A Project of Animal People, Inc., 1992-2013
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 1996:
Stop Animal Exploitation
N o w, a self-described “militant new
animal rights organization” led by former
In Defense of Animals midwest
coordinator Michael Budke, made a
September 17 public debut with news
briefings in Cincinnati and six other
cities. Each briefing announced complaints
filed with the USDA, alleging
nonenforcement of the Animal
Welfare Act in response to multiple
violations by local laboratories.
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 1996:
The 1996 updated edition of
the Guide for the Care and Use of
Laboratory Animals, published in midsummer
by the National Research
Council’s Institute of Laboratory
Animal Resources, is under fire from
researchers for recommending group
housing for social animals such as dogs
and primates, and flat rather than wirefloored
cages for rodents. Though having
no regulatory force, the Guide i s
often used as the basis for federal regulation
of laboratories. If Guide recommendations
are incorporated into future
amendments to the Animal Welfare Act,
many labs will have to renovate.
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 1996:
WASHINGTON D.C.––U.S. laboratory use of five of
the six species whose use has been recorded under the Animal
Welfare Act since it first came into effect in 1973 dropped to new
lows in 1995, according to newly released USDA data:
Species 1995 High
Dogs 89,420 211,104 (1979)
Cats 29,569 74,259 (1974)
Primates 50,206 61,392 (1987)
Guinea pigs 333,379 598,903 (1985)
Hamsters 248,402 503,590 (1976)
Rabbits 354,076 554,385 (1987)
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 1996:
LONDON––The Cosmetics Directive, a
European Community ban on animal testing of cosmetics
and toiletries, adopted by the EC ministers in 1993 for
scheduled phase-in starting in 1998, may be delayed until
2000, according to internal draft discussion documents
leaked to media, because alternative testing methods have
not yet been approved.
The Royal SPCA charged on September 23 that
the European Communities Validation of Alternative
Methods Centre has been unable to validate proposed nonanimal
tests due to underfunding.
British firms already committed to cruelty-free
policies are pushing to avoid the EC delay, which would
leave in effect current policies requiring animal testing of
products exported to other EC member nations. The campaign
suffered a September 27 setback, however, when the
British edition of Vogue magazine refused to publish an
anti-animal testing ad from the Co-operative Bank.
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 1996:
The British Columbia SPCA,
of Vancouver, has signed an agreement
with Environment Canada and the B.C.
environment ministry to coordinate wildlife
rescue and rehablitation in case of a major
oil spill along the B.C. coast. But the
BC/SPCA might find resources scarce:
with the flagship Vancouver branch $1.2
million in debt, it recently cut five staff
positions, sold six trucks, and dropped a
money-losing merchandising program.
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 1996:
SAN FRANCSICO––The San
Francisco Animal Control and Welfare
Commission on October 17 again
delayed action on a proposal to ban the
sale of live animals as food. The proposal,
bitterly fought by Chinatown vendors,
will come up again November 14.
“St. Francis must be whirling
in his grave,” commented Action for
Animals founder Eric Mills. “In recent
weeks I have visited the live food markets
and have seen turtles gutted while
fully conscious; fish scaled alive; chickens,
ducks, and doves crammed in stifling
crates; and turtles and frogs piled
three and five deep, often with no water
whatever. Most of these markets are illegal
now. The Retail Food Facilities Law
states, ‘No live animal, bird, or fowl
shall be kept or allowed in any food
facility.’ Why is this not enforced?
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 1996:
DENVER––A survey of
1,100 U.S. animal shelters undertaken
by the National Council on Pet
Population Study and Policy indicates
that 47% of animal intakes in 1994
came from animal control, 29% from
owner surrenders, and 23% from other
sources. Euthanasia rates were 56% for
dogs, 72% for cats, just as ANIMAL
PEOPLE earlier projected from separate
state shelter surveys; 16% of dogs
were returned to owners, but only 2%
of cats. However, adoption rates were
nearly equal, at 25% for dogs and 23%
for cats. Of the reporting shelters,
53% were public animal control agencies,
22% were nonprofit humane societies,
and 16% were humane societies
holding animal control contracts.
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 1996:
The following table states animal shelter
euthanasias per thousand human residents, all
shelters combined, for 21 urban jurisdictions
whose complete statistics for at least one of the
past three years are on file here.
Please note: over the whole U.S.,
those animal control jurisdictions with a mandate
to pick up cats tend to have higher euthanasia
rates than those that do not. Since rural and suburban
jurisdictions usually don’t have a mandate
to pick up cats, while urban jurisdictions do, the
overall U.S. norm, stated below, is probably
much lower than the norm for big cities, which
we have not calculated. The cat pickup mandates
of the cities below are essentially similar,
but other cat-related policies vary widely.
From ANIMAL PEOPLE, November 1996:
Of 1,561 animals surrendered by owners
to the Orlando Humane Society in May and
June, 1,071 were surrendered for the overlapping
reasons “can’t keep,” “landlord won’t allow,” and
“moving/lost job.” Just 734 were surrendered for
the also overlapping reasons “originally stray,”
“too many,” and “unwanted litter.” The only
other reasons for surrender cited significantly
often, among 36 choices, were “can’t care for,”
cited 288 times, and “owner request put to sleep,”
cited 204 times, probably chiefly in connection
with sick or injured animals. In balance, changes
of owner circumstance causing an animal to lose a
home would appear to be far more frequent than
cases of surplus. Since the end of May and beginning
of June are the months in which the most people
relocate, the importance of change of circumstance
in owner surrender may have been magnified
during the survey period––but even if it was,
the numbers indicate that programs aimed at keeping
animals in homes, especially rental homes,
now have as much potential to lower animal shelter
intakes and euthanasias as programs aimed at preventing
surplus births.