Publications & Resources

AVAR Position Statements

(To download a copy of the AVAR positions statements in Microsoft Word format, click here.)

Use of Nonhuman Animals for Testing and Formulation of Cosmetics, Soap and Similar Household Products

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is strongly opposed to the use of nonhuman animals or their parts in the testing and formulation of cosmetics, soaps and similar household products and ingredients. We believe that there is no morally compelling reason to subject nonhuman animals to pain, suffering or death for the sake of human vanity.

Whereas we applaud the industry's responsiveness and appropriation of money for alternatives, we believe the current trend misses the point. We do not want to see merely a reduction in the number of nonhuman animals used nor replacement of live, whole animals with tissue culture if it means killing an animal to get the tissue. Instead, we want the industry to completely do away with the use of nonhuman animals or their bodily parts on the basis that it is unnecessary and inhumane. There are numerous products presently available that have not been tested on any nonhuman animals, do not contain ingredients from nonhuman animals and are reasonable alternatives to what the industry presently offers.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors June 1985)

- Back to Top -

Housing of Laying Hens

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) is strongly opposed to the keeping of laying hens in cages. We believe this type of housing is inhumane in that it does not allow the hens to experience even a semblance of a normal life. Chickens have an extensive behavioral repertoire. Activities such as adequate grooming, dust bathing, perching, wing flapping and stretching, nesting, and socialization, to name a few, are prevented when hens are raised in cages. We recognize that hens in cages still produce eggs. We also recognize, however, that production is not an adequate indicator of well-being. Moreover, under so-called 'battery' conditions, production is based on eggs produced per flock, not on individual performance.

We believe it is crucial that laying hens are housed under one of the various so-called loose housing systems. These methods of husbandry are more consistent with the evolutionary development of the chicken and tend to meet more than just the absolute needs of the hens. It is insensitive and incorrect to state, as industry spokespeople often do, that the hens have been bred for cages and no longer have the traits referred to previously. When given the opportunity to express those traits, they do so consistently. In addition, when properly managed, pecking orders can be established and the need for beak 'trimming' (debeaking) is minimized or alleviated. The cost of eggs from hens raised humanely has been similar to or only slightly greater than those from battery hens.

We urge all members of the AVAR to buy eggs only from producers who raise their hens under humane conditions. We further urge that the AVAR veterinarians encourage their clients to do the same.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors June 1985)

- Back to Top -

Use of Nonhuman Animals in Elementary or Secondary Schools and Related Activities

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights believes our educational programs should embrace an attitude of respect and reverence for all life. We, therefore, are strongly opposed to the use of or experimentation on nonhuman animals by elementary or secondary school students when that use or experimentation results in disease, pain, distress, suffering, loss or modification of function, or death to the subject. When nonhuman animals are used or experimented on in this manner, the students become desensitized to the inherent value of other life forms, and the knowledge gained is tainted and lacks meaning from an ethical perspective.

For this level of education, plastic models, films and other visual aids, and computers are adequate for teaching the principles of anatomy and physiology. If live animals are to be used, the instructors must have the knowledge and facilities to provide for all the needs of that particular species and the proper care of these animals should be impressed upon the students. Only domesticated animals or non-rehabilitatable wild animals should be used; animals should not be taken from the wild or bought from biological supply houses for this purpose. No cadavers should be used unless they are animals that were killed for humane reasons or found dead.

All courses in the area of the biological sciences should expose the students to the major present day views on the use of nonhuman animals by humans. The moral and ethical questions raised by human intervention with nonhuman life should be raised and addressed.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors June 1986)

- Back to Top -

Release of Nonhuman Animals from Pounds for Research (pound seizure)

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is opposed to the release of animals from pounds (pound seizure) for use in research on ethical and scientific grounds. A major objection is that pounds or animal shelters never were designed to be supply houses for the vivisection trade. They were developed to be places were people could bring unwanted or stray animals in the hope of a new home being found. Failing that, the animals would painlessly be killed. The release of these animals for research is a breach of the public trust and leads to loss of public support.

Whereas it is true that the animals to be released often are those slated for death, it is the quality of life prior to death with which we are concerned. In the pound, the unwanted animals will most likely be given a quick and painless death. If released for research, they may become part of a project which involves the deliberate or unavoidable infliction of a great deal of pain and suffering. They then may live in agony within small cages, usually without the benefit of exercise or socialization with their conspecifics. The irony of this is that the very animals who have the most trust in humans are the ones most likely to be chosen by the researcher because of their docility. It is unconscionable to subject these trusting creatures to anything but a dignified death when society cannot continue to provide for them.

There also is the issue of the quality of science when pound derived animals are used. These animals have an unknown genetic and medical history. Numerous unsuspected variables are introduced when these animals are used. In many cases, erroneous conclusions can be the result.

The issue of pound seizure is not an antivivisection issue. In fact, very few of the animals that would be killed every year in pounds are used in research. Ending pound seizure would not stop research, it simply would change the source of some animals for some projects. When members of the scientific community support pound seizure, it suggests that they would like an inexhaustible supply of stray or unwanted animals. This is the antithesis of the goal of every humane and compassionate person, which is to reduce this population to zero.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors July 1985)

- Back to Top -

Rodent Glue Traps

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is adamantly opposed to traps using glue as a means of catching rodents or other animals. These traps are inherently cruel and their use can never be justified.

All mammals have similar nervous systems and thresholds for pain. There is no evidence that mice, rats or other rodents suffer any less than human beings. The slow death by dehydration and starvation caused by glue traps constitutes extreme suffering and cannot be tolerated by anyone who is compassionate or rational. Regardless of one's view of rodents, they are sentient beings with just as much right to live and share this Earth as anyone else. Whereas we recognize that it is sometimes necessary to control rodent populations, we believe that nonlethal or natural means should be used whenever possible. If lethal methods must be used, they should quickly and as painlessly as possible kill the animal. Glue traps are the antithesis of this.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors July 1985)

- Back to Top -

Housing of Calves Raised for Veal

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is adamantly opposed to the raising of calves in any but a 'loose' housing system. We believe the practice of raising them singly, in narrow stalls (so-called crates), is inhumane and cruel because of the extreme privation it causes. This latter system does not allow the calves to socialize, exercise, or make normal postural movements. The situation is compounded by a diet purposefully formulated to make the calves anemic. The combination of these insults, in addition to preventing the calves from enjoying their short lives, prevents their muscles from developing properly so that the calves suffer further distress when forced to move on the way to the slaughterhouse. Bruises and broken bones also occur and contribute to the calves' suffering.

Economics should never have been an acceptable reason for the severe confinement system. Nevertheless, it has been shown by veal operators themselves that loose housing systems can be just as economical as the confinement system. Therefore, there is no longer any excuse to continue the inhumane practice of confinement rearing. If calves must be raised for slaughter, we believe the only acceptable manner is in a loose housing system in which the calves can exercise, socialize, and express themselves as calves.

Because the origin of veal cannot be determined from its package, we urge our members to refrain from buying veal and to urge their clients to do the same.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors August 1985)

- Back to Top -

Cosmetic Surgery or Surgery to Correct Unwanted Behavior

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is opposed to any surgical procedures that are performed to meet 'breed standards' or to correct unwanted behavior in animals.

Cosmetic or non-therapeutic surgical procedures or amputations, such as ear cropping, tail docking, dewclaw removal, and debarking in dogs; declawing in large and domestic cats; debeaking in chickens; de-toeing in turkeys; tail docking in pigs, sheep, and cattle; tail docking and tongue myotomies in horses, for example, are inhumane. The suffering and disfigurement they cause are not offset by any benefits to the animals. Anesthesia is often used for some of the procedures, primarily for companion animals, and has its own risks of disability or death.

Ear cropping, or ear flap amputation, is an inhumane non-therapeutic procedure routinely performed by veterinarians on dogs with naturally drooping ears and is solely done to meet breed standards. Puppies are just 9-12 weeks of age when the ears are cropped, depending upon the maturity of the ear cartilage and surgeon preference. The puppy’s ears, including blood vessels, cartilage, muscle, nerves, and skin, are cut and reshaped so that the ears stand erect (instead of hanging naturally). The ears are subsequently affixed by tape to some form of a rack, usually metal or plastic, for weeks. After the surgical procedure, the puppies may undergo frequent follow-up visits to the veterinarian where the ears are handled and re-taped. The detrimental effects of this procedure are amplified by the fact that the ideal cropping age coincides with a period of development in which traumatic experiences can have a negative effect on the pup’s emotional well-being and future behavior, including permanent aversion to having their ears handled.

Tail docking, or tail amputation, is routinely performed by veterinarians and some breeders when puppies are just 2-5 days old. It involves removing as much as 70-80 percent of the tail, usually with scissors and without anesthesia. Since tails are used for balance and communication, amputating them may impact intraspecies communication.

Dogs almost always have dewclaws on the front legs and occasionally on the hind legs. There is debate as to whether the dewclaws assist a dog with running. Removal (amputation) of dewclaws is unnecessary when it is done for cosmetic or prophylactic purposes. Dewclaws can be trimmed and maintained in the same manner as toenails.

Debarking involves placing a dog under anesthesia and cutting the dog’s vocal cords. It is solely performed for human convenience for the purpose of noise control and provides no benefit for the dog. In fact, there is anecdotal evidence that debarking increases the risk of aspiration pneumonia. Since the dog’s environment and lifestyle usually are the cause for excessive barking, changing and enriching the environment and daily routine (acquiring a second dog, providing more stimulating toys and more play time with humans) should be the only resolutions for excessive barking, rather than attempting to ‘correct’ the dog with surgery.

Cat declawing, or onychectomy, is an amputation of a portion of a cat’s front toes and sometimes those of the back feet, as well. Declawing involves putting the cat under anesthesia and then cutting through each of the ten last joints, including skin, tendons, and nerves, thereby removing the distal phalanx (last bone) of each toe. The recovery from declawing can be painful and lengthy and may involve postoperative complications. These include infection, hemorrhage, persistent “phantom” pain, lameness, and nail regrowth, sometimes requiring additional surgery. Because scratching is a natural behavior in cats, the human caretaker should redirect this instinctive behavior by providing environmental enrichments to alter the cat’s scratching behavior away from furniture. In addition to the substitution of an acceptable scratching post, the use of nail caps (Soft Paws), repellant material on target areas (Sticky Paws), and more frequent trimming of cats’ nails frequently resolve the issue. Anecdotal evidence of behavior changes occurring post-onychectomy provides compelling support for the observation that declawing cats increases their likelihood of expressing litter box avoidance and aggressive biting. The studies done so far to analyze this relationship have been limited in their ability to control multiple variables and form a definitive conclusion. However, the observations of many veterinary practitioners and behaviorists give strong support for these connections. (See AVAR’s web site: www.avar.org for more info).

In the cases of equine and farmed animal corrective or cosmetic surgeries, AVAR opposes these procedures because they are done either to produce a desired style of horsemanship (e.g. tail and tongue myotomies to produce a limp tail and flaccid tongue for the show ring) or to produce a requisite appearance for equine sales and auctions (e.g. scleral tattooing to minimize the appearance of the white-ringed eye and surgical thinning of the throatlatch area). The debeaking of chickens and tail docking of piglets, sheep, and cattle are performed without anesthesia to correct undesired behaviors and hygiene problems that have been created by the environment to which the animals are subjected. Rather than correct the deficiencies in the management and environment that produce the aggressive behaviors and lack of hygiene, the animals are reshaped to eliminate losses from their induced aggression and filth. These procedures are painful, inhumane, and are a detriment to the well-being of the animal subjected to them.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors June 1986, revised and adopted by the Board of Directors May 1, 2006)

- Back to Top -

Dehorning, Castration and Hot Iron Branding of So-called Food Animals

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is opposed to the dehorning or castration of so-called food animals when such surgery is not necessary for health or safety reasons. Because these procedures are essentially always done without anesthesia, the animals must endure pain and suffering, usually for trivial reasons. Castration of pigs used for food is unnecessary because uncastrated animals gain weight just as well, or better, as castrated ones and they are slaughtered before testicular hormones cause serious tainting of the flesh. The same could be said for sheep. Castration of cattle also is unnecessary because the tainting of the flesh is insignificant and aggressive behavior is not a problem in properly handled animals. Surgical mutilation of these animals to please a person's palate is unacceptable.

If the raising of cattle for their flesh must continue, only those who naturally have no horns ('polled') should be used. The practice of dehorning cattle causes considerable pain and suffering when done without the benefit of anesthesia. If it must be done for medical reasons or under exceptional circumstances for safety, it should be done properly using local anesthesia.

Identification of cattle, or any animal, by the use of hot iron branding is cruel and unnecessary. There are several other methods of marking animals, such as freeze branding, which do not cause the extreme pain and suffering caused by burning their skin.

We urge the industry to adopt more humane methods of farm animal practice. Until this is done, we urge our members and their clients to refrain from purchasing products made from animals who were not humanely raised.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors June 1986)

- Back to Top -

Furs and Trapping

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is adamantly opposed to the trapping or raising of animals for their skins (furs). Many of the animals are caught with the steel jaw leghold trap which is an abomination, causing tremendous pain and suffering through the mutilation of its victims. The jaws dig into the skin, severing various soft tissues or fracturing bones. The trapped animals become frantic with the fear instinctive in any wild animal who is restrained. The animals are at risk of being preyed upon by natural predators attracted by the sounds of their struggle or the scent of their blood. Females that have nursing young experience additional fear and anxiety because their offspring need attention. The trapped animals may die from starvation, dehydration or freezing. If not, their death by the trapper, who may not arrive for several days, may be brought about slowly by suffocation by the trapper standing on their neck or chest.

The use of so-called padded traps causes essentially no less pain or suffering. All other means of trapping animals for their fur, even if painless, are unacceptable for the basic reason that it is unacceptable to kill animals for their furs.

The raising of animals for their fur also is associated with cruelties. The animals usually are raised under appalling conditions and are killed inhumanely through the use of such methods as suffocation, strangling and electrocution by crude apparatus.

None of the self-serving arguments in favor of fur apparel are legitimate. Apparel made from natural furs cost from four to 66 times as much, in terms of petroleum products used, as similar items made from synthetic materials. Trapping is not ecologically sound. Trapping is not an effective means of disease control. In the case of rabies, there is evidence that trapping may actually enhance its spread by removing healthy animals from the population.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors June 1986)

- Back to Top -

Hunting and Fishing

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights generally is opposed to hunting and fishing. Our strongest objection is to so-called sport or trophy hunting and fishing. We believe it is unconscionable to endanger, distress, shoot or otherwise kill any animal to obtain a 'trophy' or in the name of entertainment.

Hunting or fishing strictly for food, but not on a commercial scale, needs to be viewed from a somewhat different perspective. As long as people continue to eat animals, there is little difference between killing an animal in the slaughterhouse or in her/his native habitat. In fact, it could easily be argued that the free living (wild) animal has had the chance for a normal life prior to being killed. Domestic animals destined as human food, on the other hand, usually are raised under conditions which constitute extreme privation, so-called factory farming. These animals do not have the opportunity to live a natural life, are transported under appalling conditions and are subjected to the horrors of the slaughterhouse. Therefore, although we cannot condone hunting or fishing for food, we recognize this may be preferable to the present system of raising animals for food.

As long as hunting continues, we believe it is imperative that no lead shot be used because this causes the secondary destruction of millions of animals annually. Bow and arrow should never be used because this method has the most potential for causing extreme suffering. All fish caught should immediately be killed as painlessly as possible rather than being allowed to asphyxiate or linger on gill lines. Only animals not threatened with extinction should be hunted or fished.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors July 1986)

- Back to Top -

Surgical Training of Veterinary Medical Students

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) recognizes that teaching veterinary medical students the principles of surgery requires the use of live animals. When live animals are used for surgical training, the surgery should be beneficial to the animal patient. Harmful or terminal surgical procedures are inhumane and teach students that animals are ‘disposable,’ thus desensitizing students to animal suffering and the value of animal life.

While many U.S. veterinary medical schools have altered their curricula so that harmful or terminal surgical procedures have been eliminated, a significant number continue to require harmful or terminal surgical procedures or offer them in elective courses. AVAR believes that veterinary medical schools should provide alternative learning experiences for those students who cannot, in good conscience, participate in a course which calls for the harming or killing of animals.

Teaching students about surgical principles through the harmful or fatal uses of animals is morally indefensible, regardless of the source of the animals. There are no morally relevant differences between dogs used in a surgery class and dogs who live with a human guardian. Animals from either group have the same capacity to suffer or to enjoy life. It matters not, from a moral perspective, whether the dogs are 'purpose' bred for the surgery class or whether they are taken from a local animal shelter. The statement that the latter animals are 'going to die anyway' ignores their suffering and the underlying principle.

As an ethical and effective alternative, numerous veterinary medical schools in the U.S. and in other countries utilize shelters as a source of animals to train students in beneficial surgical procedures. The animals are transferred to the school, are sterilized and vaccinated, and are subsequently returned to the shelter for adoption. At some veterinary schools, feral cats are brought in for surgery by local rescue organizations. After they are sterilized, they are released back into a supervised colony. Surgery training can also be accomplished by sending students into the community using mobile clinics to sterilize animals in need. However, since recovery and aftercare are also important factors in surgery training, it is expected that students will gain this experience with their school’s surgical cases.

The surgical training that veterinary medical students receive prior to obtaining their degree does not make them experienced surgeons. At best, it increases their confidence as it introduces them to the complexities of surgery. In training them, the emphasis is on principles rather than on specific procedures per se. Therefore, any program that would accomplish this aim should be acceptable. Students should develop basic manual dexterity on inanimate objects. The students

can further develop their skills by using donated cadavers of animals who died or were euthanized for medical reasons. This can be achieved through the implementation of a willed-body donation program in each veterinary school. Then, during their clinical training period, with proper supervision, they could begin doing surgery on clients' animals, starting with the most basic manipulations. As their skills improve, they gradually could increase the level of their involvement until they are able to do some of the more common procedures themselves. Further surgical training can be undertaken under the supervision of private practitioners after graduation, which is ultimately how most veterinarians develop their skills and refine their techniques.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors Aug. 1986, revised by the Board of Directors Nov. 2005)

- Back to Top -

Castration and Spaying of Companion Animals

The current crisis of overpopulation of cats, dogs and other nonhuman animals is a primary concern of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR). Although some controversy exists as to whether forced contraception infringes upon the individual animal's rights, the AVAR believes this current human-caused tragedy calls for correction in the most humane yet effective manner possible.

At this time, the most effective and acceptable form of contraception for most of these animals is surgical sterilization. It is essentially 100% effective and reasonably safe. It has added health benefits, for example reducing the chance of mammary carcinoma and pyometra in female dogs, removing the risk of testicular neoplasia in male dogs and reducing the risk of uterine cancer in rabbits. We do not, however, consider these the primary reasons for promoting this surgery because this could be taken to justify other surgical mutilations on the basis of some obscure health benefits.

Hormonal manipulation is unacceptable to us in most cases because it is not as effective, it may have a greater potential for misuse and error, and it may predispose the individual to diseases such as pyometra and cancer. Until another alternative is available, surgical sterilization, when done properly by qualified personnel, is the preferred method to prevent unwanted pregnancies cats, dogs and many other animals.

Recently, the veterinary medical and other nonhuman animal protection communities have been questioning the apparently arbitrary age minimum of six months for surgical neutering of cats and dogs. Because many cats and dogs adopted out of shelters are younger than this, they are not neutered at the time of adoption. Experience has shown that many will not be neutered and will be allowed to reproduce, compounding the problem adoption was intended to ameliorate.

Information on the feasibility of early-age neutering is being gathered. Such surgeries would allow shelters to adopt out only neutered individuals. Although the data are preliminary, to date there has been no evidence of increased risks to cats or dogs sterilized as early as eight weeks of age. In some cases, the information is anecdotal, based upon over two decades' experience. In others, it is based upon clinical or experimental research. We do not believe, however, that experiments using cats or dogs purposely bred to evaluate early-age neutering are appropriate. Even if the individuals are adopted out rather than killed, this population would compete with those being killed for lack of homes.

The AVAR recommends that all cats, dogs, rabbits and many other animals be surgically sterilized at the time of adoption from shelters. Because these individuals should not be adopted out before eight weeks of age and because there appears to be no substantive problem with doing the surgery then, at least in cats and dogs, this can be an important part of the effort to prevent the overpopulation tragedy. Veterinarians also should recommend this to their clients who bring in kittens or puppies from other sources.

Moreover, we believe the overpopulation crisis is of such grave magnitude presently that the breeding of any cats, dogs, rabbits or others, regardless of whether they are mixed breed or so-called purebred animals, should be limited to that necessary to ensure survival of the species. Regardless of the intent, any breeding will contribute to the problem and we believe we have a responsibility to put personal preferences aside in order to correct the situation. People who want cats, dogs, rabbits or others as companions should be encouraged to adopt them from animal shelters until the overpopulation crisis is over.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors September 1986; revised August 1992, February 1997)

- Back to Top -

Dog Racing

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) strongly opposes all forms of dog racing. We do not recognize it as a sport, but rather as an exploitation of animals for the purpose of promoting legalized gambling or for human entertainment and competition purposes.

Greyhounds are the breed routinely used at dog racing tracks. For those who lack the proper racing potential, they are killed when they are less than a couple of years old, often inhumanely, or they are sent to research laboratories or veterinary schools for use in student training. The cull (kill) rate can be as high as 50 percent.

Dogs used for racing at dog tracks face numerous injuries, including bone fractures and severe joint trauma. They often are forced to run in the heat, which can lead to heat strokes and heart failure. They can also suffer facial trauma from falling on the muzzles they are forced to wear. By the age of four years when they no longer can compete with the younger dogs, they are destroyed. In order to save money on veterinary care and to expedite the destruction of these dogs, unacceptable methods are often employed to kill them, including shooting and clubbing. In some instances, they are abandoned, left to dehydrate and starve until dead with their tattooed ears having been cut off to eliminate the possibility of tracing their source. During their short racing lives, they are kept for the majority of their lives in concrete pens, are fed a diet of inferior slaughterhouse byproducts, and are deprived of normal socialization.

The use of live lures in training greyhounds to race is inhumane. It is estimated that tens of thousands of live rabbits, guinea pigs, chickens, and kittens are literally torn apart each year in the preferred training method to enhance speed. AVAR does not believe that encouraging the use of artificial lures would end this abuse. Many trainers insist that the use of live lures is essential for training their dogs. Even in states which prohibit this cruel practice, dogs are frequently transported across state lines to avoid this regulation.

Arctic breeds of dogs are also routinely used for sled racing, which is another form of human entertainment and competition which subjects dogs to injury and death. When forced to run hundreds of miles a day, dogs sustain numerous injuries and illnesses, such as bone fractures, lacerated paws, ruptured tendons, torn muscles, cardiac failure, joint trauma, dehydration, stress and diarrhea. Injuries have also occurred when dogs have become tangled or strangled in the traces or harnesses. On average, 50 percent of dogs who start the Iditarod race, for example, break down and are unable to finish. As with greyhound racing, dogs who are bred for sled racing also are culled at a young age, or must undergo grueling training methods, and often spend their lives tethered on short chains.

No amount of reform or adoption of discarded dogs can offset dog racing’s inherent cruelties. Even if the aforementioned abuses were to be corrected, we still believe using animals for entertainment when there is a high probability of injury to the animals is unacceptably cruel.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors Jan. 1987, revised by the Board of Directors Nov. 2005.)

- Back to Top -

Euthanasia of Nonhuman Animals

In human medicine, decisions about euthanasia occur in two different situations. In the first, the dying patient is in agonizing pain, requests death, and is intentionally killed (so-called active euthanasia). In the second, the patient is terminally ill, remains alive only because of the use of extraordinary medical means, and is allowed to die as a result of removal of these life-supporting systems (so-called passive euthanasia).

In veterinary medicine, euthanasia can occur in similar kinds of situations, although in this field of medicine the active euthanasia is more common than the passive form. In veterinary medicine, however, there is a third type of case that has no medically sanctioned counterpart in human medicine. This case occurs when healthy, or old, or sick, but treatable nonhuman animals are 'euthanatized' because their human companions no longer want them. The reasons people have for requesting that their companion animals be 'euthanatized' vary widely; some are more well-considered than others; some are frivolous in the extreme and express nothing more than human arrogance and selfishness.

However understandable or ignoble the motivation, the plain fact is, healthy, or old, or sick, but treatable nonhuman animals who are killed are not euthanatized. No mercy is shown to them by ending their life. They are killed, pure and simple, no less certainly than the same is true of a human being having similar characteristics, whose life is ended because others find it useful or convenient to do so. The sooner our profession faces this harsh reality, the better.

The principle is no different with animals who are abandoned at animal control or humane society shelters. The reality of what is done is not altered by calling it another name. We recognize that presently there is a serious cat and dog population problem and that government-run animal control facilities will probably continue to be involved in the killing of these animals. These facilities should, however, have an active adoption and education program and plan legislation designed to minimize the continued proliferation of these animals. Humane society shelters, on the other hand, should not be in the business of killing. Advocating responsible guardianship for these animals while simultaneously killing them when they are no longer wanted sends an inappropriate mixed message and is morally inconsistent.

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights takes the position that veterinarians should refuse on principle to be the instrument of death of nonhuman animals for reasons other than those of mercy, the situation in animal control facilities being a notable exception. We believe that a public statement denouncing the contrary practice should become an official part of the profession's code of ethics, and every practicing veterinarian should explain this position to every client, with the expectation that the client's informed consent to this principle will be a condition of rendering future care to that person's companion animals.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors September 1987; revised June 1997)

- Back to Top -

Use of Nonhuman Animals in Research

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) recognizes that human beings have the desire to make conditions better for themselves. There also is the powerful urge to know more about how the world and its inhabitants function. The AVAR also recognizes that nonhuman animals have been used for many years in hopes of learning more about various biological processes. Whereas much has been learned, the ethical costs incurred, in terms of suffering and death of nonhuman animals, have been astronomical.

The issue is highly complex partly because of the prevailing perception that the use of nonhuman animals in research is the key to improving our health, and increasing our longevity and comfort. While acknowledging that it would not be feasible to cover all aspects of this subject in a position statement, the AVAR is philosophically opposed to the use of nonhuman animals in research that is not directed at helping the individual animal. Whereas the AVAR recognizes that there may be benefits from using nonhuman animals in research, we do not believe that the end justifies the means. We do not believe that the utilitarian philosophy of 'sacrificing' a few for the benefit of many is morally defensible regardless of the species in question. There are no morally relevant differences between human and nonhuman animals that would justify treating the latter group in such a radically different manner from the former. We maintain that perceived differences between humans and other animals are largely arbitrary and prejudicial. Regardless of where one draws the line, there almost always will be some humans who fall outside the boundary and some nonhumans who fall within it.

The AVAR promotes an end to our perceived dependence on the use of nonhuman animals in research that leads to their harm whether that harm be suffering (mental or physical), loss of function, ill health, pain, housing inappropriate for the species in question, isolation from conspecifics if the species in question is a social one, or death. The AVAR recognizes, however, that research using nonhuman animals in this fashion will continue into the foreseeable future. Therefore, until human beings as a group place nonhuman animals within their sphere of serious moral concern, the AVAR recommends reform in the following ways: 1) increased legislation to control and monitor research using all nonhuman animals, vertebrate or invertebrate, 2) strict enforcement of laws that pertain to nonhuman animals used in research, 3) formation of a national or international data bank of information to assist investigators in eliminating unnecessary duplication of particular lines of inquiry, 4) shifting of our research funding emphasis away from invasive nonhuman animal studies to a concerted search for alternatives, 5) an increase in clinical and epidemiological research with an emphasis on preventive measures instead of 'cures,' and 6) immediate discontinuation of certain lines of inquiry because the ethical costs in terms of nonhuman animal suffering and death cannot offset the perceived good to be gained. In the last category might fall: a) the use of a neuromuscular blocking agent without the use of adequate anesthesia, b) the induction, whether intentionally or as an unavoidable part of the study, of severe unalleviated pain (with the understanding that what is meant by severe would have to be defined), c) the use of nonhuman animals to study human behavior, d) the use of nonhuman animals to study drug addiction, and e) the use of nonhuman animals to study the effects of trauma.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors October 1987)

- Back to Top -

Horse Racing

Horse racing has become a multi-billion dollar industry. Because of the competitive and profit oriented nature of this industry, the health and welfare of the individual horse is usually predicated upon her/his utilitarian value.

Training of a horse to be used in racing begins at a young age. A horse may start her/his track career at the age of two years. Whereas two-year-old horses may appear physically mature, their legs are not and this predisposes them to a greater likelihood of injury. The arduous training and racing schedules subject these horses, young or mature, to severe stress and frequent injuries.

Because of the fiercely competitive nature of this industry, injured horses are often put back into action before proper healing takes place. They may be given drugs or be subjected to surgical procedures in order to maintain their ability to run. This increases the likelihood of further, and often disastrous, injuries. Horses whose injuries have been masked by the use of anti-inflammatory drugs or neurectomies, risk doing severe damage to an already compromised limb. Pain is the body's warning signal, but these horses often are drugged or operated into 'soundness.'

As a result of the medical and surgical problems resulting from contemporary horse racing, veterinary medicine has responded by developing the specialty of sports medicine. Whereas this is laudable, there still are problems relating to the welfare of horses used in racing. Because this field of veterinary medicine is viable and receives sustenance only through the racing industry, there has been reluctance to bring about significant measures of reform.

Many supporters of horse racing equate it to human athletic competition. But, unlike human athletes who presumably can decide when and how they compete and on what treatments they receive, horses generally are unwilling participants. Moreover, when a human athlete sustains a serious injury, this only ends her/his involvement in this narrow part of her/his life. For the horse, serious injury often means an end to her/his life.

For many of the reasons stated above, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is opposed to the use of horses for competitive racing as it is done today. We recognize, however, that horse racing will continue into the foreseeable future. We, therefore, recommend the following as a minimum to promote the welfare of the horses that are used in racing: 1) the welfare of an individual horse should have precedence over economic considerations, 2) horses should not be subjected to the rigors of training for competition until they are completely mature, 3) a sound preventive medicine program should be instituted, 4) when injured, horses should be given proper veterinary care and be allowed whatever time is necessary for complete healing, 5) horses should not be permitted to race if they have received any drug that would in any way mask pain, 6) if an injury or other condition is so painful that it requires a neurectomy to restore 'soundness,' the horse should be retired from racing, 7) breeding strategies for improving speed and endurance also should take into account the effects these have on other factors, and 8) a horse who no longer is able to race should be retired to a leisurely life, as opposed to being killed, in payment for services rendered.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors October 1987)

- Back to Top -

Use of Nonhuman Animals in the Motion Picture Industry

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) is opposed to the use of nonhuman animals in movies, television, or other types of recorded media where that use places the animals in jeopardy of injury or death. Further, we condemn training methods based on aversive conditioning.

Nonhuman animals have been used in movies and on television for as long as these two media have been in existence. Unfortunately, far too often, the standards of treatment for these animals have been poor or cruel. As early as 1939, concerns were raised when, during the filming of the movie Jesse James, a horse was killed when he/she was made to jump off a cliff for the sake of realism (1). The outcry from this incident led to a mandatory code of behavior concerning nonhuman animals, which was administered by the Hays Office. But, with the abolition of the Hays Office, the mandatory code became voluntary.

Today, the American Humane Association (AHA) can review scripts, but this is done on a voluntary basis only. The AHA's powers are restricted to observation of practices used on the set, and the issuing of lists of films that carry out unacceptable practices. However, even this system appears unreliable as evidenced by the motion picture Project X, which passed AHA's inspection, but later was alleged to have used abusive handling and training techniques to ensure 'cooperation' by the nonhuman primates who were used in the movie.

Whereas specially trained nonhuman animals and special effects can be used, these are more expensive and often are overlooked. Whereas every precaution is usually taken to protect human actors and stunt performers, this often is not the case with nonhuman animal performers. For example, the use of the trip wire to cause a horse to fall is far more spectacular and cheaper than using a horse that is trained to fall. In some cases, directors have purposefully killed nonhuman animals on screen, as in the movie, Apocalypse Now (1).

The AVAR urges that mandatory codes of nonhuman animal treatment and training be devised and applied to films made in this and any other country. Because we do not believe that it is appropriate to keep non-domesticated nonhuman animals in captivity, we believe it is inappropriate to use these animals, especially because the role they play often is derogatory to their nature. If animals such as tigers, elephants and others are going to be used because they already are in captivity, provisions must be made to provide them with as natural as possible surroundings during their 'non-working' periods. That is, they should not be housed in small cages or bleak surroundings. Further, we urge celebrities to not participate in films in which any nonhuman animals are mistreated or in which the training or handling of the animals is kept from public scrutiny. Finally, we urge the public to avoid any films in which inhumane practices were used on the nonhuman animals or where there is legitimate concern that this occurred. Above all, we urge that only the most humane training and handling methods be used, and that the safety and welfare of the nonhuman animals be of the highest priority.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors November 1987)

Reference:
1. Pequet, B.: Animals in the movies. The Animals' Agenda 7: 26-28 (1987).

- Back to Top -

'Puppy Mills'

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) strongly opposes the existence of so-called puppy mills: establishments which breed numerous dogs for the 'pet' store trade. In these commercial undertakings, the basic physical and psychological needs of these dogs are subservient to the desire for a high enough survival rate to guarantee a profit. We object to this motive because it often creates an inhumane environment for these dogs. Furthermore, we find reprehensible the concept of breeding and marketing dogs in a world in which the overpopulation of dogs already is staggering. (It follows that we would find similar objections to situations in which cats would be treated in this manner.)

The AVAR recognizes that 'puppy mills' will continue to operate until an educated and compassionate society demands they be abolished. Until that time, however, we firmly advocate the unqualified improvement of the conditions under which puppies are raised in 'puppy mills.' We demand major improvements in the standards to include the following as a minimum: a) adequate shelter and protection from inclement weather, b) a nutritious diet, c) water available at all times, d) prompt and thorough veterinary medical care, e) adequate living space for each dog as well as generous time and facilities for exercise, f) an opportunity to socialize with other dogs and people, and g) clean, well-maintained facilities. In addition, it must be recognized that many of these dogs are passing on heritable developmental defects, both physical and behavioral, which may cause suffering as well as an early death either spontaneously or through the request of euthanasia. The dogs used for breeding should be certified free of detectable heritable defects which could result in suffering and premature death to the puppies. Moreover, the dogs used for breeding must be bred only at intervals which are not distressful and unhealthy; the females should not be viewed as 'puppy machines.'

We believe that responsibility for demanding these standards lies with the following: a) the 'pet' stores which profit from the sale of these dogs, b) the veterinary medical profession which does little to dissuade the 'pet' store trade, c) the individual state and community animal control and animal welfare officials in whose jurisdiction these establishments lie, and d) the American Kennel Club which registers these dogs thus misleading the public into believing they always are healthy representatives of their breed, and perpetuating the indefensible notion that purebred dogs are better.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors November 1987)

- Back to Top -

Genetic Engineering of Nonhuman Animals

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is in principle opposed to the genetic engineering of nonhuman animals. Our primary concern is that this technology will result in an intensification of nonhuman animal exploitation. In addition, humans simply do not have the capacity to fully evaluate and predict the effects that genetic engineering will have on the world and its inhabitants. Even though short-term good may come from genetic engineering, we believe that the long-term implications are too uncertain to be justified by these momentary gains.

With the advent of genetic engineering (transgenic) research on nonhuman animals, we fear a dramatic increase in the use of nonhuman animals for agricultural, biomedical and industrial experimentation. This experimentation cannot be effectively regulated because the outcome of such genetic experiments cannot be predicted in relation to animal health and welfare. Because some genetic alterations will alter nonhuman animal structure and physiology, new health problems will arise, resulting in suffering that may involve generations of animals. Even if veterinary medicine kept pace with these new problems, we believe this would be an inappropriate use of our skills and resources because the problems would be a direct result of artificial interference. Furthermore, there will be essentially no possibility of preventive therapy because the problems will be unknown until they occur. Because of the cost, the creators and 'owners' of transgenic nonhuman animals are likely not to aggressively seek solutions to these problems. This will serve to contribute to the sickness and suffering in these animals.

Because genetic engineering will largely be a commercial enterprise, this will likely result in monopoly of genetic stock and predominance of certain genetic lines of animals over others, resulting in an acceleration of the loss of genetic diversity already occurring within various species. This ultimately would have major adverse effects on agriculture with resultant adverse social, economic and ecological consequences. There also is the problem of the escape of genetically engineered animals into the environment. As history has shown in the case of other non-indigenous animals who have intruded into the free-living state, this is not an idle concern and the consequences are potentially disastrous.

Finally, there is the issue of respect for life. We believe that genetic engineering cannot be condoned on ethical grounds. We believe that change in the genetic composition of nonhuman animal species rightly should occur gradually over time in concert with natural forces (evolution). It is inappropriate and arrogant of humans to begin making 'new' species of nonhuman animals.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors December 1987)

- Back to Top -

Toe-clipping of Nonhuman Animals

Various species of nonhuman animals often are marked for individual identification by the technique known as toe-clipping. This technique is used in research projects involving rodents such as mice and guinea pigs, and reptiles such as lizards. It is done not only on those who are born and raised in laboratories, but also on those who are free-living (wild).

In this technique, anesthesia is not routinely used. Scissors or clippers are used to sever part of one or more of the digits of the feet. Not only is sensitive soft tissue such as skin cut, but also bone and joints, resulting in intense pain.

No rational person would ever consider severing part or all of a dog's or human's digits for identification, let alone without the use of anesthesia. There is no reason to believe that there is a meaningful difference between animals such as rodents, and dogs or humans with regards to pain receptors. The fact that the animals subjected to this procedure are small has no bearing on the suffering they must endure. For all practical purposes, the painful sensations experienced by guinea pigs, for example, are no different from those that would be experienced by a dog or a human.

Even if the acute trauma and pain are mitigated by anesthesia, there are other factors that are of concern. When the anesthetic has dissipated, there would be pain until the lesions healed. Because the animals must stand on their feet, the pain would be intensified and difficult to avoid. Hemorrhage may be severe enough to cause debilitation or death. There also are long-term effects on the animals who are toe-clipped. Some of the animals may develop osteomyelitis or cellulitis from open wounds in contact with contaminated bedding or other material. Both conditions are painful and may require weeks to heal, or may never heal and ultimately lead to the death of the animal. Moreover, with free-living animals, toe-clipping would put them at a disadvantage with respect to survival.

There is no scientific justification or need for toe-clipping, with or without anesthesia. The suffering associated with it is completely gratuitous and inhumane. Therefore, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is opposed to this practice, regardless of whether anesthesia is to be provided. There are relatively non-invasive and non-harmful methods of identification such as tail tattooing that can be used for some species. A new identification device, a microchip containing encoded information that can be read electronically, is in the process of being finalized. Other methods are available or can be developed if there is the need and the will. Toe-clipping is a brutal and painful practice that has no place in the scientific laboratory.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors January 1988)

- Back to Top -

'Factory Farming'

Cattle, pigs, chickens and other present day farm animals are domesticated descendants of free-living (wild) animals that our ancestors hunted. As agriculture began to evolve, humans caught and tamed these animals. The first farm animals were allowed to roam freely and live in social groups until slaughter. Extensive free range conditions were then replaced by semi-intensive conditions of raising the animals in enclosed pastures or fields. Animals were next put into intensive confinement systems with mechanization replacing human labor. The present conditions under which these animals are raised is termed 'factory farming' because the animals are treated as production units, not as living creatures. The number of animals presently raised like this and killed each year in the U.S. alone is about 5 billion, virtually dwarfing all other forms of nonhuman animal exploitation.

'Factory farming' is viewed favorably by the industry because there is the belief that this is a reasonable and economical means of providing food for humans. Under 'factory farming' conditions, the animals are reduced to economic units and are crowded into small spaces with the premise that this leads to efficiency. Because of the high degree of mechanization, 'factory farming' is not labor intensive which in turn is thought to make the final product less expensive. However, 'factory farming' is extremely capital intensive and studies have shown that the overall costs are about the same regardless if a capital or labor intensive system is used. A major concern of the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights, however, is with the quality of life experienced by the animals under 'factory farming' conditions.

'Factory farming' creates major problems for the animals mass produced in this fashion. Although some of the very basic and absolute physical needs of the animals are provided (such as food, water and shelter), the animals usually are not afforded the opportunity to live a life that is consistent with their behavioral and psychological needs. They often are so crowded that they cannot move about properly (e.g., with turkeys or so-called broiler chickens), or they may be housed individually under extremely tight conditions so that they cannot exercise at all or socialize with their conspecifics (e.g., with calves raised for veal).

There may be such a degree of inbreeding or breed specialization, that the animals may not be able to function normally (e.g., turkeys who are so chest-heavy that they cannot stay upright).

Some other problems which are common to farm animal husbandry, but which are intensified with 'factory farming' include: a) dehorning, branding, castration, tail docking and beak mutilation (beak trimming) without anesthesia, b) administration of various drugs, hormones and other chemicals which not only mask the underlying problems, but also create environmental and human hazards, and c) inhumane conditions at auctions and during transportation.

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights opposes in principle the raising of nonhuman animals for food and fiber. We recognize, however, that conversion to a purely plant-based diet and life-style is unlikely in the foreseeable future for most people. Until and if that time comes, we strongly advocate more humane means of raising nonhuman animals for human consumption. We believe that all farm animals should be provided with the following minimum: a) freedom of movement so they can groom themselves, make all natural postural adjustments and exercise, b) housing in compatible social groups under as natural conditions as possible so that there can be meaningful interaction with conspecifics, c) withholding of drugs, hormones and other artificial treatments except when the use of these would be considered medically necessary for the individual's welfare (with the proviso that proper environmental conditions are provided and that the use of medications is not simply to adjust for poor conditions), d) freedom from being subjected to unnecessary mutilation such as castration, debeaking or hot-iron branding (if a procedure is deemed necessary, it should be done at the earliest age possible and with the provision of anesthesia as needed), e) comfortable transportation when this is necessary, and f) provision of adequate veterinary medical care.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors January 1988)

- Back to Top -

Nonhuman Animals Used in Basic Sciences in Veterinary Medical School

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) is opposed to the harming or killing of dogs or other nonhuman animals in the teaching of parasitology, physiology, pharmacology, toxicology or other basic sciences in the veterinary medical school curriculum.

The traditional method of teaching the laboratory section of these courses, still prevalent at many schools, involves dividing the class of students into small groups - each group doing the required exercise on a different animal. Physiology and pharmacology exercises typically involve recording standard physiological data after injecting a variety of common drugs into an anesthetized animal. Toxicology exercises require poisoning unanesthetized animals with lethal or sub-lethal doses of known toxins and observing the signs of toxicity and death. Various groups may be instructed to attempt to reverse the toxicity with an antidote. Exercises in parasitology require infecting healthy animals of various species with parasites and then killing them to observe the effects of infection.

The AVAR's objections to this traditional method of teaching these basic science courses stem from several areas. Biology education at any level involves two components: 1) information exchange, and 2) technique development. The information to be learned in the basic sciences falls into the former category. Therefore, we believe the harming or killing of nonhuman animals in this regard is not justified.

The physiological data, signs of toxicity or pathological changes seen during these exercises are predictable. They are readily available in textbooks and in the manufacturer's drug descriptions. Many of the exercises readily lend themselves to demonstration on the students themselves (e.g., see Laboratory Investigations in Human Physiology by George K. Russell) or to simulation by computer. For example, cardiac output, blood pressure, and heart rate are just a few of the physiological parameters which can be simulated by computer and several of these programs are available. Students learning from a computer model have the advantage of being able to work at their own pace, repeat the exercise until mastered, work at a more advanced level if desired, and they do not have to participate in the harming or killing of an animal.

Toxicology and parasitology exercises can be replaced by video tapes of either an actual case presentation or a well done simulation. Videotapes can be reviewed by a student as often as needed to familiarize herself/himself with the signs and required steps for treatment needed to save or improve the life of the victim.

The physiology and pharmacology exercises are conducted by students in their first and second years of veterinary medical school, prior to any formal training in anesthesia or surgery. Therefore, it is unlikely that they will gain any meaningful psychomotor skills without this academic grounding in surgery.

Another objection to the harming or killing of nonhuman animals in basic science education stems from philosophical concerns. There are no morally relevant differences between the nonhuman animals who are used in these labs and the future patients of the students. For many students, this creates a serious conflict between becoming a 'healer' and killing the very subjects for whom they are in training to help. Regardless of how instructors present the rationalization for the use of nonhuman animals in these laboratories, an attitude of a certain degree of callousness and irreverence for nonhuman animal life is inherent. For some students, unfortunately, this attitude may be the one which they will carry into their practice of veterinary medicine. Other students may be highly disturbed by this lack of compassion and may even leave school as a result. Obviously, neither situation is desirable nor satisfactory for the future of the profession of veterinary medicine.

In summary, the AVAR finds unacceptable the continued use of nonhuman animals in the basic science courses where that use leads to harm or death of the animals. We strongly promote the use of already proven alternatives such as computers and videotapes and the further development of new alternatives. These alternatives will save the lives of many animals and should help to make the educational process in veterinary medicine more consistent with one of the expressed goals of the profession, namely compassion. Furthermore, the use of alternatives could conceivably result in the shortening of laboratory time allotted to basic science courses, leading to an increased amount of time available for clinical and surgical training which would be of direct benefit to future patients. (Adopted by the Board of Directors July 1988)

- Back to Top -

Rodeos

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights is opposed to rodeos. Many of the events which make up a rodeo utilize nonhuman animals in inhumane and intentionally violent acts in the name of 'entertainment.'

Examination of four of these events adequately illustrates this. Bronco riding requires the person to demonstrate spurring of the neck and shoulders of the horse to achieve a competitive score. The horse is provoked to buck by the use of a leather cinch called a flank strap that is tightened around the horse's caudal abdominal region.

Bull riding, likewise, involves the use of a bucking strap or rope around the animal's flank area to induce pain and subsequent violent bucking. In addition, electric prods are used on the bull (and other animals) in the chute prior to his release. Whereas it appears that the bull is trying to rid himself of the rider, it may be that he is reacting to the pain of the flank rope and the electric prodding.

Calf roping constitutes one of the most deliberately distressful and painful events of the rodeo. The calf often is subjected to painful tail twisting and electric prodding in a chute to encourage her/him to bolt out of the chute and run at top speed. The person on horseback pursues the calf and ropes her/him, flipping and smashing her/him abruptly to the ground. The person then dismounts, grabs the calf and ties her/his legs together. Some of the common injuries experienced by the calves include broken bones, bruises and damaged tracheas which may result in suffocation. We think these calves also experience psychological terror as well as physical trauma.

Steer wrestling, or 'bulldogging,' has several variations. Steer busting or roping involves roping a steer from horseback and galloping the horse at such an angle to trip and frequently flip the steer into the air and finally slam the animal to the ground. Because this event is so obviously brutal, it is conducted infrequently and has even been outlawed in one state, Texas. Unfortunately, it usually is replaced by other roping events which also are injurious.

The extensive physical trauma, as well as psychological terror experienced by the animals in rodeo events are obvious. Although many of these animals are able to survive an event with minor injuries, their only 'reward' is another similar event within a few days. Those calves, steers and bulls seriously injured are simply sent to slaughter. Furthermore, injured animals who are going to be kept do not often receive immediate veterinary attention.

In addition to the brutality of the events themselves, there is nothing resembling a normal existence for these unconsenting animals during the rodeo circuit. They are continually in transport, often in overcrowded trucks. Holding areas at the rodeo grounds often leave much to be desired and certainly do not allow for normal grazing activities during the rodeo season.

Although some rodeos adhere to the established guidelines of the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association (1), we find these guidelines insufficient in protecting the animals. Furthermore, the guidelines sometimes are ignored and the people involved are less than receptive to those concerned with the welfare of the animals.

There are no benefits to the nonhuman animals who are forced to participate in rodeos. Theirs can only be lives of pain, torment and drudgery. While rodeos may include events that are less deliberately violent to the animals, the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights cannot condone this form of activity nor can we consider it a legitimate form of entertainment because it thrives on displays of violence to nonhuman animals for its main attractions. Not only are rodeos harmful and disrespectful to the nonhuman animals used, we fear they also desensitize the viewers to the suffering of the animals. In particular, children watching these events cannot help but become brutalized and conditioned to regard nonhuman animals simply as objects to be used at the whim of humans. (Adopted by the Board of Directors July 1988)

Reference:
1. "Articles of Incorporation, By-laws and Rules," the Professional Rodeo Cowboys Association, Colorado Springs (1986).

- Back to Top -

Capture and Importation of Free-living (wild) Birds for the 'Pet' Trade

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) is fundamentally opposed to the keeping of free-living (wild) animals in captivity. This practice has numerous ethical considerations surrounding the 'ownership' of free-living animals. A primary concern is the violation of the animals' freedom to live according to natural inclinations and abilities. In addition, the demand for these animals contributes significantly to the decimation of entire species and the destruction of habitat. The situation surrounding the capture and importation of free-living birds is particularly egregious.

Most exotic birds sold in the U. S. are not hatched in captivity; they are captured from their natural habitat and imported into this country. From 1980 to 1984, over three million birds were imported into the U.S. to satisfy the demands of the U.S. bird trade. Most of these birds were taken from their native homes in Asia, Africa and Latin America. It is estimated that worldwide, a minimum of 7.5 million birds are taken from their natural habitat for the international bird trade every year.

All exotic birds sold as companions or commodities undergo tremendous stress and distress. They are captured in the most economical manner possible with little regard for the welfare of individuals. These methods include shooting to cripple, use of live decoy birds, destruction of habitat to reach nests, and the killing of parents to obtain offspring.

The demand for exotic birds is increasing, making the business of exotic bird trade very lucrative. As a result, smuggling and other illegal activities run rampant, making regulation of this industry extremely difficult. It is estimated that 50,000 to 100,000 live birds are brought into the U.S. illegally each year.

Transportation of these birds often is archaic and inhumane causing further suffering and death. Shipping crates and handling often are inadequate, causing many animals to die of dehydration, hyperthermia, hypothermia, starvation, shock, or asphyxiation. Overcrowding and fighting contribute to the problems. Those birds who make it to the 'pet' store alive often are unhealthy. The potential for introducing serious infectious diseases such as Newcastle disease is great.

It is estimated that as many as 83% or more of the captured birds die before they arrive at their destination. Of those who arrive in the U.S. for sale, about 60% die within the first month; 20% die within the first year; and, at the end of the second year, only 10% remain alive.

As with all free-living animals kept in captivity, it is difficult to adequately care for these birds. Few people can supply the birds' physical and nutritional needs, let alone their complex social needs. Too often, these once free-flying individuals are confined for the duration of their normally long lives to cramped cages and given minimal attention and care.

Ironically, the U.S. has prohibited the capture and sale of its indigenous birds since 1916, presumably for conservation purposes. It seems, therefore, logical to not allow the capture and importation of birds from other countries.

The capturing of free-living birds: 1) is inherently inhumane; 2) leads to the suffering of individual birds; 3) creates the potential for destruction of habitat and ecosystems; 4) contributes to the extinction of species; 5) places domestic birds in danger; and 6) is practically impossible to properly control. Therefore, the AVAR is opposed to all aspects of the capture and importation of free-living birds. Because the capture of free-living birds is intrinsically inhumane, it is the AVAR's position that no modifications can make the practice acceptable.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors, August 1990)

References:
Nilsson, G.: The Bird Business: A Study of the Commercial Cage Bird Trade. Animal Welfare Institute, Washington (1981).
Rosenberger, J.: The bird business. The Animals' Agenda 7: 17-18 (December 1987).

- Back to Top -

Use of Blood Donors

The Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR) believes that important ethical questions are raised when a particular nonhuman animal is kept solely as a source of blood for transfusion to another. If practical, efficacious and safe blood substitutes were available there would be no need to use live animals as blood donors. Until such time these are available, the AVAR recognizes that a source of blood for transfusion is necessary to sustain the life of some critically ill patients and to treat or prevent certain diseases using blood or blood components.

The ideal source of blood would be from blood banks, similar to the situation in human medicine. Human guardians would bring their nonhuman companions in for periodic blood donations. The risks, both medical and ethical, to the donor are minimal in this case. There also would be sufficient time for cross-matching and evaluation for blood-borne diseases.

Alternatively, there could be a cooperative arrangement with local shelters. In this case, those individuals who were donors would need some sort of compensation, perhaps in the form of assurance of adoption.

The AVAR generally is not in support of the keeping of dogs or cats permanently and solely as sources of blood. Although cats kept in veterinary medical clinics often can have a good life, it is more difficult to provide a high quality life for dogs under these circumstances. If the clinic is to go to the trouble and expense of keeping such an individual, it seems logical to question why the individual simply could not be kept as a companion of the proprietor or staff. He or she could be brought to the clinic daily or as needed, but then would have the luxury of later being able to be back in her or his home.

If the latter is not possible and a donor is to be kept in the clinic, the time as donor should be finite and short, perhaps less than six months. The length of time would be dependent upon the quality of life available under the circumstances. A formal adoption program or retirement facility should be identified in advance for these individuals.

The essential criteria the AVAR recommends to assure the ethical, medical and safety aspects of blood donor programs include: 1) the donor's needs must never become secondary to those of the recipient's; 2) donors need to be blood typed and cross-matched to ensure compatibility with recipient patients; and 3) donors need to be healthy and screened beforehand to establish that they are free of known blood-borne diseases.
(Adopted by the Board of Directors, August 1992)

- Back to Top -

Feral Cats and Trap-Neuter-Return (TNR)

The feral cat overpopulation crisis is a primary concern for the Association of Veterinarians for Animal Rights (AVAR). There are an estimated 40 to 60 million feral cats roaming the streets in this country alone. They account for more than half of all intakes and euthanasias in our nation’s animal shelters. The veterinary profession has a vital role to play in solving the nation’s animal overpopulation problems. Feral cat management can be accomplished through surgical or other means of sterilization, as well as through public education with the aim of reducing the number of cats abandoned and left to reproduce in the wild.

The traditional method of trapping and killing cats that has been in place in many communities for decades is not only inhumane, it is ineffective. Research has shown that new cats simply move in to take advantage of the food source when cats have been removed.

Taking into account the rights and needs of individual feral cats, as well as the feline and human population as a whole, AVAR supports trap-neuter-return (TNR) programs as the most humane and effective way to manage and work toward reducing the numbers of feral cats. The TNR protocol includes using baited humane traps to capture those cats who will not be taken willingly and bringing them to a participating veterinarian. They are given a physical examination and rabies vaccination, and then are sterilized and identified permanently by the removal of the tip of one ear pinna. Testing for Feline Leukemia and Feline Immunodeficiency Virus is not required but may be requested by individual colony caregivers.

Trap-neuter-return programs, which should always be coordinated with a permanent, responsible feral cat colony caregiver or system of caregivers, offer individual feral cats the most humane option for surviving in their environment. Once the cats are surgically sterilized, they suffer fewer fight wounds, no pregnancy complications, reduced risks of cancer and infectious diseases, and are healthier than unsterilized cats in unmanaged colonies. Additionally, long-term scientific studies have shown that TNR programs can stabilize and substantially reduce the numbers of feral cats in a colony, particularly when combined with adoption programs for any kittens found in the area. (e.g. “Evaluation of the effect of a long-term trap-neuter-return and adoption program on a free-roaming cat population,” JAVMA, Vol 222, No. 1, January 1, 2003; “A Model for Humane Reduction of Feral Cat Populations,” California Veterinarian, September/October 1999.) Once rabies vaccinated, feral cats are not only protected from this disease but act as a protective buffer between wildlife and human populations. In this way, TNR programs are protective of human public health. This is one important reason why some public health officials are recognizing the value of TNR and are becoming more supportive of such programs.

AVAR recognizes that feral cats, and all free-roaming cats for that matter, can present a threat to some wildlife. Of particular concern are areas where wildlife species are endangered and the environment is compromised. As a result, AVAR supports TNR programs that relocate feral cats into geographic areas that are not protected for endangered species. AVAR also encourages feral cat caregivers, whenever possible, to relocate feral cat colonies to areas which provide a safe environment for the cats.

Adopted by the Board of Directors November 2005.
- Back to Top -

Vegan and Vegetarian Cat and Dog Food Diets

A growing number of people are turning to vegetarian or plant-based diets for their own consumption and are interested in considering similar vegetarian or vegan diets for their companion cats and dogs. To this end, these diets must, at minimum, satisfy the animal’s caloric and nutritional needs with cognition of changing life stages; i.e., growth, maintenance, gestation, lactation, and senior activities. Choosing the right diet for the each life stage ensures adequate nutrition throughout life. Although diets labeled for “all life stages” will probably satisfy the nutritional requirements of the companion animal, these diets are calorie-dense and will often produce obesity when used as maintenance diets in non-gestating or non-lactating animals.

Health status also affects dietary needs. As such, there are special commercial diets and recipes available which have been formulated to aid in the treatment of certain diseases, such as diabetes melitis, renal failure, liver failure, inflammatory bowel diseases, bladder stone/crystal diseases and dietary allergic diseases. And, because of issues regarding digestibility and bio-availability, it is important for guardians to read and understand food labeling for ingredient lists, nutritional content, guaranteed analysis, and feeding guidelines.

Home-cooked diets are not regulated, and only veterinary nutritionist formulations should be used in order to help ensure that these diets will completely satisfy the nutritional needs of the cat or dog.

Vegetarian and Vegan Dog Food Diets:

Dogs are omnivores. Therefore, their nutritional needs can be satisfied with a plant-based diet. A variety of commercial vegetarian and vegan dog food diets and brands are available. Homemade vegetarian and vegan dog food diet recipes are available from a number of sources, including veterinary nutritionist dietary services. As with all diets, preference should be given to commercial diets that have been proven to be nutritionally adequate.

Vegetarian and Vegan Cat Food Diets:

Cats are obligate carnivores. While understanding of cat nutrition remains incomplete, it is clear that cats require a number of nutrients in their diet, including taurine, carnitine, and arachidonic acid, which normally are derived only from animal flesh. It is theoretically possible to augment plant-based diets with plant-derived or synthetic substitutes of necessary nutrients that normally come from animal flesh. But, in light of recent studies that have proven two commercial vegan diets to be nutritionally deficient, nutritional adequacy of plant-based cat food diets cannot at this time be reliably assured and are, therefore, not recommended. Further, long-term studies on the effects of plant-based cat diets are needed to insure that nutritional adequacy can be provided at all life stages of the cat.

While those humans who make an ethical and healthful choice to sustain themselves on a plant-based diet should be applauded, there remains an ethical quandary over imposing human philosophy regarding the harming and killing of animals onto other species. Further, until such time that a vegan diet for cats can be formulated so that there is no risk of harm to that animal’s life or health when fed that diet over time, cats should continue to be fed a diet containing animal flesh. For those people who absolutely cannot condone purchasing any animal products, they could conceivably obtain animal flesh to include in their companion cat’s diet from sources which do not rely on the purchase or support of animal agriculture, such as discards from restaurants,  animals killed on roadways, or animals who died of natural causes.

Adopted by the Board of Directors August 2006.

- Back to Top -