 |
QUARTERLY SUMMER 1999 VOLUME 48 NUMBER 3 |
|
|
QUARTERLY SUMMER 1999 VOLUME 48 NUMBER 3 |
|
 |
In a landmark vote, the full US House of Representatives banned the use of steeljaw leghold traps and strangling snares for recreational and commercial fur trapping on all National Wildlife Refuges. Representative Sam Farr (D, CA) sponsored the amendment to the US Department of Interior Appropriations bill which passed by a vote of 259 to 166.
Speaking in support of his amendment, Representative Farr noted that "According to a May, 1999 poll, 84 percent of Americans oppose the use of steel jawed traps in national wildlife refuges ... These traps are designed to slam closed and grip tightly an animal's leg or other body part. Lacerations, broken bones, joint dislocations and gangrene can result. Additional injuries result as the animal struggles to free himself, sometimes twisting or chewing off a leg or breaking teeth from gnawing at the metal jaws... An animal may be in a trap for several days before a trapper checks it – with the interminable period in the trap severely compounding the animal's misery."
Representative Edward Whitfield (R, KY) added, "Wildlife refuges were created for the express purpose of benefiting and protecting animals, and it seems quite to the contrary that we allow in our national wildlife refuges this type of activity that is so inhumane."
"...I have heard from the American Veterinary Medical Association, the American Animal Hospital Association, the World Veterinary Association: and they all agree that steel-jawed leghold traps are inhumane," stated Representative Connie Morella (R, MD). "The pain and suffering caused by steel-jawed leghold traps are incalculable. I think it is irresponsible to continue barbaric practices with so many less cruel methods of trapping for capturing wild animals that are available today."
In opposing the amendment, an infuriated Don Young (R, AK), Chairman of the House Resources Committee, proudly identified himself as "the only licensed trapper in this whole Congress." (see box )
An identical amendment to Representative Farr's will be offered by Senator Robert Torricelli (D, NJ) when the Interior Appropriations bill is considered on the floor of the Senate after Congress reconvenes in September.
|
November 1975, House subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife Conservation and the Environment hearing on Painful Trapping Devices. Following is an account from the two-day hearing: Representative Don Young set off a leghold trap on his own hand and stated he would leave the trap on for the duration of his testimony. He proceeded to describe his own trapline of 500 leghold traps. He set out so many traps, it was days before he would return to kill any trapped animals who had somehow survived. To the horror of those present, he described seeing a lynx who survived 6 weeks in a leghold trap because other lynx came to feed him. In the midst of his testimony, the Subcommittee Chairman noted, "I am concerned about your fingers. They are blue now." To which Representative Young replied, "Yes, they are." Shortly thereafter he removed the trap from his hand. |
Mrs.
Menendez is ready to assign grades for the anatomy unit. She is
able to watch each and every student's individual dissection efforts
on her own computer screen. Mrs. Menendez proudly notes that her
students have indeed mastered the curriculum objectives, have
performed a wide variety of dissection activities and have been
able to utilize high-tech, precision instrumentation normally
found only in state-of-the-art laboratories. She feels relieved
to have spared the lives of the animals which would previously
have had to die to serve as specimens for her beginning biology
students. She was able to honor her students' personal choices
not to dissect, save money on supplies for her department, and
allow students to learn the necessary material without the frustration
caused by human error.
As an increasing variety of software and online dissection simulations become available in classrooms, and as the technology continues to improve, this is what we can expect to see in middle and secondary high school biology classrooms, rather than the traditional scenario in which often reluctant students struggle with instruments to dissect a number of preserved earthworm, crayfish, frog, cat, rabbit and fetal pig specimens.
The development of simulation software is resulting in positive change, and a significant decline in the use of animal specimens. Many school systems are now opting to eliminate or greatly reduce the number of dissections being performed in biology classes in favor of the new technology. A department head noted that from an educator's standpoint, what is important for students is the knowledge gained, not the physical process of dissection through which that information is found. One biology teacher stated "If we can meet our educational requirements in a way that is animal-friendly, we certainly should do that."
Many teachers find that these simulations can not only replace specimen dissections, but in fact offer more to their students. Administrators shared reports from teachers who felt that dissection software, online simulations and videos were more beneficial than specimen dissection in many ways. They found that the use of simulations eliminated the possibility of error, made students more comfortable with the process (and thus better able to learn), allowed students to view more advanced procedures than they themselves could have performed, and taught them to use technology that is destined to be the basis for science technology in the future.
One teacher reported to his department head that he often encountered students who were active animal welfare advocates, and that he was proud to inform them that the school system no longer placed orders for preserved specimens because biology teachers had determined that simulations could meet their requirements. "Many students care about this issue, and we encourage students to take a stand for what they believe in," the administrator said. "We can honor their choices without compromising our high academic standards. Test scores continue to be high without emphasis on hands-on dissection. This says to me that it works, and that students can learn the material well without performing dissections."
______
Genie O'Hara, a former school teacher, works on information gathering and editing for AWI.
|
RESOURCES FOR EDUCATORS For more information about alternatives to classroom dissection, including software and model loan programs, please contact the following organizations: Alternative loans are available from: Humane Society of the United States A catalog of alternatives, Beyond Dissection, is available from: Ethical Science Education Coalition For information on specific alternative projects contact: National Association for Humane and A program to teach students about environmental and animal issues as well as CD-ROM and model loans are available from: Animal Learn |
France ratified The Treaty of Amsterdam last March, becoming the final member of the European Union (EU) to sign the agreement. The Treaty, which came into effect on May 1 of this year, recognizes animals as sentient beings capable of feeling fear and pain, and of enjoying themselves when well treated. When formulating and implementing community policies on agriculture, transport, research and internal trade, the EU must now "pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals."
Lab animals in Slovakia will no longer be
used to test cosmetics, cleaning supplies or tobacco products.
Almost 
100,000
Slovakian citizens signed a petition demanding an end to the cruel
and unnecessary animal testing of common products.
In 1998 the British government made a similar decision to end cosmetic testing. Their action represents the United Kingdom's continuing commitment to minimize the number of animals used in all sorts of research. For example, chimpanzees are no longer used as research subjects in the UK.
On January 1, 1999, the use of the ascites method of monoclonal antibody production, a laboratory procedure that causes excruciating pain to the animals used, was discontinued in Britain.
The ascites process involves injecting antibody-producing cells fused with cancer cells, called hybridomas, into a rodent's abdomen, causing a tumor to develop in the animal's peritoneal cavity. While the soft tumor containing the ascites fluid grows, the rodent suffers from wasting and dehydration. After it becomes massive, the tumor is pierced with a syringe and drained of the antibody-rich ascites fluid. The fluid removal may cause hemorrhage, edema, or death for the unfortunate animal.
Apart from the extreme suffering the ascites method causes, it has also been criticized for producing poor quality antibodies that may be contaminated with animal viruses and other infectious agents. Additionally, between 60 to 80% of the rats or mice used are not able to produce ascites fluid due to the development of solid tumors or premature death.
Since 1975, when the production of monoclonal antibodies by tissue culture was first described, numerous other non-animal methods have been developed. Today, modern non-animal methods of producing monoclonal antibodies, such as membrane-based and matrix-based culture systems, hollow-fiber bioreactors and the Phage Display technique, efficiently produce large amounts of high quality, rodent-virus-free antibodies.
Monoclonal antibodies are commonly used in scientific studies because of their ability to specifically identify a particular molecule, microorganism or cell. They are also used to diagnose common medical conditions such as streptococcus infections or pregnancy.
The United Kingdom has followed the lead of the Netherlands and Switzerland, both of which have banned the use of the flawed and extremely cruel ascites method of monoclonal antibody production.
People have long enjoyed the sound of a chorus of frogs by a lake, pond, or marsh in summertime. But a recent, global epidemic of amphibian extinctions is fast replacing many frogs' voices with eerie silence.
Worldwide, frog populations are
in danger; numerous species across North America, Central America,
the Caribbean, and Australia have become extinct or declined drastically
in recent years. Unprecedented deformities in frogs – a related
but distinct issue – also raise serious, unanswered questions.
Scientists are deeply divided about possible causes of the problem – even about whether it's a problem at all. The scarcity of reliable, long-running population data on frogs hampers our ability to say how severe the current situation is, or to find out what role human activities – pollution, destruction of habitat, etc. – play in it. This ongoing debate about the rash of frog extinctions and deformities is often so contentious that it sounds like the cacophonous "brekekekex, co-ax, co-ax" of Aristophanes's frogs.
Why is so much attention being given to frogs? Because amphibians respire through their thin skins, they are especially sensitive to environmental conditions such as pollutants in water. Further, their fragile eggs are especially vulnerable to harsh sunlight, predation, and to environmental toxins. Some researchers regard frogs as the equivalent of a canary in a coal mine – a sort of early warning that severe health problems, such as birth defects, can stem from our own environmental carelessness.
The disappearance and malformation of frogs may indicate that
the thinning of the ozone layer, the widespread destruction of
natural habitat for human use,
and the proliferation of toxic chemicals in our environment is
more serious than we think.
Several explanations have been forwarded for the global disappearance of frogs:
Habitat loss. According to the US Geological Survey, the United States has lost more than 50% of its wetlands from the 1780s to the present. Virtually all frogs breed and live in wetlands. Further, frogs' breeding cycles often correspond with the seasonal formation of temporary wetlands, which humans often have reason to drain, reduce, or prevent.
It's doubtful that any single factor
is the main culprit. A more likely scenario is that frogs whose
immune systems had been weakened by climatic change succumbed
to a disease that they could otherwise have successfully fought
off. This may be what wiped out the golden toads of the Central
American cloud forest.
One unexpected aspect of this problem is that frogs in even the most remote, undeveloped areas – from Yosemite National Park to the Costa Rican rainforest – are becoming deformed or extinct. Some have suggested that disease-causing microorganisms have been transported into remote areas by the very scientists who are studying the frogs in an attempt to find out what's causing their decline – a sad, poignant possibility that highlights the complexity and the severity of the issue.
Encouraged by Vice President Al Gore and the Environmental Defense Fund, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) head Carol Browner is attempting to impose on the public a massive animal testing program entitled "The High Production Volume (HVP) Chemical Challenge Program." Under Congressional scrutiny, EPA is struggling to justify the program.
A hearing in the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment of the House Science Committee, chaired by Representative Ken Calvert (R-CA) and supported by Representative Jerry Costello (D-IL), the ranking Democrat, exposed the failure of the proposed EPA program to prepare adequately for its decision to test no less than 2,800 substances. This program will cost industry an estimated $700 million for "voluntary" testing, and will cost EPA millions of dollars to administer. The intense pain and suffering which test animals would have to endure appears to have been given little or no consideration, nor has the ability of the tests to protect human health been adequately addressed.
Dr. Neal Barnard, President of the Physicians' Committee for Responsible Medicine testified:
You could have an entire schoolyard of children or an entire neighborhood exposed to a toxin; these data are not welcome in the program; they will not be accepted by the program. You could have an entire clinical trial where a compound has been given to human volunteers – not acceptable in this program. It is a fundamental and very serious flaw. Instead, rats and mice are used as the crudest possible indicators of what might happen in human beings. They are wrong about one-third of the time – or more. Here is a sample of what we found:
. . . carbon tetrachloride, a well-known toxic compound. Human data are abundant, and the same chronic test data are required in this program. We found that the University of Georgia had done the very tests that the EPA is now demanding. We brought this to the EPA in December. They have ignored it.
... when tests are to be used, we owe it, not only from the standpoint of animal welfare, but for human safety, to use modern technologies, not the outdated technologies that are in this program.
... Dr. Bjorn Ekwall, at the Multicenter Evaluation of In Vitro Cytotoxicity, looked at the tests that the EPA is going to use, the LD-50 tests. They found that the rat and mouse tests are wrong more than one-third of the time. They are about 65 percent accurate. what they found – as in some cases, they are wildly inaccurate. Rat tests don't even predict mouse tests very accurately, let alone human toxicity. This is a World War I-era test that is the equivalent of a divining rod. It is extremely crude; it should have been outlawed long, long ago.
What is better? The MEIC trial, in 29 different countries, using a battery of 50 test chemicals, found that using human cells in very modern tests, you can improve on that 65 percent accuracy in animal tests. You can bump it up to about 77 percent never using an animal at all, and using a much cheaper methodology. Adding a fourth human cell battery, your accuracy goes to 80 percent.
Dr. Barnard charged EPA with "simply ignoring" the examples he brought to their attention of test substances which had already been thoroughly tested. His examples all were available in the public record but had been omitted from EPA's proposed huge testing program.
EPA has used secret meetings with members of the Chemical Manufacturers Association in the planning of its program. Indeed, a secret meeting in New York the very day of the hearing had been discovered, and EPA's representative at the hearing, Dr. William Sanders, Director of the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxins, said that he should have been at that meeting! Because of its discovery, the meeting was then made open to the public. EPA has evidently been relying on announcements on the Internet, which hardly fulfills the purpose of public notice of EPA's plans and time periods for public comments to be made in the Federal Register.
Jessica Sandler, Industrial Hygienist, testifying for the Doris Day Animal League and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, stated:
The HPV testing plan is a Government-sponsored program that has circumvented all normal Government channels. Had it been published in the Federal Register and subjected to public and scientific peer review, it would never have survived in its present form.
... what they called their 'definitive studies on the matter,' which formed the foundation of the HPV program, were, in fact, in the words of an EPA official, 'a quick and dirty look in order to get the message out.'
Chairman Calvert asked why EPA chose to pursue a voluntary program with industry? EPA spokesman replied that it was the policy of the US that development of such data should be the responsibility of industry. The Chairman then asked, "Did you register in the Federal Register?" and was told in the next two weeks it would be in the Federal Register.
In questioning Ms. Sandler, the Chairman asked her, "Would you suggest, then, that this ... so-called 'voluntary program,' is a way to get outside of TSCA [the Toxic Substances Control Act]?" She answered: "There is no question about that." She further stated:
The European Center for the Validation of Alternative Methods, an organization funded by the European Union, states with regard to the HPV program, and I quote, 'Traditional toxicologists with a vested interest in the continuation of checklist animal testing, and contract testing laboratories with a commercial interest in gaining new business, must be rejoicing. This is bad news for those of us who seek a scientifically rational approach to hazard prediction and risk assessment, and the development and use of alternative methods.'
Senator Robert Smith (R, NH) plans to hold hearings in the subcommittee he chairs after the August recess.
Wildlife Services
– a misleading euphemism replacing its former name, Animal
Damage Control (ADC) – spends millions of taxpayers' dollars
every year to kill predators on both public and private lands
for the benefit of relatively few sheep and cattle producers.
Typical killing methods include steel-jaw leghold traps, neck
snares, spring-activated cyanide devices, aerial gunning, and
denning (killing pups in dens by using grappling hooks or incendiary
devices, or digging them out and smashing them with shovels).
Even though non-lethal methods of coyote control have been found
to be more effective in protecting livestock than lethal methods,
Wildlife Services uses lethal methods in almost all instances
to control predators. Additionally, Wildlife Services routinely
launches lethal predator control without any confirmed livestock
losses. Millions of dollars are spent and thousands of coyotes
cruelly killed, even though the National Agriculture Statistic
Service's own reports from 1995 and 1996 state that only two to
three percent of sheep growers losses and two-tenths of one percent
of cattle losses can be attributed to coyote predation.
When left alone, coyotes regulate their own numbers. Much like wolves, coyotes have a highly structured pack hierarchy, with only the alpha pair breeding. Other females, although physiologically capable of reproducing, are "behaviorally sterile." Coyote populations often follow their prey base. For example, when jackrabbit populations decline, coyote populations usually follow the same trend.
Coyotes respond to lethal control programs with a number of
complex biological mechanisms, which work very 
efficiently
to boost their numbers. If an alpha pair in the pack is killed,
subordinate pack members splinter off from their original pack,
forming new packs, breeding, and eventually bearing larger litters
of pups. In order to feed large and healthy litters, coyotes will
reluctantly – as they are very wary of "novel"
foods – prey upon domestic livestock, if adequate quantities
of their normal diet of mice, gophers, other small rodents and
rabbits are not available. In summary, killing coyotes not only
increases the next generation of coyote numbers, but drives them
to hunt sheep and calves they would normally avoid.
The misguided persecution of coyotes has only served to expand and increase their populations. It has been very well established that we can protect livestock such as sheep and cattle without killing wildlife.
After decades of frustration with predator control efforts which either do not work or involve them in destructive conflicts with environmentalists, a group of Montana sheep ranchers have taken a different tack. They have abandoned lethal control methods now used against coyotes and other predators such as steel jaw leghold traps, strangling snares, hunting, and shooting from aircraft, in favor of non-lethal methods, ranging from sheepherders and guard animals to electric fences. In the process, they have put to rest their long feud with the environmental and humane movements, enlisting their cooperation in marketing "predator friendly" wool.
Predator Friendly, Inc., certifies "predator friendly" ranchers, and has founded a wool cooperative whose members pledge never to use lethal predator control methods. The blankets, mittens, hats, and sweaters marketed by the cooperative carry a tag identifying the products as being raised without harming wild animal species.
Ranchers in the program
are a diverse bunch; some are from multigenerational Montana ranching
families, others are relative newcomers. Their ranches fan out
from the plains of Eastern Montana to the foothills of the Northern
Rockies. Some raise sheep on intensively managed pastures while
others graze on broad rangelands. All share a willingness to innovate
and to withstand the criticisms of skeptical and leery fellow
ranchers who look askance at the "predator friendly"
moniker.
"I have come to believe that non-lethal control is a much more effective, inexpensive and ecologically palatable approach than lethal control," said Beck Weed, rancher and president of the Growers' Wool Cooperative, testifying at a Congressional staff briefing on federal predator control. "It is working on our ranch as well as on much larger operations."