief - and saving of millions of lives - to humanity. Mice are heros in my book for that reason alone. I’ll also be the first to say quit using them for that purpose if another equal or better method of scientific inquiry/testing is found, but for now, there isn’t a better one.
The second area - used as feeders - that one has solutions already. I have read that there are viable, nutritionally equivalent (maybe even superior), and affordable alternatives to live feeding of rodents to snakes, etc.
Why is the connection between feeder rats and fancy rats so important? The USDA has already created one completely artificial distinction between rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research - and everyone else. Laboratory rats and mice are identical to non-laboratory rats and mice; however, the research community insisted on creating two categories of animal to keep the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) out of laboratories.
Now, another special interest group wants to slice rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus into yet another independant category, ‘feeder’, in order to keep the AWA out of mass breeder warehouses - rodent puppy mills.
So, we have the same animals, Rattus norvegicus and Mus Musculus, already divided arbitrarily into ‘bred for use in research’ and not ‘bred for use in research’ in order to satisfy one special interest. In order to satisfy yet another special interest, the group will be divided again into ‘feeders’ and ‘non-feeders’. Despite the fact that feeder and pet rats are not only biologically identical animals: they come from the same source.
What a regulatory nightmare! The same animal, regulated under at least three different standards, depending on a completely arbitrary designation made by profit-making entities.
In order to try and create a balanced sampling of typical feeder rodent conditions in the United States, we have all had to look at quite a few photographs, good and bad. For some reason, this particular image haunts me - something about the excited rat jumping up on the wire next to the red water valve and the phrase, “. . . no shavings - it is a wash down system, straight into the sewer!”.
I know, we aren’t supposed to make the issue personal, but the image of that rat will remain with me long after this campaign is over.
The photo was originally found on Kingsnake.com, and not posted by the alleged owner of the cage system, so we cannot say with any certainty who is responsible for the multiple problems:
* rats housed on bare wire floor
* overcrowding of animals in cage
* unsanitary conditions
* wire of cage either rusted or dirty
* bottom pan filled with fecal material and puddles of urine or water (possible evidence of dried urine - pale rings)
* cage as shown unable to be properly sanitized
David Boggs Reptiles
The ‘David Boggs Reptiles’ photographs have been removed. Instead, we would like to list the steps Mr. Boggs has taken to ensure his feeder mouse stock is kept and treated in a humane manner.
* the mice are kept on a substrate of aspen pellets and flakes, not pine or cedar which are dangerous for both mouse and reptile health.
* each mouse pan is cleaned once every five days, and the pan sterilized (there is no ‘mouse smell’).
* the mice are provided with fresh water and Mazuri 9F mouse diet.
* the ‘mouse room’ is kept at a steady temperature, 76-78 degrees.
* the mice are kept separate from any reptiles or other animals for several reasons; to keep the mice from becoming stressed, and to prevent the transmission of disease to the colony.
* the mice are Swiss-Webster, purchased from SAS Supply. The breeding ratio is maintained at six females to one male, and the current space to mouse ratio exceeds NIH guidelines.
* the mice are euthanized in a tub filled with concentrated CO2 gas and dead within two minutes - in compliance with AVMA Euthanasia guidelines.
* and, most important, USDA inspectors may drop by for an unannouced visit at any time - the mice will be ready.
We would like to thank Mr. Boggs for taking the time to speak with us and describe his feeder operation in minute detail, down to the fact that his breeding females are all sisters so they feel more comfortable in the colony (the males are changed out to prevent inbred stock).
Rats R Us
San Diego County Animal Control had been receiving complaints about ‘Rats R Us’, a mass breeder of rats for snake food, since 1996. Neighbors of Peter Springer, co-owner of ‘Rats R Us’, had been forced to endure the horrible stench emanating from the ‘Rats R Us’ barn and dead rats appearing in their yards. Encinitas councilwoman Maggie Houlihan, who happened to live up-hill from ‘Rats R Us’, demanded action be taken after she found dying rats crawling across her property. Animal control officers made their move - in June of 2002.
The result? A minimum of 20,000 decayed, dead, and dying rats. A smell so over-powering that officers could only stay in the barn for three minutes at a time, and were later forced to wear gas masks. Fifty to sixty animals crammed into cages designed to hold eight. Rampant disease, cannibalism, half-eaten body parts left to rot. Rats so crowded they struggled to expand their rib cages and breathe. And in the saddest twist of all, the barn floor covered in rat poison so any escapees would be dead before reaching safety.
‘Rats R Us’ was in the business of suppling live and frozen rats to Los Angeles area businesses, zoos, and pet shops for reptile food. Apparently, Peter Springer believed he was being unfairly targeted by animal control officers who didn’t understand the nature of his business. “We attempt to care for them, but some will die.”
In truth, every ‘Rats R Us’ rat died, because officers were forced to spend three days humanely euthanizing the animals with carbon dioxide gas. Not a single rat made it out of ‘Rats R Us’ alive, including the sixty-eight animals initially seized.
Animal Control faced one huge obstacle in stopping Peter Springer and ‘Rats R Us’: a lack of guidelines for the proper care of rats in mass breeding situations. However, the County of San Diego District Attorney’s Office, in an unprecedented move, filed one count of felony animal cruelty against Peter Springer in August of 2003. In September, Mr. Springer pled not guilty at his arraignment and was freed on his own recognizance pending trial. His business partner, Bob Turner, was never charged due to a lack of evidence linking him to the alleged abuse. In October of 2003, Mr. Springer pled guilty to one count of misdemeanor animal neglect under a plea bargain arrangement with the District Attorney’s Office. According to John Carlson, Regional Director, County of San Diego, Department of Animal Services, “[i]n this case, the conditions were so deplorable that prosecution was the only option. If federal regulations and inspections had beeen in place, these conditions could never have developed to this state” (emphasis added).
Mr. Springer was placed on three years of probation, during which time he may not own or breed any rodents, nor own any animals except for his current dog. If Mr. Springer violates his probation, he could spend up to one year in jail. In addition, Mr. Springer must attend three sessions of counseling and serve ten days of community service picking up trash on the highway. ‘Rats R Us’ is now defunct, the property has been sold, and Mr. Springer plans to move out of the neighborhood.
The ‘Rats R Us’ case is a legal anomaly for three reasons. First, animal cruelty cases in general are extremely difficult to investigate and prosecute, making formal charges against offenders rare. Second, the ‘Rats R Us’ case may be the only American example of state prosecution for animal cruelty or neglect where the victim was a domestic rat. Third, the case vividly illustrates the need for greater oversight and inspection of mass breeding facilities. Domestic rats are not officially given protection under the federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA), therefore, ‘Rats R Us’ was never inspected by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), unlike identical businesses breeding gerbils, hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, or other ‘pocket pets’. In most jurisdictions, no government entity has the authority to monitor conditions at rat/mouse breeding facilities. Animal Control officers may only enter such a facility after a legitimate complaint has been filed.
Defiant to the end, Peter Springer has complained his neighbors and county officials are animal-rights extremists and also claims to have spent eight hours per day caring for his furry charges. In Mr. Springer’s own words, “I could almost talk to them.”
Apparently, he needed a translator.
* Kevin Clerici, Officers Find Squalid ‘Mess’ in Barn Used to Breed Rats, San Diego Union-Tribune, July 18th, 2002.
* E-mail from John Carlson, Regional Director, County of San Diego, Department of Animal Services, to Lydia Peirce-Dougherty, Attorney, Eadie’s House, ‘Rats R Us’ Case Information (June 7, 2004, 14:20:06 p.m. MST)(copy on file with Eadie’s House).
* Daniel Evans, Owner of Rat Business Faces Charge of Cruelty, San Diego Union-Tribune, August 13, 2003.
* Marty Graham, Rat Breeder Faces Felony Charge of Squalid Keep, North County Times, August 15th, 2003.
* MSNBC, Microsoft Corporation, San Diegan Accused of Cruelty to 35,000 Rats, (last modified August 13th, 2003)
* MSNBC, Microsoft Corporation, Rats R Us Owner Pleads Guilty to Animal Neglect (last modified June 3, 2004)
* Dana Littlefield, Rat Breeder Receives Probation, Public Service for Animal Neglect, San Diego Union-Tribune, October 10, 2003.
Glossary of Acronyms
AAVS: American Anti-Vivisection Society
ALDF: Animal Legal Defense Fund
ALF: Animal Liberation Front (considered a domestic terrorist organization by the DOJ)
ANPR: Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
APHIS: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
ARDF:Alternatives Research and Development Foundation
AVMA: American Veterinary Medical Association
AWA: Animal Welfare Act
CFR: Code of Federal Regulations
DOJ: United States Department of Justice
FOIA: Freedom of Information Act (E-FOIA refers to the Electronic Freedom of Information Act Amendments of 1996, giving electronic access to certain FOIA materials)
FR: Federal Register
NARA: National Archives and Records Administration
NIH: National Institutes of Health
NIMH: National Intitute of Mental Health (of Mrs. Frisby fame. . .)
OLAW: Office for Laboratory Animal Welfare
PHS: Public Health Service
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture
A space reserved for Divine Intervention. . . we need some. . .
here he be - Bato Kannon
and Ganesh riding his rat vahana Mooskiha (thank you, Claire!)
a closer look at Mooshika
A few bad apples can spoil the Kingsnake.com barrel - right?
Precious Pets and Habitats
I’m going to take a wild guess these rats do not not qualify as ‘precious’.
Problems:
* rats housed on bare galvanized wire floor
* severe over-crowding
* exposed wood absorbs urine and bacteria; impossible to properly sanitize
* what appear to be an excessive number of food pellets rolling freely on floor among the animals - extremely unsanitary
Although this feeder breeder was located on Kingsnake.com, I would like to mention how helpful and professional the folks at Kingsnake.com have always been towards our rat rescue and education efforts.
According to the JVK Mice site, “[j]ust as much time and care go into our feeders as to our other animals.” Several photographs accompany this statement - judge for yourself.
exterior of mouse barn
interior shot of mouse barn - how many mice are in that bin?
Problems:
* animals housed on what appears to be pine bedding (bedding is dark, an indication of wetness, in addition to fecal material)
* exposed wood in barn, including floor, cannot be properly sanitized
* possible overcrowding of animals in pans
April 28th, 1998: The Alternatives Research and Development Foundation (ARDF) files a petition with the USDA to begin the rulemaking process to include rats, mice, and birds in the definition of ‘animal’ under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
January 28th, 1999: USDA publishes notice of filed petition and request for comments on filed petition in the Federal Register.
Federal Register: January 28, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 18) 4356-4367.
March 4th, 1999: Comment period extended through May 28th, 1999.
March 9th, 1999: ARDF, In Vitro International, and Kristine Gausz file suit against the USDA and APHIS seeking an order requiring the USDA to include rats, mice, and birds under the definition of ‘animal’ in the AWA.
June 22nd, 2000: Motion to dismiss filed by USDA denied by District Court for District of Columbia.
September 25th, 2000: USDA and plaintiffs agree to settle case and file stipulation of dismissal with the court.
Why? The USDA was afraid the Court would rule in favour of the plaintiffs, forcing the immediate inclusion of rats, mice, and birds as ‘animals’ under the AWA. Due to the settlement, rats and mice bred for use in research were permenently excluded from AWA protection by Congress through the Helms Amendment of the 2002 Farm Bill. Rats and mice held by the feeder/pet industry may face the same exclusion if there is no response to the current ANPR.
The American Anti-Vivisection Society (AAVS) has an excellent time-line of events (slanted towards laboratory animals) which should come as no surprise - ARDF is an arm of AAVS:
American Anti-Vivisection Society
Relevant text of Subpart F, Animal Welfare Act (AWA), is as follows:
Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 9, Volume 1]
[Revised as of January 1, 2003]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 9CFR3.125]
TITLE 9–ANIMALS AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS
CHAPTER I–ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH INSPECTION SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE
PART 3–STANDARDS–Table of Contents
Subpart F–Specifications for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Warmblooded Animals Other Than Dogs, Cats, Rabbits, Hamsters, Guinea Pigs, Nonhuman Primates, and Marine Mammals
Sec. 3.125 Facilities, general.
Facilities and Operating Standards
(a) Structural strength. The facility must be constructed of such material and of such strength as appropriate for the animals involved. The indoor and outdoor housing facilities shall be structurally sound and shall be maintained in good repair to protect the animals from injury and to contain the animals.
(b) Water and power. Reliable and adequate electric power, if required to comply with other provisions of this subpart, and adequate potable water shall be available on the premises.
© Storage. Supplies of food and bedding shall be stored in facilities which adequately protect such supplies against deterioration, molding, or contamination by vermin. Refrigeration shall be provided for supplies of perishable food.
(d) Waste disposal. Provision shall be made for the removal and disposal of animal and food wastes, bedding, dead animals, trash and
debris. Disposal facilities shall be so provided and operated as to minimize vermin infestation, odors, and disease hazards. The disposal
facilities and any disposal of animal and food wastes, bedding, dead animals, trash, and debris shall comply with applicable Federal, State,
and local laws and regulations relating to pollution control or the protection of the environment.
(e) Washroom and sinks. Facilities, such as washrooms, basins, showers, or sinks, shall be provided to maintain cleanliness among animal caretakers.
[36 FR 24925, Dec. 24, 1971. Redesignated at 44 FR 36874, June 22, 1979, and amended at 44 FR 63492, Nov. 2, 1979]
Sec. 3.126 Facilities, indoor.
(a) Ambient temperatures. Temperature in indoor housing facilities shall be sufficiently regulated by heating or cooling to protect the animals from the extremes of temperature, to provide for their health and to prevent their discomfort. The ambient temperature shall not be allowed to fall below nor rise above temperatures compatible with the health and comfort of the animal.
(b) Ventilation. Indoor housing facilities shall be adequately ventilated by natural or mechanical means to provide for the health and to prevent discomfort of the animals at all times. Such facilities shall be provided with fresh air either by means of windows, doors, vents, fans, or air-conditioning and shall be ventilated so as to minimize drafts, odors, and moisture condensation.
© Lighting. Indoor housing facilities shall have ample lighting, by natural or artificial means, or both, of good quality, distribution, and duration as appropriate for the species involved. Such lighting shall be uniformly distributed and of sufficient intensity to permit routine inspection and cleaning. Lighting of primary enclosures shall be designed to protect the animals from excessive illumination.
(d) Drainage. A suitable sanitary method shall be provided to eliminate rapidly, excess water from indoor housing facilities. If drains are used, they shall be properly constructed and kept in good repair to avoid foul odors and installed so as to prevent any backup of sewage. The method of drainage shall comply with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations relating to pollution control or the protection of the environment.
Sec. 3.127 Facilities, outdoor.
(a) Shelter from sunlight. When sunlight is likely to cause overheating or discomfort of the animals, sufficient shade by natural or artificial means shall be provided to allow all animals kept outdoors to protect themselves from direct sunlight.
(b) Shelter from inclement weather. Natural or artificial shelter appropriate to the local climatic conditions for the species concerned shall be provided for all animals kept outdoors to afford them protection and to prevent discomfort to such animals. Individual animals shall be acclimated before they are exposed to the extremes of the individual climate.
© Drainage. A suitable method shall be provided to rapidly eliminate excess water. The method of drainage shall comply with applicable Federal, State, and local laws and regulations relating to pollution control or the protection of the environment.
(d) Perimeter fence. On or after May 17, 2000, all outdoor housing facilities (i.e., facilities not entirely indoors) must be enclosed by a perimeter fence that is of sufficient height to keep animals and unauthorized persons out. Fences less than 8 feet high for potentially dangerous animals, such as, but not limited to, large felines (e.g., lions, tigers, leopards, cougars, etc.), bears, wolves, rhinoceros, and elephants, or less than 6 feet high for other animals must be approved in writing by the Administrator. The fence must be constructed so that it protects the animals in the facility by restricting animals and unauthorized persons from going through it or under it and having contact with the animals in the facility, and so that it can function as a secondary containment system for the animals in the facility. It must be of sufficient distance from the outside of the primary enclosure to prevent physical contact between animals inside the enclosure and animals or persons outside the perimeter fence. Such fences less than 3 feet in distance from the primary enclosure must be approved in writing by the Administrator. A perimeter fence is not required:
(1) Where the outside walls of the primary enclosure are made of sturdy, durable material, which may include certain types of concrete, wood, plastic, metal, or glass, and are high enoughand constructed in a manner that restricts entry by animals and unauthorized persons and the Administrator gives written approval; or
(2) Where the outdoor housing facility is protected by an effective natural barrier that restricts the animals to the facility and restricts entry by animals and unauthorized persons and the Administrator gives written approval; or
(3) Where appropriate alternative security measures are employed and the Administrator gives written approval; or
(4) For traveling facilities where appropriate alternative security measures are employed; or
(5) Where the outdoor housing facility houses only farm animals, such as, but not limited to, cows, sheep, goats, pigs, horses (for regulated purposes), or donkeys, and the facility has in place effective and customary containment and security measures.
Sec. 3.128 Space requirements.
Enclosures shall be constructed and maintained so as to provide sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns. Animal Health and Husbandry Standards
Sec. 3.129 Feeding.
(a) The food shall be wholesome, palatable, and free from contamination and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain all animals in good health. The diet shall be prepared with consideration for the age, species, condition, size, and type of the animal. Animals shall be fed at least once a day except as dictated by hibernation, veterinary treatment, normal fasts, or other professionally accepted practices.
(b) Food, and food receptacles, if used, shall be sufficient in quantity and located so as to be accessible to all animals in the enclosure and shall be placed so as to minimize contamination. Food receptacles shall be kept clean and sanitary at all times. If self-feeders are used, adequate measures shall be taken to prevent molding, contamination, and deterioration or caking of food.
Sec. 3.130 Watering.
If potable water is not accessible to the animals at all times, it must be provided as often as necessary for the health and comfort of the animal. Frequency of watering shall consider age, species, condition, size, and type of the animal. All water receptacles shall be kept clean and sanitary.
Sec. 3.131 Sanitation.
(a) Cleaning of enclosures. Excreta shall be removed from primary enclosures as often as necessary to prevent contamination of the animals contained therein and to minimize disease hazards and to reduce odors. When enclosures are cleaned by hosing or flushing, adequate measures shall be taken to protect the animals confined in such enclosures from being directly sprayed with the stream of water or wetted involuntarily.
(b) Sanitation of enclosures. Subsequent to the presence of an animal with an infectious or transmissible disease, cages, rooms, and hard-surfaced pens or runs shall be sanitized either by washing them with hot water (180 F. at source) and soap or detergent, as in a mechanical washer, or by washing all soiled surfaces with a detergent solution followed by a safe and effective disinfectant, or by cleaning all soiled surfaces with saturated live steam under pressure. Pens or runs using gravel, sand, or dirt, shall be sanitized when necessary as directed by the attending veterinarian.
© Housekeeping. Premises (buildings and grounds) shall be kept clean and in good repair in order to protect the animals from injury and to facilitate the prescribed husbandry practices set forth in this subpart. Accumulations of trash shall be placed in designated areas and cleared as necessary to protect the health of the animals.
(d) Pest control. A safe and effective program for the control of insects, ectoparasites, and avian and mammalian pests shall be established and maintained.
Sec. 3.132 Employees.
A sufficient number of adequately trained employees shall be utilized to maintain the professionally acceptable level of husbandry
practices set forth in this subpart. Such practices shall be under a supervisor who has a background in animal care.
Sec. 3.133 Separation.
Animals housed in the same primary enclosure must be compatible.
Animals shall not be housed near animals that interfere with their health or cause them discomfort.
The remaining sections are concerned with transportation standards.
(in progress)
* Rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research, (and birds) are currently excluded from the definition of “animal” under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
* The Department of Agriculture (USDA) is amending the current definition of “animal” in today’s Federal Register to match that in the AWA. The AWA definition of animal is as follows:
“Animal means any live or dead dog, cat, nonhuman primate, guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or any other warmblooded animal, which is being used, or is intended for use for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. This term excludes: Birds, rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, and horses not used for research purposes and other farm animals, such as, but not limited to livestock or poultry, used or intended for use as food or fiber, or livestock or poultry used or intended for use for improving animal nutrition, breeding, management, or production efficiency, or for improving the quality of food or fiber. With respect to a dog, the term means all dogs, including those used for hunting, security, or breeding purposes.”
Note well: Per the AWA, rats of genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, and birds are not ‘animals’ and are thereby excluded from protection and regulation. However, the USDA, in consideration of the millions of rats and mice in the pet/feeder trade not bred for use in research has issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) in an attempt to determine if rats and mice in the pet/feeder trade should be given coverage under the AWA. The ANPR will not affect the status of laboratory animals.
Currently, the handling, care, treatment, and transportation of rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus not bred for use in researchare outlined by Subpart F of the AWA regulations (36 CFR). Enforcement of Subpart F on behalf of rats and mice is extremely sporadic and rare, in fact, entire regions of the USDA are not aware Subpart F ever could ever apply to rats and mice in the feeder/pet trade.
* The USDA is soliciting comments from the public to consider if the handling, care, treatment, and transportation of rats and mice should be formally regulated under Subpart F, or, if specific standards should be established for them, or, if rats and mice in the feeder/pet trade should be removed permenantly from AWA protection.
Note well: “Specific standards” can go both ways: Rats and mice could become “food and fiber” or rights for their handling, care, treatment, and transportation could be established (which means that mistreatment could be enforced).
Also: We who care about the rights of rats and mice (and of all animals) need to speak up on behalf of the rats and mice because those who breed rats and mice for a profit will surely be speaking up on behalf of the “food and fiber” option - no AWA protection.
* The USDA is requesting information regarding potential economic effects of other (non-rats, non-mice, non-birds) entities should regulations go into effect.
[for example, poor husbandry of rats and mice contributes to the presence of viruses, bacterial infections, and parasitic infections which could be passed on to other animals located at the rats’/mice/birds’ intended destination]
* Dates: The date for submission of comments has been extended to November 1, 2004
Per dictionary.com, a “paw” is “The foot of an animal, especially a quadruped, that has claws or nails.” Well, we definitely have nails and if you don’t count the tail, we’re quadrupeds for sure!
But, seriously… It seems, especially with those kind humans who befriend us, that we’ve found ourselves with hands rather than paws. We really don’t mind either way but it is kind of nice feeling like we’re higher up on the ladder than even cats or dogs.
But, so many others don’t see us as even cat or dog equals! Hard to believe, I know. And because we want everyone to see us with the same love in their eyes that they would a cat or dog, we chose “paw.”
[Federal Register: June 4, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 108)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 31537-31541]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr04jn04-14]
———————————————————————–
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 2 and 3
[Docket No. 98-106-4]
RIN 0579-AB69
Animal Welfare; Regulations and Standards for Birds, Rats, and Mice
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comments.
———————————————————————–
SUMMARY: The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 amended the definition of animal in the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) by specifically excluding birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research. In a separate document published in the Rules and Regulations section of today’s Federal Register, we are amending the definition of animal in our regulations to be consistent with the definition of animal in the AWA. At this time, we are also considering several changes to the regulations to help promote the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of birds, rats, and mice not specifically excluded from coverage under the AWA. Specifically, we intend to extend enforcement of the AWA to birds other than birds bred for use in research. However, before we can do so, we believe it is necessary to consider what regulations and standards are appropriate for them. Therefore, we are soliciting comments from the public to help determine how we should regulate the care and use of those animals. In addition, we are considering if we should continue to regulate the handling, care, treatment, and transportation of rats and mice covered by the Act under the general standards in the regulations or if we should establish specific standards for them. To aid in that determination, we are soliciting comments from the public concerning the regulation of those animals. Finally, we are requesting data and information from the public regarding the potential economic effects on entities that may be affected if we were to establish specific standards for birds, rats, and mice not specifically excluded from coverage under the AWA.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 3, 2004.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
Webform: The preferred method is to use the webform located at
comments.aphis.usda.gov.
This webform is designed to allow commenters to associate each of their comments with the issues identified in the advance notice, and to allow APHIS to more easily analyze the comments received regarding each issue.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to
Docket No. 98-106-4
Regulatory Analysis and Development,
PPD
APHIS
Station 3C71, 4700
River Road Unit 118
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238.
Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. 98-106-4.
E-mail: Address your comment to
regulations@aphis.usda.gov.
Your comment must be contained in the body of your message; do not send attached files.
Please include your name and address in your message and “Docket No. 98-106-4″ on the subject line.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov
and follow the instructions for locating this docket and submitting comments.
Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in
room 1141 of the USDA South Building
14th Street and Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC.
Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays.
To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
Other Information: You may view APHIS documents published in the Federal Register and related information, including the names of groups and individuals who have commented on APHIS dockets, on the Internet at
www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/webrepor.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. Jerry DePoyster, Senior Veterinary Medical Officer
Animal Care
APHIS
4700 River Road Unit 84
Riverdale, MD 20737-1234
(301) 734-7586
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) (7 U.S.C. 2131 et seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate standards and other requirements governing the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of certain animals by dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of auction sales, and carriers and intermediate handlers. Within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), responsibility for administering the AWA has been delegated to the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Within APHIS, the responsibility for administering the AWA has been delegated to the Deputy Administrator for Animal Care. Regulations established under the AWA are contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in 9 CFR parts 1, 2, and 3. Part 1 contains definitions for terms used in parts 2 and 3; part 2 provides administrative requirements and sets forth institutional responsibilities for regulated parties; and part 3 contains specifications for the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals covered by the AWA. Currently, part 3 consists of subparts A through E, which contain specific standards for dogs and cats, guinea pigs and hamsters, rabbits, nonhuman primates, and marine mammals, respectively, and subpart F, which sets forth general standards for warmblooded animals not otherwise specified in that part.
Definition of Animal
The Federal Laboratory Animal Welfare Act (Pub. L. 89-544), commonly referred to as the Animal Welfare Act, was enacted in 1966 to protect owners from pet theft, prevent use of stolen pets, and ensure the humane treatment of research animals. Under that Act, an animal was defined as live dogs, cats, monkeys (nonhuman primate mammals), guinea pigs, hamsters, or rabbits. The Animal Welfare Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-597) expanded the list of covered animals to include all warm-blooded animals determined by the Secretary of Agriculture as being used, or intended for use, in research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition, or as a pet, and specifically excluded horses not used for research purposes and other farm animals when used for agricultural purposes.
In 1971, USDA amended the definition of animal in Sec. 1.1 of the regulations to incorporate the 1970 amendments to the Act and to specifically exclude birds, rats, and mice for enforcement purposes. In 1989, USDA further amended that definition by, among other things, narrowing the exclusion for rats and mice to only those rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research. The AWA’s definition of animal has excluded the types of rats and mice commonly bred and used in research and all birds from coverage for over 30 years. Other types of rats and mice, such as wild rats and mice, are covered by the regulations and standards in part 2 and subpart F of part 3. (The regulations can be viewed on Animal Care’s Internet site at www.aphis.usda.gov/ac/ by selecting “Publications'’; the regulations are listed under the heading Animal Welfare Act, Regulations, and Standards, subheading Animal Care Regulations.)
The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-0171, signed into law on May 13, 2002), included provisions that amended the definition of animal in the AWA (7 U.S.C. 2132(g)) by specifically excluding birds, rats of the genus Rattus, and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research. While the definition of animal in the regulations has excluded rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research, that definition has also excluded all birds (i.e., not just those birds bred for use in research). Therefore, in a separate document published in the Rules and Regulations section of today’s Federal Register, we are amending the definition of animal in the regulations to be consistent with the definition of animal in the AWA by narrowing the scope of the exclusion for birds to only those birds bred for use in research. Our final rule is intended only to make the definition of animal in the regulations consistent with the definition of animal in AWA.
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
At this time, we are considering several changes to the regulations
to help promote the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of birds, rats, and mice not specifically excluded from
coverage under the AWA. Bird material removed for clarity.
In addition, we are considering if we
should continue to regulate the handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of rats and mice covered by the AWA under the general
standards in subpart F of part 3 or if we should establish specific
standards for those animals. To aid in that determination, we are
soliciting comments from the public concerning the regulation of rats
and mice, except for rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus
bred for use in research, that are sold as pets at the wholesale level,
or transported in commerce, or used for exhibition, research, teaching,
testing, or experimentation purposes. Finally, we are requesting data
and information from the public regarding the potential economic
effects on entities that may be affected if we were to establish
specific standards for all covered rats and mice and for birds other
than birds specifically bred for use in research.
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking is intended to help
promote the humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of
birds, rats, and mice covered by the AWA. This action follows a notice
published in the Federal Register on January 28, 1999 (64 FR 4356-4367,
Docket No. 98-106-1) that informed the public of our receipt of a
petition for rulemaking concerning the regulation of birds, rats, and
mice, and that solicited comments from the public on that petition.
Request for Comments: Birds [removed]
Request for Comments: Rats and Mice
In addition to the protections afforded by the standards and
regulations in parts 2 and 3 of the regulations, the vast majority of
animals used in biomedical research, including birds, rats, and mice,
are provided oversight by Public Health Service (PHS) of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, through voluntary
accreditation by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of
Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC), or both. Most biomedical
research in the United States is performed in laboratories funded at
least in part by PHS. The PHS Policy on Humane Care and Use of
Laboratory Animals covers live vertebrate animals that are involved in
activities supported by PHS. The PHS policy requires an Animal Welfare
Assurance, which is a document that commits the research institution to
a program of animal care and use that is consistent with the Guide for
the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals (referred to below as the
Guide), a publication produced by the National Research Council to
assist institutions in caring for and using animals in ways judged to
be scientifically, technically, and humanely appropriate.1
—————————————————————————
1 The Guide can be viewed on the National Academies Press’
Internet site at www.nap.edu/readingroom/books/labrats/.
—————————————————————————
In addition to PHS oversight, many U.S. research facilities are
accredited by AAALAC. This private organization, through inspections
and reviews, accredits laboratories that meet or exceed the animal care
standards in the Guide. Research facilities seek AAALAC accreditation
for assistance with public relations and in receiving grants.
While the AWA and the regulations address a broader range of
activities than does the Guide, we believe that many of the minimum
standards for the care and use of animals contained in the Guide are
applicable in research and non-research environments alike. As a
result, we have made, whenever possible, the standards in part 3
consistent with the Guide in order to eliminate confusion and to
simplify compliance for entities that must comply with both the
regulations and the Guide. In those cases where the regulations are
consistent with the Guide, it is because we have reviewed the Guide and
determined that its program for animal care and use is appropriate and
adequate to provide for the humane handling, care, treatment, and
transportation of the animals in question.
We are soliciting comments to help us determine whether we should
continue to regulate rats and mice other than rats of the genus Rattus
and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research under the general
standards in subpart F of part 3, or if we should adopt specific
standards for those animals. While the Guide does not provide husbandry
specifications for the care and use of birds, as they are not commonly
used in biomedical research, it does provide specifications for the
care and use of rats and mice. Therefore, we also request comment on
the adequacy of the specifications in the Guide as they pertain to the
humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of rats and mice.
If we determine that specific standards should be established for rats
and mice covered by the AWA, we will publish a proposed rule for public
comment in the Federal Register. Any changes to our Animal Care program
and regulations that may result from such a proposal will be addressed
in that document.
In particular, we invite responses to the questions listed below.
Although the following questions solicit comments concerning the
regulation of all rats and mice covered by the AWA, we welcome
responses that pertain to only rats or to mice, or to a specific type
of rat or mouse. Please make it explicit in your response if your
comment addresses a specific type of animal or if your response
pertains to rats and mice in general.
11. Should rats and/or mice other than rats of the genus Rattus and
mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research continue to be regulated
under the general standards in subpart F of part 3? If so, please
submit any data available to support the continued regulation of those
animals under that subpart.
12. As mentioned above, part 3 contains specifications for the
humane handling, care, treatment, and transportation of animals covered
by the AWA. Among other things, the standards in part 3 address the
following considerations:
Facilities and operations (including space, structure and
construction, waste disposal, heating, ventilation, lighting, and
interior surface requirements for indoor and outdoor primary enclosures
and housing facilities);
Animal health and husbandry (including requirements for
sanitation and feeding, watering, and separation and classification of
animals); and
Transportation (including specifications for primary
enclosures, primary conveyances, terminal facilities and the feeding,
watering, care, and handling of animals in transit).
Should specific standards be developed for rats and/or mice other
than rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in
research? If so, what minimum standards would be appropriate for those
animals, including requirements for facilities and operations, animal
health and husbandry, and transportation? Please submit specific data
to support any suggested standards.
13. As noted above, research institutions funded at least in part
by the Public Health Service of the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services are required to follow a program of animal care and use that
is consistent with the National Research Council’s Guide for the Care
and Use of Laboratory Animals. To eliminate confusion and simplify
compliance for entities that must comply with the regulations and the
Guide, we have, whenever possible, made the standards in part 3 of the
regulations consistent with the program of animal care and use in the
Guide. If specific standards should be developed for rats and mice
other than rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for
use in research, are the specifications for the care and use of rats
and mice contained in the Guide appropriate and adequate to provide for
the humane care, handling, treatment, and transportation of those
animals? If so, please submit specific data to support the adoption of
the Guide’s specifications for rats and mice.
14. Comments are invited concerning the number and size of entities
that use rats and mice, except for rats of the genus Rattus and mice of
the genus Mus bred for use in research, for purposes covered by the AWA. (Such
entities may include dealers, research facilities, exhibitors,
operators of auction sales, and carriers and intermediate handlers of
rats and mice covered by the AWA that are sold as pets at the wholesale
level, transported in commerce, used in exhibits, or used for research,
teaching, testing, or experimentation purposes.)
15. What is the number of each species of rats and mice, except for
rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in
research, that are currently sold as pets at the wholesale level,
transported in commerce, used in exhibits, or used for research,
teaching, testing, or experimentation purposes?
16. Comments are invited concerning the current physical
structures, equipment, staffing, licensing, and paperwork used in the
handling, care, treatment, and transportation of rats and mice, except
for rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in
research, for purposes covered by the AWA. If you are submitting
suggested standards for rats and mice in response to question 12 or
believe that we should establish specific standards for covered rats
and mice that are consistent with the Guide (see question 13, above),
please address how those standards would affect facility operations.
17. What are the potential economic effects, in terms of time and/
or money, on entities that may be affected if we were to establish
specific standards for rats and mice covered by the AWA? (Such entities
may include dealers, research facilities, exhibitors, operators of
auction sales, and carriers and intermediate handlers of rats and mice
covered by the AWA that are sold as pets at the wholesale level,
transported in commerce, used in exhibits, or used for research,
teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes.)
18. Do you have any other specific concerns or recommendations
pertaining to the regulation of rats and mice other than rats of the
genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus bred for use in research?
The End.
Powered by WordPress