Legislation Briefs and PUPS Update July 11, 2013

SAOVA Friends,

This will be a busy month for the members of Congress dealing with priority issues such as a new budget, the farm bill, student loans, and immigration laws, before returning to their districts for the August recess.

Concerns with the PUPS bill, HR847 / S395 do not need to take a backseat to any other legislation.  Many of you have already written to your Congressman expressing your opposition, but please do so again.   It is especially important to write to Congressmen who were newly elected last year to let them know PUPS is not the welfare bill that HSUS/ASPCA portray.

HR847 now has 127 cosponsors with 11 added during the month of June; S395 has 21 cosponsors with one added this week.  HSUS has already sent out two email blasts this year urging their minions to send form letters to Congress from the HSUS website.

The HSUS synopsis is overly simplistic and misleading, stating PUPS closes a “loophole” that currently allows large, commercial breeders to sell puppies online or directly to the public and escape federal licensing and inspection requirements.

WHAT PUPS REALLY DOES
PUPS creates the new definition high volume retail breeder. A breeder only has to have interest or custody of one breeding female dog to fall under the first criteria test. The second criterion includes anyone who sells or offers for sale, via internet, phone, or newspaper more than 50 dogs in a year.  Co-ownerships and location of co-owners, age/sex/ownership of the sold dogs are not taken into consideration.  Rescue is not exempt.

PUPS reverses a long-standing, court tested basis for pet business licensing and regulation in the commercial sector.

PUPS fails to consider that sight unseen sales have always existed via magazines and printed media and are not a new phenomenon created by the Internet.

PUPS requires specific, excessive, and impractical space for physical exercise. It does not simply ensure that dogs have daily exercise as HSUS and supporters claim.

PUPS allows private, home/hobby breeders to be the subject of activist harassment and Freedom of Information Act requests.

Find more talking points to download for your letters to Congress at the SAOVA website: http://www.saova.org/PUPS.Campaign.html    Please do this now!  Flyers are also available to use next month when members of Congress are back at local offices.

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated.  Follow SAOVA on Facebook!

Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators
saova@earthlink.net


FEDERAL NEWS
AFBF FILES SUIT TO PROTECT FARMERS’ PRIVACY
National farming groups are suing the Obama administration over concerns that thousands of farmers and ranchers will have their personal information compromised. The American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Pork Producers Council filed a lawsuit on Friday to prevent the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from responding to information requests from environmental groups that they worry could include personal details about farmers and their families. “We are sticking up for the tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers whose personal information would end up in the public domain,” Farm Bureau President Bob Stallman said in a statement. “This lawsuit is about the government’s unjustified intrusion into citizens’ private lives.” Source: The Hill blogs http://tinyurl.com/m352e3v  
Read press release at American Farm Bureau newsroom

GROUPS SUE USDA OVER MEAT LABELING RULE
Eight meat industry groups from the United States and Canada have sued the U.S. Department of Agriculture over the country-of-origin labeling rule finalized in May.  The American Meat Institute (AMI), American Association of Meat Processors, Canadian Cattlemen’s Association, Canadian Pork Council, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, National Pork Producers Council, North American Meat Association and Southwest Meat Association joined in the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court. The groups argue that the rule violates the Constitution by compelling speech without a substantial government interest; goes beyond the intentions of the original mandate; and is arbitrary and places undue burden on the industry. Read press release at AMI

HSUS FILES SUIT TO STOP HORSE SLAUGHTER
Following USDA's announcement late last week to issue an inspection permit to a New Mexico equine slaughter plant, animal rights organizations have filed suit against the agency and asked for an immediate injunction. HSUS and various organizations are suing under the National Environmental Protection Act, alleging the agency failed to conduct an environmental review before authorizing horse slaughterhouses to operate.  The plaintiffs are represented in the case by Schiff Hardin, LLP and attorneys within The HSUS' Animal Protection Litigation section.

Aside from the New Mexico plant, FSIS said it expects requests for inspection from two more plants in Iowa and Missouri in the future.

Earlier HSUS filed a petition with USDA’s Food Safety and Inspection Service and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to declare horsemeat unfit for human consumption. USDA denied that petition stating, “After carefully considering the issues raised in the petition and the supplemental statement, the Agency finds no merit in the assertion that all meat and meat food products from a horse without a proven lifetime history of all substances administered to it are adulterated under the FMIA.  FSIS has concluded that its existing authority under the FMIA and implementing regulations, which include requirements for the disposition of livestock suspected of having biological residues, along with the Agency’s National Residue Program (NRP), will allow the Agency to ensure that carcasses and horsemeat products that bear the mark of inspection are safe for human food.”  Full FSIS response http://tinyurl.com/k4ujk6d

RECREATIONAL FISHING AND HUNTING HERITAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES ACT
Introduced by Rep. Dan Benishek (R, MI-1) HR1825 directs Federal public land management officials to exercise their authority under existing law to facilitate use of and access to Federal public lands for fishing, sport hunting, and recreational shooting, and for other purposes. The bill establishes that Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Forest Service lands are “open unless closed” to hunting, fishing and recreational shooting.  HR1825 does not create hunting, fishing or recreational shooting opportunities where they are not already authorized; however it protects congressionally authorized activities from legal challenges that seek to interfere with authorized hunting, fishing and recreational shooting on federal land.

This important legislation was approved by the House Natural Resources Committee with a 28-15 vote and reported to the House Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Energy, and Forestry.

Common Sense Prevails in East Coast Gestation Stall Decisions

Good news is always appreciated, and the common sense displayed by governmental officials in both New York and New Jersey this month is positive for pork producers. On Thursday, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie vetoed legislation that would have banned the use of sow stalls. The legislation had been pushed by animal rights groups. Earlier this month, the New York Legislature refused to pass legislation banning gestation stalls.

Gov. Christie said, “The proper balancing of humane treatment of gestating pigs  with the interests of farmers whose livelihood depends on their ability to properly manage their livestock best rests with the state’s farming experts — the State Board (of Agriculture) and the Department (of Agriculture).” In response, National Pork Producers Council (NPPC) President-elect Howard Hill, DVM, a pork producer from Cambridge, IA, said, “This is a great example of a governor standing up to powerful lobbying groups on behalf of small, independent farmers. America’s family farmers thank Gov. Christie for rejecting this bad legislation.”

NPPC also joined New York pork producers to applaud the New York Legislature for failing to pass a similar gestation stall-banning measure pushed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups. While talking about the situation, New York pork producer John Lash said, “This is about HSUS using New York to advance its national agenda, regardless of the negative impact it would have on the health and safety of the animals and the small, independent farmers who care for them. Decisions about animal well-being and housing should be determined by those who understand the animals and work with them every day.”  More ...

Related articles:
NPPC Applauds Veto of Proposed Sow Stall Ban in New Jersey
America's Hog Farmers Thank Connecticut Legislature for Supporting Local Farmers

USF&WS Proposes to Delist Gray Wolf Population Nationwide

Washington, DC – Today, June 7, 2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) formally announced its proposal to remove the gray wolf from the endangered species list throughout the lower 48 states (with the exception of the Mexican wolf population). The FWS’s monumental decision recognizes the gray wolf’s recovery resulting from state wildlife management and the participation of the hunting community.  This achievement in conservation demonstrates the impact of successful science based efforts across the country.

“Safari Club International would like to thank the U.S. FWS and Director Dan Ashe for proposing this science-based delisting for the gray wolf,” said SCI Preside Craig Kauffman. “SCI stands prepared to go to court to ensure that when this decision is finalized it will not be hijacked by environmentalists who prefer endless legal battles to science-based management.”

Safari Club International has long supported the delisting of the gray wolf species and the return of wolf management to the individual states.  States will manage their wolf populations in a proper balance with prey species and will also make certain that there is adequate wildlife available to hunters whose participation in wildlife management and conservation is essential to the conservation of both predator and prey species. More at link.

Legislation Briefs June 5, 2013

Dear SAOVA Friends,

The IRS scandal continues to unfold in Washington with Congressional hearings underway and now investigation by the FBI into IRS actions and targeting of certain nonprofits. Discovery that the Director of the IRS division implicated in using the improper targeting, Lois Lerner, is an active member of HSUS raised questions whether she used her position to run interference for HSUS.

Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) wrote a letter to Lerner the year before asking that HSUS’s political spending be scrutinized. Lerner took no action. In response, Rep. Luetkemeyer wrote another letter to the Treasury Secretary and the Inspector General for Tax Administration renewing his call for an investigation of HSUS.

In his weekly column, Luetkemeyer writes, “Three years ago, a number of constituents brought to my attention their concerns that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) was involved in political and lobbying activities that were in direct violation of its 501(c)3 tax-except status that prohibits such activities. To be clear, HSUS is not affiliated with your local animal shelter. In fact, only 1 percent of the money HSUS raises makes its way to animal shelters at all. Instead, it spends millions of dollars on lobbying, ballot initiatives, and other political activities.  For three years, and after providing the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with more than 3,000 pages of documents exposing HSUS’ activities and calling for an investigation, the agency told me they could not discuss ongoing investigations and were also unable to confirm or deny whether or not an investigation was underway.”

Luetkemeyer continues, “This is the worst kind of government abuse that I have ever encountered in my more than two decades in public service and I am determined to get to the bottom of things on behalf of those folks who came to me three years ago with these allegations.”  http://luetkemeyer.house.gov

Please write to your own Congressman and ask why the IRS has ignored the repeated requests of Congressman Luetkemeyer to act upon the allegations that the HSUS was involved in political and lobbying activities that were in direct violation of its 501(c)3 tax-except status that prohibits such activities. A thorough investigation is needed to resolve this issue and to restore the faith and trust in our government.

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated.  Thanks for reading.

Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators
saova@earthlink.net

CENTER FOR ANIMAL LAW STUDIES (CALS)
CALS announced as part of its summer 2013 program a two credit course, Animal Law: Policy Influences through Legislation, Lobbying, Litigation taught by Nancy Perry, National Center for Animal Law Board Member.  Perry is also the VP of Government Affairs at HSUS. She oversees federal and state legislative campaigns, litigation, regulatory affairs, and grassroots activities. Previously, as the grassroots coordinator, she spearheaded state animal protection ballot initiatives and coordinated litigation strategies.   The class will be held at the ASPCA offices in Washington DC.   The course will survey the legislative and regulatory process for contemporary issues, and the role of lobbying and litigation as tactics to protect animals at the local, state, and national level. The course will address a wide variety of topics: legislative drafting; lobbying strategies; federal, state and local legislative approaches; application and enforcement of federal statutes such as the Animal Welfare Act, the Humane Slaughter Act, the Horse Protection Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and the Wild Horses and Burros Act;  state laws and citizen initiatives concerning anti-cruelty, hunting, trapping, animal fighting, performing animals, and farm animals; consumer protection actions. The goal of this course is to expose students to the daily forums, procedures and unique challenges for animal law practitioners in the nation’s capital, to reinforce critical concepts for informed advocacy and give students hands on experience to prepare them to engage in the political, legislative and litigation work for animals.

2012 HUMANE LEGISLATOR OF THE YEAR
May, 2013.  Former US Senator Scott Brown (R-MA) took top honors from HSUS/HSLF as the 2012 Humane Legislator of the Year.  Brown was honored for:

• Co-leading efforts to remove a polar bear trophy import provision from the Sportsmen's Act of 2012 which would have allowed importation of polar bear trophies taken in Canadian sport hunts before the polar bear was listed on the Endangered Species Act;
• Original cosponsorship of the Egg Products Inspection Act to set federal government regulated standards for housing and raising egg-laying hens;
• Cosponsorship of the American Horse Slaughter Prevention Act to ban the slaughter of horses for human consumption;
• Cosponsoring the PUPS Act, S. 707, to license and federally regulate retail sellers of dogs;
• And for sending a letter to USDA urging the agency to expedite its Proposed Retail Pet Sellers Rule.

In February Fox News Channel hired Brown as a contributor, stating that Brown’s dedication to out-of-the box thinking on key issues made him an important voice in the country.

2014 BALLOT MEASURES
Arkansas Ballot Measure Signature Requirements Amendment would require ballot issue groups to collect at least 75% of the valid signatures required in order to receive additional time to gather extra signatures once the petition has been turned in to the Secretary of State.

Michigan Wolf Hunting Referendum would overturn Public Act 520, a law that allows the state to establish wolf hunting seasons in the Upper Peninsula.  On May 8 Governor Rick Snyder signed into law SB 288 which gives the Natural Resource Commission the authority to declare game animals and establish seasons without the need for action by the legislature. The law essentially renders the 2014 ballot referendum meaningless.

Missouri Right-to-Farm Amendment would add a section to the state constitution that explicitly guarantees farmers and ranchers the right to engage in their livelihoods and produce food for others.

OHIO EXOTIC ANIMAL OWNERS APPEAL
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — Some owners of exotic animals say a new Ohio law is onerous and infringes on their constitutional rights, and they've asked a federal appeals court to strike it down. Under the new law, owners who want to keep their animals must obtain new state-issued permits by Jan. 1, 2014. They must pass background checks, pay fees, obtain liability insurance or surety bonds and show inspectors they can properly contain the animals and care for them. The law exempts sanctuaries, research institutions and facilities accredited by the two national zoo groups. Attorney Robert Owens says in the brief filed with the 6th U.S. District Court of Appeals in Cincinnati that the only way for his clients to qualify for an exemption under the law is for them to join either the Association of Zoos and Aquariums or the Zoological Association of America — groups he says are at odds with his clients.

JASON SMITH WINS MISSOURI SPECIAL ELECTION
State Rep. Jason Smith (R) easily won Missouri’s heavily conservative 8th district special election yesterday.  Smith, the state House speaker pro tem replaces Jo Ann Emerson who resigned earlier this year to work in the private sector.  Smith, age 32, will become one of the youngest members of Congress.  In 2009 Smith received a Legislative Leader Award from SAOVA.

USDA/APHIS Rule Impacting Small/Hobby Breeders Advances For Executive Review

Federal Informational Update:

(Friday, May 03, 2013)

http://www.akc.org/press_center/article.cfm?article_id=4987

The AKC has learned that United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)/Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has completed a full review of all public comments on proposed changes to federal Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulations affecting “Retail Pet Stores and Licensing Exemptions”. A final version of the rule has now advanced to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for further review and possible changes ahead of publication as a final rule by USDA. Typically, it takes 30-90 days for the OMB to review a final rule before it is returned to the USDA. Once a rule is published, there is generally a period of months before any changes to existing law are implemented.

No information about the contents of the final rule is available at this time. The AKC continues to express strong concerns to members of Congress and the USDA about the May 2012 proposed rule change. AKC will continue to provide updated information on the status of this rule and possible action to be taken as additional information becomes available.

Background

The AKC remains extremely concerned about the May 2012 proposed change to AWA regulations that would require all who own more than four “breeding females” and sell even one animal “sight unseen” to be regulated as a commercial breeder and subject to federal commercial breeder licensing, regulation and inspections requirements. The term “breeding female” is not defined in this rule, so it is unclear how USDA or even breeders themselves would determine who falls under these regulations. The term also includes multiple species (including cats, dogs, and other small mammals).

The AKC believes that the USDA’s “one size fits all” regulations are not in the best interest of all dogs, responsible breeders, or puppy buyers. It is unreasonable and virtually impossible for many small hobby breeders to comply with the strict kennel engineering standards that were designed for large commercial operations.

For more information on this proposal, including AKC’s formal comments on the proposed rule, links to the AKC petition in opposition to the rule, fact sheets and frequently asked questions, visit AKC’s USDA/APHIS Regulations Resource Page.

Next Steps

The public comment period regarding the proposed rule closed in August 2012. Once again, AKC thanks the over 70,000 individuals who signed AKC’s petition in support of small hobby breeders, and the many individuals, clubs and organizations who also commented on the many problems with the proposed rule. No information about the contents of the final rule is available at this time. However, AKC will continue to provide updated information and possible action to be taken when additional information on the contents of the final rule becomes available.

This message is a service of the American Kennel Club's Government Relations Department and you are receiving it in response to your request.  This information may be reprinted or forwarded appropriately with a citation to AKC.   Our website address is:  http://www.akc.org

Legislation Briefs April 27, 2013

Dear SAOVA Friends,

Never underestimate the resolve of animal rights organizations to bring an end to animal ownership and breeding as we know it today.  Following release of the APHIS 2014 Budget request, SAOVA reactivated the APHIS Rule Opposition List and it continues to grow. The list is truly an attention-getter; however, we need a HUGE push now to build it even larger before carrying it again to Congressional staff.

If your organization or business is not listed please do so now! EVERY state needs to be represented.  Send an email signed by an officer of the organization stating opposition to the Rule to Susan Wolf: cubhill@earthlink.net.  Please include state where your organization is located.  

The world not only belongs to those who show up, it's controlled by the best informed and most motivated.  Thanks for reading.

Cross posting is encouraged.

Susan Wolf
Sportsmen's & Animal Owners' Voting Alliance
Working to Identify and Elect Supportive Legislators
saova@earthlink.net

DELISTING GRAY WOLVES
Plans have been drafted to lift protections for gray wolves across the Lower 48 states.
Roughly 5,000 wolves are now living in the Northern Rockies and Great Lakes and are believed to be enough to ensure their long-term survival without introducing gray wolves elsewhere, such as the West Coast, parts of New England and the Southern Rockies. According to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the rule is under internal review and will be subject to public comment before a final decision is made.

FEDERAL EGG BILLS INTRODUCED
A bill based on the agreement between the HSUS and the United Egg Producers to set standards for egg-laying hens and the labeling of eggs has been introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA).  Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) and Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) are cosponsors of S 820.  Rep. Kurt Schrader (D-OR) has introduced a companion bill in the House.  HR 1731 is cosponsored by Representatives John Campbell (R-CA45); Jeff Denham (R-CA10); Sam Farr (D-CA20); Michael Fitzpatrick (R-PA8); and Jared Huffman (D-CA2).

Sources say the United Egg Producers are committed to getting the legislation passed before the end of September. The Egg Bill establishes an approximately 18-year transition period where conventional cages will be phased out and hens will be housed in either enriched cages or in cage-free systems.

Fallout from Prop2, the 2008 HSUS backed ballot initiative in California, continues to threaten the California egg industry as 2015 draws closer and caged eggs will be banned. According to the 2008 UC Davis survey, California produces about 6 percent of the nation's table eggs, and consumes about 12 percent. The value of table egg production in California was about $330 million in 2007 and the industry produced almost 5 billion eggs per year from almost 20 million laying hens.

Although the number of eggs produced by cage-free hens has been increasing the last few years, hens housed in conventional cages are responsible for over 90 percent of egg production in the U.S.

HUDSON VALLEY WEBSITE HACKED
Animal rights activists hacked the website of Hudson Valley Foie Gras — a large U.S. supplier — and sent the names, addresses, phone numbers, and email addresses of their customers to animal rights groups.  North American Animal Liberation Press Office published the information online.  To commemorate Earth Day, hackers targeted Hudson Valley Foie Gras, the largest foie gras farm in the U.S., because they believe the ducks are being tortured.

Never one to let an opportunity for media attention slip by, Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) immediately sent a letter California Attorney General Kamala Harris asking her to investigate purchases by California residents that appeared on the hacked list.  ALDF wrote, “While wealthy restaurateurs and foreign corporations are exploiting California's under enforcement of the foie gras law, the state struggles with a budget crisis and cities flirt with bankruptcy. California taxpayers should not be subsidizing persistent violators when the state is nearly bankrupt and the foie gras law authorizes citations payable to enforcing agencies up to $1,000 per sale.”

AUTISM RESEARCH LAB TRASHED
Activists occupied an animal facility at the University of Milan, Italy releasing mice and rabbits and mixing up cage labels to confuse experimental protocols. Researchers at the university say that it will take years to recover their work. Many of the animals at the facility are genetic models for psychiatric disorders such as autism and schizophrenia. Some of the mice they removed were delicate mutants and immunosuppressed nude mice, which die very quickly outside controlled environments.

Five activists entered laboratories in the university’s pharmacology department on Saturday morning. The lack of signs of a break-in suggests that the activists may have used an illegally acquired electronic card to enter the lab. Activists posted photos of themselves on their website; two of them chained themselves by the neck to the main double doors. The department plans to press charges for theft and trespassing, and to recover financial damages.

Researchers worldwide are being asked to condemn acts these acts of extremism.

JUDGE DISMISSES ALDF LAWSUIT
SANTA CRUZ -- A judge on Tuesday dismissed a lawsuit filed against Santa Cruz Biotechnology Inc. alleging the company abused and neglected goats and rabbits. Santa Cruz County Superior Court Judge Paul Marigonda dismissed the suit filed by the national nonprofit Animal Legal Defense Fund on behalf of an organization called Stop Animal Exploitation Now after ruling that the local court was not the proper forum to address it.  Santa Cruz Biotech supplies antibodies and other research materials to laboratories around the world. Last year it was ranked as the second-largest supplier in the United State's $1.6 billion global market for research antibodies, according to the journal Nature.
Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel http://tinyurl.com/c6w3r3s

MAINE RIGHT TO HUNT AND FISH
Introduced April 2, 2013. Resolution H930 proposes to amend the Constitution of Maine to provide that the citizens of Maine have the personal right to hunt, fish and harvest wildlife, subject to statutes enacted and agency rules that promote wildlife conservation and preserve the future of hunting and fishing, and to provide that public hunting and fishing are a preferred means of managing and controlling wildlife.

ANIMAL ABUSER REGISTRIES
Registry bills were introduced in 16 states for 2013 with multiple bills introduced in New York, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. The bills do not appear to have any momentum again this year; however, HB3747 in Texas is scheduled for a hearing Monday, April 29, 2013.  Texas residents are urged to oppose this measure.

In Hawaii the Attorney General’s office and the Public Defender’s office submitted testimony in Opposition to the animal abuser registry. The Attorney General noted that only nine (9) potential covered offenders in the past fifteen years would be required to register under this proposed 2013 bill and expressed concern about the resources and funds that would be needed to set up, maintain, administer, and enforce the proposed registry for so few individuals. The Office of the Public Defender stated in their opposition that the registry proposed in this measure makes no sense.  In addition they wrote, “While there is a governmental interest in keeping track of sex offenders, especially those who prey on strangers and children, there is no such interest or similar benefit in keeping track of animal abusers. These individuals do not typically prey on stray animals or pets that belong to strangers. The cases we have seen usually involve individuals abusing their own pets or a business owner and/or employee that mistreat their animals.”  The letter continued, “The funds allocated to maintaining this registry would be better utilized by providing counseling to the offender and/or their family members.”

SAOVA INTERVIEW WITH FRANKIE TRULL

Frankie Trull is president of the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), a Washington, DC–based organization that advocates for sound public policy in support of ethical and essential animal research. She is also the President of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, a non-profit organization that educates the public about animal research. In 1991, Trull was the recipient of the Distinguished Leadership Award from The Endocrine Society and the Presidential Award from the Society for Neuroscience. In 2003, she was given a Special Recognition Award from the American College of Laboratory Medicine (ACLAM). In 2005, Trull received the Public Service Award from the Association of Allergy and Immunology, the Society of Toxicology's Contribution to the Public Awareness of Animal Welfare Award, and the award for Education in Neuroscience from the Association of Neuroscience Departments and Programs (ANDP). The Association of American Medical Colleges awarded Trull their Special Recognition Award in 2007 and in 2010 she was made an Honorary Diplomate of the American College of Laboratory Medicine.

Mrs. Trull graciously consented to conduct an interview with SAOVA to discuss the benefits of animal research, the function of NABR, and federal legislation that would expand the scope of the Animal Welfare Act.

Q:   How does the focus of NABR differ from that of its sister organization, the Foundation for Biomedical Research?

A:            Whereas the Foundation is a public education charity that focuses on informing and educating the public about the importance of animals in biomedical research, NABR is an institutional membership  association with the mission of ensuring sound public policy for the humane use of animals in biomedical research. NABR spends a great deal of time educating law makers and executive branch officials, and when necessary engages the courts in support of its mission. NABR’s membership is comprised of 340 institutions, both public and private, in all 50 states and Puerto Rico.

Q:  This month PETA posted a job listing online for an Undercover Investigator. In the job description, the Position Objective is “to use a variety of undercover investigative methods to conduct field investigations in PETA's focus areas, including the use of animals for food, clothing, experimentation, and entertainment.”   How does the research community prepare itself for intrusions of this nature into their daily routines? 

A:            The threat of an animal rights activist infiltrating a biomedical research facility is very real and has occurred multiple times in the past. With more than three decades of experience, NABR advises facilities on best practices for both preventing and managing the consequences of infiltrations. We also provide each of our members with a comprehensive Crisis Management Guide which walks them through the process of protecting their facilities and employees and developing and maintaining a crisis management team.

Q:   The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) excludes coverage of rats, mice and birds used for research.  In December 2012, the Animal Legal Defense Fund (ALDF) introduced legislation that would rescind these exemptions, claiming it restores the original intent of Congress.  As NABR was instrumental in obtaining the statutory exemptions and amendments, has your position changed over the years regarding regulatory intent of the AWA?

A:            NABR is currently in the process of surveying its membership to determine how many rats and mice are in use at research facilities across the U.S. Although rats and mice make up more than 95% of all animals in biomedical research, the institutional responses to the survey will help NABR determine more precisely how such legislation may affect both the regulated community and those institutions that have never before been regulated by the USDA. For example, many small biotechnology companies only use rats and mice, meaning they would likely be subject to the same regulations as much larger institutions. This could potentially be very costly, time consuming, and could present a threat to struggling small businesses -- especially when one considers the Secretary of Agriculture has the legal authority to levy fines against a research facility up to $10,000 per animal, per day. The costs could be astronomical. Furthermore, because of the large number of rodents used in research it is unclear whether the USDA would have the resources to regulate the species. With the fiscal constraints Congress has been facing, it seems unlikely they would appropriate additional funds for these purposes.

Q:    In their white paper, ALDF claims that withholding federal protection from these animals means that researchers need not consider alternatives to animal research and are under no obligation to minimize an animal’s pain, provide a minimum standard of care, or implement proper euthanasia techniques.  Aren’t research animals already highly regulated? Are there industry standards and protocols to address any gaps in external regulations?

A:            If an institution receives federal funding from any branch of the Public Health Service, including NIH,   it must file an animal welfare assurance document with the agency which requires it to adhere to the recommendations contained in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals. The Guide serves as the basis for welfare for all vertebrate biomedical research animals, and addresses all of the aforementioned concerns. Furthermore, many institutions and companies using animals in biomedical research are accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care International (AAALAC), which uses the Guide as the basis for its accreditation process. FDA and EPA regulated companies must comply with Good Laboratory Practices.  Finally, and most importantly, it's in the best interests of a research program to insure animals are treated well and without pain because stressed animals skew research results.

Q:   According to ALDF, this legislation will provide sweeping animal welfare benefits at little cost.  Has NABR completed any estimates of the cost burden should this additional regulation should become law?

A:            When this subject was under debate in 2001, NABR estimated that regulating rats, mice and birds under the Animal Welfare Act would cost USDA registered research facilities an additional $84 million annually, in mostly administrative compliance costs.  Facilities that would have been required to register with USDA for the first time might have spent $80 to $200 million to comply with all statutory requirements. The USDA APHIS budget would also be impacted – inspectors’ workload would double or even triple.

Q:   There are many steps being taken by animal rights lawyers to lay the groundwork in courts that test current requirements for legal standing and push the courts to give animals limited rights.  How would even small changes in property status affect use of animals in research?

A:            The ultimate goal of many animal rights lawyers is to obtain legal standing for animals.  Changing the property status of animals is the first step in a long term process aimed at enabling well-funded animal rights organizations to bring expensive and time-consuming legal actions that would entail potentially enormous costs.  Lawyers filing lawsuits on behalf of animals could challenge their use in research programs, as pets, in animal sports, in agriculture and in a multitude of other contexts. While some changes are being pushed for in the courts, animal rights organizations are simultaneously pursuing legal rights for animals through federal and state legislation, ballot initiatives and other means. In fact, just this year a bill was introduced in Massachusetts that would permit any person to bring a legal action "for the protection and humane treatment of animals." 

Q:     The recent panel study report to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends downsizing chimpanzee facilities. Will the remaining colony of chimpanzees kept for research fill the needs for future studies? At one time, weren't chimpanzees the only good model for certain human HIV research? How did that change?  With emerging diseases and resistant infections, how might the loss of future research animals via regulation impact the prospect for advances in medical research to alleviate human suffering?

A:            Science is constantly evolving, so animal models change as well. The Institute of Medicine and an NIH working group have determined that the chimpanzee model is not necessary for some types of research. It is unclear whether the NIH director will simply accept the working group’s recommendations or will elaborate on the future of federal research chimps.  Much was learned about HIV from chimps, but the virus does not make them sick in the same way as it does people, so they did not prove to be the optimal model.  Should there be a disease as devastating as AIDS in the future, the chimp may prove pivotal to treating and curing the disease, so it would seem prudent and in the best interest of the public health to maintain a breeding colony.

Q:   Last month SAOVA reported to our readers that the ALDF website lists the formation of 171 U.S. Student Animal Legal Defense Chapters.  In addition there are State Bar Animal Law Sections and Committees in 24 states plus the American Bar Association.  Animal Law Courses are now taught in 144 schools, up from just 9 in 2000.   Realistically, the field of animal law exists for the purpose of changing how animals are viewed in the legal system.  How concerned is the research community about this rapidly growing field and its potential impact?

A:            As the field of animal law has grown, so have the legal departments and pro bono networks of sophisticated, well-financed animal rights organizations.  It is clear that many animal rights organizations and animal rights lawyers believe research with animals should be severely restricted or prohibited.  Through academic scholarship in five animal law journals and law reviews, lawyers and law students within the animal rights movement have begun to lay the groundwork and develop new legal theories to grant additional legal protections to animals, including research animals.  Ultimately, these efforts have the potential to seriously impact life-saving medical and scientific research.  NABR has been monitoring these developments for some time and has developed an Animal Law website that provides information tracking law courses, lawsuits, court decisions as well as the laws and regulations in place to ensure the humane use of animals in biomedical research. www.nabranimallaw.org/

Q:           We read headlines almost every day about breakthroughs in research.   Most medical advancements have been dependent upon animal research.  What species are most commonly used and why are these species so useful in biomedical research?

A:            Rodents are, by far, the most common animal model in biomedical research and safety testing.  And these are not your garden variety rodents.  For example, mice specially bred with specific genetic characteristics are designed for the disease under study, whether its diabetes, birth defects or obesity. This has revolutionized medical research and opened many doors to finding new cures for disease, especially cancer.

Research with dogs, cats, and non-human primates is necessary to study certain diseases. However, as biomedical research changes and evolves, the number of these animals used in research has dropped dramatically over the last several decades.  In fact, these animals account for less than .05 percent of the total number of lab animals used in research. Several additional species are proving to be increasingly important animal models, including zebrafish, C. Elegans (worms) and fruit flies

Q:  Human health has obviously benefited from animal research but animals benefit too through development of vaccines, cancer treatments, and surgical procedures. What are some of the most exciting areas of current research?

A:            Dr. James Cook, a researcher at University of Missouri, is developing biological joint replacements for both people and animals.  Cook has created new cartilage in animals using a biological “scaffold” in the animals’ joints. This research could do away with metal and plastic joints, and instead, regenerate a fully functional biologic joint for anyone who needs one.

Another exciting example of animal research is happening now at the Masonic Cancer Center at the University of Minnesota.  Doctors have developed a vaccine for a deadly brain cancer that affects both people and dogs.  Doctors recruit pet owners to enroll their dogs with brain cancer into a study.  After removing the tumor from a dog’s brain during surgery, the doctors create a cancer vaccine using that dog’s unique tumor cells. They inject the dog with several rounds of vaccination and eventually the dog builds up immunity to the cancer.  The dog’s immune cells act like an army to kill the foreign invader, the brain tumor.  This vaccine is extending dogs’ lives dramatically and many dogs become tumor-free. What the scientists are gleaning from this cancer research helps not only man’s best friend, but also may help human brain cancer patients facing a grim prognosis.

Q:   Animal Rights Activists who oppose use of animals in medical testing claim that various testing procedures exist, such as in vitro cell culture testing and computer simulations, as well as expanded use of human volunteers for micro dose drug testing, which make the use of animals in medical research obsolete. What role does the in vivo animal model fulfill in medical research that cannot be substituted through these other non-animal protocols?          

A:            To date, there is no comprehensive substitute for animal models in research. In certain areas of study, like toxicology, the number of animals required has dropped dramatically and been replaced with cell cultures, tissue cultures, mathematical and other models.  These non-animal methodologies are often much less expensive and faster than animal models. But for basic and biomedical research, there is a need for a whole, living system and an animal substitute does not exist.

In order to study something with a computer model you have to know enough about the disease to put it into a computer.  There are so many diseases scientists are still learning about, particularly diseases of the brain like Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease and autism.  Understanding the underlying mechanisms of the brain must be studied in a brain.  A computer model simply can't substitute.

It would, of course, be preferable not  to use animals for research study, but simplistic claims that animal research should be obsolete ignores the complexity of the research process.  One only has to go to a children's cancer ward or a trauma center or have a parent with Alzheimer's disease to realize medical research has a lot of work to do to alleviate pain and suffering, and animal models remain our best bet to discover how to cure disease. When additional non-animal alternatives are developed, science will naturally reduce the need and use of animal models. This progression will only happen when viable alternatives exist and are scientifically validated.

Q:  Blum v. Holder is a federal lawsuit challenging the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) as an unconstitutional infringement on free speech.  How is NABR’s involved in this case?

A:            NABR, joined by eleven other organizations, filed an amicus brief in this lawsuit on March 12, 2012, explaining the specific Rules of Construction in the law which expressly exempts constitutionally-protected free speech from the AETA and urging the U.S. District Court in the District of Massachusetts to find the AETA constitutional.  NABR filed the brief to ensure the court is aware of the AETA’s importance to the biomedical research community and make certain that the strongest possible defense is presented.  The brief argues the law is a measured and important response to threats, intimidation, and economic harm committed by animal rights extremists against research facilities and scientists who conduct life-saving research with laboratory animals. During an August 29, 2012 hearing on the government’s motion to dismiss the case, several of the points raised by NABR’s brief were argued.  NABR, along with many others, is awaiting the court’s decision.