2006-05-11 Staddon-Sutton Correspondence

The first letter in this series was apparently inspired by a News & Observer article entitled "New tricks threaten old shelters; Revised rules and broader state authority challenge animal havens statewide" published on 2006-05-11. The original article does not appear to be online, however.

Staddon to News & Observer, 2006-05-16

• Original publication: The News & Observer, 2006-05-16; reprinted by permission of the author

So animal shelters are now threatened with the same bureaucratic excesses that have caused biomedical research with animals to greatly increase in cost over the past three decades (N&O, 5/11). When this process began, it was justified by a concern with animal welfare and explained by political pressure from animal-rights groups happy to see the end of any research with animals, no matter how benign.

But animal-welfare hardly explains why animal shelters run by animal-loving volunteers are to be subject to expensive regulations that will force some of them to close and their charges to perish.

Animals should be well treated, but these endless regs. have less to do with animal welfare than with bureaucratic convenience and a model of animal care more suited to the abattoir than to live animals.

I do long-term, non-invasive behavioral research with pigeons. Like the shelter people now, we were told to replace our wooden cages with steel ones many years ago. Steel cages are easier to wash down and sterilize after the animals they contain are disposed of (frequently in many labs; rarely in ours) and replaced with a new batch. But pigeons (and dogs) don’t like them and they are less healthy than wooden cages.

Pet cats and dogs would all be illegal under any set of rules that requires steel cages. Applying such rules to strays destined (we hope) to find homes as pets puts Alice in Wonderland to shame!

Many of the current rules are hard to justify even as applied to research animals and government-run shelters. Applied to shelters run by volunteers, they are senseless.

John Staddon
James B. Duke Professor of Psychology
Duke University

Sutton to Staddon

Dear Dr. Staddon,

I understand the point that you are trying to make in your recent News and Observer letter to the editor, however I do not believe that you have thoroughly considered all of the factors involved in the required changes to shelter facilities. You are correct that ease of sterilization is the primary reason behind the mandatory switch from facilities made from organic matter (wood/grass/carpet) to those composed of stainless steel. I'm sure you are aware that it is impossible to ensure organic materials are completely free from viruses such as canine parvo or feline panleukopenia, regardless of sterilization method. Many animals that end up in shelters have come from environments where they have may have been exposed to such diseases and in addition are unvaccinated. If infected these animals will shed countless infective particles into their surroundings during the incubation period, before they are even symptomatic. These animals may leave the shelter prior to their illness, leaving infectious materials behind. Parvo virus remains infective in materials such as carpet for six months or more! Although I understand your concern that a puppy would like stainless steel facilities less than more natural materials, I feel that he would appreciate a terminal parvo virus infection even less. Is it fair to spread disease to naive animals because stainless steel is less aesthetically pleasing? The new requirements protect the welfare of the adoptive owners as well as the animals involved. How would you feel if after letting your 6 year old daughter select her new kitten from such a shelter it became incurably ill with feline panleukopenia? I doubt you would be terribly pleased with your veterinarian's $2000 bill for treatment of your new puppy's parvovirus infection either. In practice this scenario was unfortunately not at all uncommon. I understand that these changes are costly, but disease is costly as well, monetarily, physically and emotionally. I think that anything the Department of Agriculture can do to minimize the potential suffering of these pets and their owners should be welcomed with enthusiasm.

Abbey Lynn Sutton, DVM

Analysis

This letter raises some interesting issues:

• What is the relative frequency of terminal and life-threatening diseases among animals kept in metal cages? What are the same figures for non-metal cages?
• How much does it cost to euthanize and dispose of an untreatably sick animal?
• How much does it typically cost to treat an animal for parvo infection (is it really $2000)? What is the survival rate for animals so treated?
• Is there any way to evaluate the numbers of animal deaths in each of the following circumstances:
  • (a) following a strict policy of ensuring the most healthy possible environment for all animals in (institutional) captivity, thus reducing deaths due to disease (and euthanasias due to prohibitively expensive treatments for disease) but also greatly reducing the number of animals who can be taken in, thus leading to unnecessary deaths of healthy animals (on the highway, due to diseases in the wild, and due to the increase in feral population due to reproduction of non-sterilized animals)
  • (b) allowing animal caregivers considerable leeway for individual judgement, but providing support in the form of guidelines and inspections (also allowing for individual judgement on the part of the inspectors), responding quickly and alertly to complaints from third parties, and publishing photographs and details of all care facilities online (in order to prevent standards from deteriorating in isolated locations)

Comments

The DofA seems to be arguing that "nothing but the best is good enough", and giving us gold-plated adoptions (without providing the gold -- an unfunded mandate) -- when what is needed, in order to be the most humane, is quantity, not quality. Quality should be maintained at a reasonable level, but insisting on "nothing but the best" seems counterproductive (unless your only goal is to make the DofA look good). --Woozle 19:17, 18 May 2006 (EDT)

Staddon to Sutton, 2006-05-18

Dear Dr. Sutton:

Thanks for your thoughtful response. Everything you say is probably correct if infectious-disease risk is the only thing to be considered. But the comfort of the animals, cost and general convenience must also be factored in -- plus the fact that animals will die if shelters are closed. If you want to judge such matters on a purely utilitarian basis, each of these things must be given a number. If risk of infections is relatively low, for example, or if there are other, cheaper solutions -- such as quarantine, or even euthanasia, since these animals would die without a shelter anyway -- then extreme hygiene measures may not be justified.

A case can also be made that cost-benefit is not the only issue. The restriction of personal freedom of individuals who wish to voluntarily start shelters surely also carries some weight. Government should not tell people what to do unless the arguments are overwhelming.

As for the details, in fact, we have found wooden cages to be healthier than metal ones. Racing-pigeon fanciers in Europe keep birds worth thousands of dollars in wooden cages. And birds in nature are not exactly in inorganic, temperature-controlled environments, as our animal-care regs. require.

So I believe a little moderation and commonsense is in order.

Cordially, John S.

Other responses

• Julie Packard, D.V.M., President, N.C. Veterinary Medical Association, 2006-05-16