American Veterinary Medicine Association

AVMA
Rather then posting another animal welfare topic, I decided this last blog should be focused more on a company or association that is representing animals in a way that they can protects animals. Also, since the subject of my newsletter is "Animal Welfare Awareness Month" the AVMA just puts the newsletter together, and shows readers that there are associations out there trying their best at preventing many of the issues I mentioned in my blog.


The AVMA stresses the fact that changing the "ownership" name of the animal to "guardianship" may seem as beneficial to the animals, but can actually do just the opposite. People are not here to own or guard them, but to maintain their well being, health and happiness.


As the leading medical authority for animal health, the AVMA has adopted a list of  eight principles that they use to evaluate animal welfare policies. These principles consist of:

• The responsible use of animals for human purposes, such as companionship, food, fiber, recreation, work, education, exhibition, and research conducted for the benefit of both humans and animals, is consistent with the Veterinarian's Oath.
• Decisions regarding animal care, use, and welfare shall be made by balancing scientific knowledge and professional judgment with consideration of ethical and societal values.
• Animals must be provided water, food, proper handling, health care, and an environment appropriate to their care and use, with thoughtful consideration for their species-typical biology and behavior.
• Animals should be cared for in ways that minimize fear, pain, stress, and suffering.
• Procedures related to animal housing, management, care, and use should be continuously evaluated, and when indicated, refined or replaced.
• Conservation and management of animal populations should be humane, socially responsible, and scientifically prudent.
• Animals shall be treated with respect and dignity throughout their lives and, when necessary, provided a humane death.
• The veterinary profession shall continually strive to improve animal health and welfare through scientific research, education, collaboration, advocacy, and the development of legislation and regulations

*From the AVMA website!


This list shows that the AVMA is truly the leader in animal welfare, and try and accommodate animals in any way possible.  Also on their website are lists of animal welfare issues that educate the public on what the issue is, and if they find it ethical or unethical for the animals. They don't only just touch upon companion animals, but larger animals such as horses, sheep and cattle.


Listed from the principles, there is also a listing for the "veterinarians oath." For all graduates from veterinary school, they must abide by this oath to continue on with their career. This is very interesting because it shows the true dedication a veterinarian has for animals and their well being.


"Being admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of livestock resources, the promotion of public health and the advancement of medical knowledge. I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics. I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence."


If this veterinarians oath does not sum up their love and life-long dedication to animals, I don't know what does.

Animal testing: will it actually help our future?

Animal Testing

Many people may be surprised that animal testing has not just started recently, but has been practiced for centuries possibly dating back to the 1600's. This would include dissections as well as treatments to try and understand not only animals- but humans as well.


The Animal Welfare Act was put into effect in 1966 to protect animals in the U.S. They have put into action different licenses to enforce this law, but not all animals are protected under this law. "The legal definition of the word “animal” under the AWA is “any live or dead dog, cat, monkey (nonhuman primate mammal), guinea pig, hamster, rabbit, or such other warmblooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for research, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet.” There are exclusions to rats, fish, cattle and many other invertebrates to be used for experimentation. So technically, this act is not very effective because not all animals are fully protected. It would almost seem as though the act is almost promoting experimentation in animals. Though they do allow some animals for testing, there are regulations put into place to maintain the welfare of the animal.

Even though many scientists have found similar correlations between animals and humans, there are many differences in anatomy, biochemistry and physiology. The veterinary students who produced this article are confused as to how animal testing "relates" completely to humans, when humans and animals have so many differences. An example they used to show the differences what using penicillin, it has much different affects on guinea pigs then it would on people. The point these students are trying to make is that there are so many different borders and differences between humans and animals, that it would be hard to test on an animal and somehow pass all of these borders and implications to correlate to a human. Would it just be easier to use science to know how the human body functions, rather then make an animal suffer? To truly understand a species, you would need to use that specific species as an example to get the full picture rather then using other unrelated subspecies.


These students also point out that a fair amount of money being put into these animal experiments is just being wasted because we cannot correlate animals to humans.

For people, we would need to give researchers our consent to be tested or experimented on, so many animal activists argue that the same rule should apply to all animals. This can be a tough argument because it is hard to draw the line to what animals can comprehend, and what their actual rights are.

So my question is this: Do you think that animal testing has been beneficial to the human race? What are your thoughts on animal rights and welfare?

Personally, I believe that animal testing has helped out quite a bit in our past with vaccines and possible transplants, but I don't believe that animal testing should be in our future anymore. I think that we have exhausted our resources and have come to a stopping point to where future research on animals would not benefit the human race. In shorter terms, I believe we have discovered what we discovered and there is not much more that we have available to research in animals, but what we have we have to research in humans. I also believe that animal testing is a mild to excessive (in some cases) of animal abuse. I wouldn't call it humane, nor would I think that the animals enjoy it in any way.

Animal Hoarding

We've all heard about animal hoarding, and may have even seen shows about it. Its a horrible situation for the animals, and even their owners.

Animal hoarding is the collection of animals and usually results in inadequate care of all of the "collected" animals. Usually the owners who hoard claim that they love all of their animals and truly believe that the animals in their care are receiving enough food and attention. Statistics show that more than 75% of hoarders are female and almost 50% of those women are over the age of 60. These women also tend to be single. These statistics show the "profile" of what an animal hoarder looks like.

Many times the owners don't have the time or patience to litter or potty train any of their animals so their houses are full of urine and covered in feces. Not only do they not have the time to properly train their animals in all aspects, but they also fail to clean up after themselves. They usually feel overwhelmed with worrying about taking proper care of all the animals, that they tend to forget about themselves. They collect animals passively, and don't try to personally add to their "collection."

There are 3 different classes or groups of hoarders:
1. The Overwhelmed Caregiver: These people tend to consider their animals their family, and tend to deny that the animals are being held in bad conditions. These people eventually become overwhelmed by the care of the animals and deterioration in their care is due to personal circumstances.
2. The Rescuer: These people have a large fear of death and feel as though they need to save as many animals they can, and feel that they are the only ones that are able to provide the animals with proper care so they collect these animals actively.
3. The Exploiter: These people acquire their animals actively, and deny any animal abuse at all. They tend to think that animals are tools and need to be controlled. They usually reject authorities and any concern about animals.

There are also 3 different types of interventions for these hoarders: persuasion with verbal agreement, threat of legal action and prosecution for cruelty to animals. The Overwhelmed Caregiver will most likely be reasonable and willing to downsize when confronted with any of these methods. The Rescuer will have a harder time complying, but may give in when confronted with prosecution. The Exploiter will most likely refuse any of their interventions and prosecution will be essential.

Though there are 14 states that have protective statues for animals, many cruelty cases are enforced at the local level and not the state level, so many more cruelty cases can get by leaving many animals to suffer.

Animal hoarding is truly cruel to all animals, and I personally don't believe that their short lives should start or end in this way.

Do you think that enforcement should be through the state? Would that reach more cases of abuse?

Animal Hoarding