Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
News Subsite
Since I still don’t find I have the time to return to blogging about animal rights, I’ve created a news subsite — http://www.animalrights.net/news — which is basically a Digg clone. I’ll be posting links to news stories related to AR and others are free to submit and discuss stories there as well.
There are some anti-spam filters in place there, so spam should be kept to a minimum.
New Jersey Activists Arrested for Interfering with Bear Hunt and Making Terroristic Threats
As New Jersey’s bear hunt finally got underway after two years of controversy and efforts by animal rights activists to stop it permanently, four animal rights activists were charged with interfering with the hunt and one was additionally charged with making terroristic threats (and a bizarre threat at that).
Two members of the New Jersey Animal Rights Alliance — Angela Metler, 49 and Theresa Fritzges, 57 — were arrested on disorderly persons charges. Metler is the director of the NJARA, and Fritzges is the organization’s legislative coordinator. Both have played a key role in past efforts to prevent a bear hunt from going forward.
Arrested with them were Janet Piszar, 52, who was also charged with disorderly conduct, and Albert Kazemian, 49, who was charged with disorderly conduct and with making terroristic threats.
According to his arrest record, Kazemian allegedly told hunters and a state park officer,
I’ll get my Arab friends and hunt you down; see how you like it
Making a terroristic threat is a third-degree offense in New Jersey. Obstructing legal hunting is a misdemeanor punishable by fines from $100 to $500.
All four arrested activists are members of the Bear Education and Resource Group.
Almost 300 bears black beras were killed in the six-day hunting season that extended from Dec. 5 through Dec. 10. It was only the second bear hunt in 35 years in New Jersey (a similar hunt in 2003 claimed 328 bears).
Source:
Four arrested, 216 bears taken, in N.J. hunt. Douglas Crouse, The Daily Record, December 11, 2005.
N.J. Hunters Killed At Least 297 Bears During Hunt. Associated Press, December 11, 2005.
Tags: Uncategorized
Paul McCartney: Bambi and Dumbo Turned Me Into an Animal Rights Activist
Typically, it is opponents of animal rights activist who charge that it is popular culture’s anthropomorphization of animals in animated fare like “Bambi” that turns people into animal rights activists. I’ve seen numerous people say they’d never let their kids what “Bambi” or “The Rats of NIMH” for precisely this reason (for the record, I think such concerns are largely absurd).
But along comes Paul McCartney who recently told the UK press that it was movies like “Bambi” and stories like “Dumbo” that turned him into an animal rights activist.
The Press Association quoted McCartney as saying,
If you think of Bambi, its mum gets killed by a hunter, and I think that made me grow-up thinking hunting isn’t cool. It always gave me that idea.
You look through a lot of these great stories. Dumbo, his mum is quite badly treated. A lot of these classic stories, through their efforts, kids, as I once was, have grown up feeling it’s a bad idea to be cruel to animals.
First, if I remember correctly, the animals in all these books also speak remarkably good English. I hope the reporter asked a follow-up question about whether or not McCartney also believes that deer and rabbits speak English to each other when human beings aren’t around.
Second, there is a qualitative difference in opposing animal cruelty and opposing almost every conceivable animal/human interaction as the group that McCartney shills for, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, does. (Except, of course, McCartney and his late wife Linda opposed things like animal research until she needed the fruits of that research to fight her breast cancer — then, well, screw the animals, that was a matter of life and death).
Source:
‘Bambi’ turned McCartney vegetarian. The Press Association, December 13, 2005.
Tags: Paul McCartney
HR 3931 - Downer Ban Bill
109TH CONGRESS
H. R. 3931
1ST SESSION
To amend the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act of 1958 to
ensure the humane slaughter of nonambulatory livestock, and for other
purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SEPTEMBER 28, 2005
Mr. ACKERMAN (for himself, Mr. LATOURETTE, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. SIM-
MONS, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. WEXLER, Mrs. TAUSCHER,
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California, Mr. NADLER, Mr. CROWLEY, Ms.
ESHOO, Ms. KAPTUR, Mrs. MCCARTHY, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr.
BROWN of Ohio, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. MOORE of Kansas, Ms. LEE, Mr.
SHERMAN, Mr. MCNULTY, Mr. DICKS, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island,
Mr. HOLT, Ms. SOLIS, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mr. LARSON of
Connecticut, Mr. KIRK, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. STARK, Mr. HONDA, Mr.
MCGOVERN, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. ISRAEL, Ms. KILPATRICK of Michi-
gan, Ms. BORDALLO, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Mr. RUSH, Ms. NOR-
TON, Mr. OWENS, Mr. KUCINICH, Mr. OLVER, Mr. PALLONE, Ms. WOOL-
SEY, Mr. SABO, Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. UDALL
of Colorado, Mr. SERRANO, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr.
INSLEE, Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland, Mr. ABERCROMBIE, Ms. ZOE
LOFGREN of California, Mr. KILDEE, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. FARR, Mrs.
DAVIS of California, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mrs. NAPOLITANO, Mr. SCHIFF,
Mr. WEINER, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. LANTOS, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Mr.
LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. PAYNE, Mrs. BIGGERT, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE
JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. TOWNS, Mr. FOLEY, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. UDALL
of New Mexico, Ms. CARSON, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr.
CUMMINGS, Mrs. CAPPS, Ms. MCCOLLUM of Minnesota, Mr. RANGEL,
Mr. SHAYS, Mr. WELDON of Pennsylvania, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. FERGUSON,
Ms. BERKLEY, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. KING of
New York, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. WOLF, Mr. GERLACH, Mr.
ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. GALLEGLY, Mrs. KELLY,
Mr. BERMAN, Mr. SAXTON, and Mr. WYNN) introduced the following bill;
which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture
2
A BILL
To amend the Humane Methods of Livestock Slaughter Act
of 1958 to ensure the humane slaughter of non-
ambulatory livestock, and for other purposes.
1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
4 This Act may be cited as the ``Downed Animal Pro-
5 tection Act''.
6 SEC. 2. FINDING AND DECLARATION OF POLICY.
7 (a) FINDING.--Congress finds that the humane
8 euthanization of nonambulatory livestock in interstate and
9 foreign commerce--
10 (1) prevents needless suffering;
11 (2) results in safer and better working condi-
12 tions for persons handling livestock;
13 (3) brings about improvement of products and
14 reduces the likelihood of the spread of diseases that
15 have a great and deleterious impact on interstate
16 and foreign commerce in livestock; and
17 (4) produces other benefits for producers, proc-
18 essors, and consumers that tend to expedite an or-
19 derly flow of livestock and livestock products in
20 interstate foreign commerce.
HR 3931 IH
3
1 (b) DECLARATION OF POLICY.--It is the policy of the
2 United States that all nonambulatory livestock in inter-
3 state and foreign commerce shall be immediately and hu-
4 manely euthanized when such livestock become non-
5 ambulatory.
6 SEC. 3. UNLAWFUL SLAUGHTER PRACTICES INVOLVING
7 NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.
8 (a) IN GENERAL.--Public Law 85765 (commonly
9 known as the ``Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of
10 1958'') (7 U.S.C. 1901 et seq.) is amended by inserting
11 after section 2 (7 U.S.C. 1902) the following:
12 ``SEC. 3. NONAMBULATORY LIVESTOCK.
13 ``(a) DEFINITIONS.--In this section:
14 ``(1) COVERED term `covered en-
ENTITY.--The
15 tity' means--
16 ``(A) a stockyard;
17 ``(B) a market agency;
18 ``(C) a dealer;
19 ``(D) a packer;
20 ``(E) a slaughter facility; or
21 ``(F) an establishment.
22 ``(2) ESTABLISHMENT.--The term `establish-
23 ment' means an establishment that is covered by the
24 Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
25 seq.).
HR 3931 IH
4
1 ``(3) HUMANELY term `hu-
EUTHANIZE.--The
2 manely euthanize' means to immediately render an
3 animal unconscious by mechanical, chemical, or
4 other means, with this state remaining until the
5 death of the animal.
6 ``(4) NONAMBULATORY term
LIVESTOCK.--The
7 `nonambulatory livestock' means any cattle, sheep,
8 swine, goats, or horses, mules, or other equines, that
9 will not stand and walk unassisted.
10 ``(5) SECRETARY.--The term `Secretary' means
11 the Secretary of Agriculture.
12 ``(b) HUMANE TREATMENT, HANDLING, DIS-
AND
13 Secretary shall promulgate regulations to
POSITION.--The
14 provide for the humane treatment, handling, and disposi-
15 tion of all nonambulatory livestock by covered entities, in-
16 cluding a requirement that nonambulatory livestock be hu-
17 manely euthanized.
18 ``(c) HUMANE EUTHANASIA.--
19 ``(1) IN to paragraph (2),
GENERAL.--Subject
20 when an animal becomes nonambulatory, a covered
21 entity shall immediately humanely euthanize the
22 nonambulatory livestock.
23 ``(2) DISEASE (1) shall
TESTING.--Paragraph
24 not limit the ability of the Secretary to test non-
HR 3931 IH
5
1 ambulatory livestock for a disease, such as Bovine
2 Spongiform Encephalopathy.
3 ``(d) MOVEMENT.--
4 ``(1) IN covered entity shall not
GENERAL.--A
5 move nonambulatory livestock while the non-
6 ambulatory livestock are conscious.
7 ``(2) UNCONSCIOUSNESS.--In the case of any
8 nonambulatory livestock that are moved, the covered
9 entity shall ensure that the nonambulatory livestock
10 remain unconscious until death.
11 ``(e) INSPECTIONS.--
12 ``(1) IN shall be unlawful for an
GENERAL.--It
13 inspector at an establishment to pass through in-
14 spection any nonambulatory livestock or carcass (in-
15 cluding parts of a carcass) of nonambulatory live-
16 stock.
17 ``(2) LABELING.--An inspector or other em-
18 ployee of an establishment shall label, mark, stamp,
19 or tag as `inspected and condemned' any material
20 described in paragraph (1).''.
21 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.--
22 (1) IN as provided in para-
GENERAL.--Except
23 graph (2), the amendment made by subsection (a)
24 takes effect on the date that is 1 year after the date
25 of enactment of this Act.
HR 3931 IH
6
1 (2) REGULATIONS.--Not later than 1 year after
2 the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of
3 Agriculture shall promulgate final regulations to im-
4 plement the amendment made by subsection (a).
HR 3931 IH
Tags: Uncategorized
Dr. Terasawa Response
To: Eric Sandgren, Chair of the Graduate School ACUC
From: [REDACTED]
Date: May 7, 2003
Re: Protocol [REDACTED]
I am writing this memo to clarify the issue regarding “continuous observation of chaired monkeys during the push-pull perfusion,” which appears in Questions [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].
In [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] we state that “During the actual push-pull perfusion experiments animals will be continuously attended by our research staff.” Concern was raised regarding this statement, because one monkey [REDACTED] died while the scientist who was conducting this project was away for a brief lunch.
This statement was present in a protocol agreement approved in the late 1980’s. At that time we could eat and drink in the same laboratory where experiments were conducted, and we had to collect samples manually every 10 minutes. Sometime in the 1990’s the rule changed so that no eating and drinking were allowed in the animal area. Thus, we purchased a fraction collector, with which sample collections can be conducted automatically at 10-minute intervals, and scientific staff can have lunch and supper during the long course (10-16 hours) of sample collection.
As we also stated in [REDACTED], this experiment requires a quiet and stable condition. Especially, during the sample collection, it is important for an experimenter to keep a continuous “private” condition in which he/she established a “rapport” with a monkey. Many monkeys are very sensitive to strangers or intrusion by other scientific staff, even though they are familiar with those monkeys. Thus, we did not make arrangements to have substitute personnel come in while the experimenter was away for eating, drinking and bathroom necessity. After the death of [REDACTED], we realize that the word “continuously” could mislead our situation.
We will make a revision in the protocol stating that “During the actual push-pull perfusion experiments animals will be continuously attended by our research staff, except for a few brief breaks of no more than 20 min for bathroom, eating and other incidental needs”. (The application to the revision will be submitted before the June meeting.) Meanwhile, we will implement the practice of having substitute personnel present while the experimenter is away from the experimental room up to 20 min. The substitute personnel will not be visible to the monkey while in the experimental room.
Finally, I would like to point out the fact that [REDACTED] was in good health prior to cannula insertion followed by chairing as well as during push-pull perfusion experiment until right before the experimenter left for a 25-minute lunch. (The monkey was checked by the vet staff prior to the procedure starting, as is our standard procedure.) The death of [REDACTED] could have occurred in her home cage, rather than in a chair, because she was 31 years old (equivalent to 90 years old in humans), and because she had a pathological condition, specifically cerebral edema or emboli formed from the left atrioventricular valve thrombus, based on the necropsy record.
Tags: Uncategorized
University of Wisconsin Report on Terasawa Research
To: Christine Parks
RARC
From: [REDACTED]
RE: Protocol G00146
Date: July 1, 2003
[REDACTED] and [REDACTED] cross-compared the protocols (see below) and records obtained from all possible sources (e.g., colony records, laboratory note books, check sheets) and compiled a list of discrepancies between approved protocols and actual records. The apparent and potential violations are summarized below. The period of this investigation is from March 2000 to present. The tabulated information in detail is available upon request.
Protocol approval date: 3/13/00 with final amendment on 4/19/00
Major amendment approval date: 10/15/01
Minor amendment date: 05/20/02
Renewal approval date: 04/14/03
1. Apparent Violations
- Bret left animals during the push-pull-perfusion (PPP) experiment for lunch 4 times. The protocol states that animals will be attended continuously. One animal died in the chair while Bret was at lunch.
- In 24 PPP experiments in 11 animals, 4 different drug challenges were given. The 3/13/00 protocol did not contain this, but in the 10/15/01 protocol the maximum number of drug challenges was added to be three.
- Five drugs (the ATP sensitive potassium channel blockers, tolbutamide and glybenclamide; the purinergic receptor blockers, PPADS and suramin; and the ATP hydrolysor, apyrase) that had not been stated in the 10/15/01 protocol were examined with PPP experiments.
- In 15 PPP experiments ATP doses exceeded the dose range stated in the protocols.
- In 2 animals more than 12 PPP experiments were conducted (1 animal with 13 times; 1 animal with 15 times). The 3/13/00 protocol did not contain this, but in the 10/15/01 protocol the maximum number of PPP was added to 12.
- One c-section resulting in a 4th major surgery (the 3/13/00 protocol stated that the maximum number of major surgeries was 3. This confusion occurred because the protocol stated that “the animals used for the project 1 (puberty-project) with PPP experiment can be used for breeding females in project 2, in which 3 c-sections were allowed”.
2. Inadvertent Violations
- Five animals received reheadcap surgeries. This procedure was not described in the 3/13/00 protocol, but it was added in 10/15/01 protocol.
- In 15 animals blood draws were conducted on project 2, in which no blood draw was described. In projects 1 and 4 blood drawings are described.
- In 12 animals more than 4 ml of bloods were drawn in one week. The protocol stated that taking more than 4 ml/week of bloods requires CBC. (See also related problems in No.3).
- Forty-two animals received higher doses (up to 20 mg/kg) of ketamine. The protocol stated that ketamine dose will be 10-15 mg/kg.
- Antibiotics were given to 18 animals after PPP experiments. In most cases a staff veterinarian approved the treatment, but consent was not in writing. In fact, Carol Emerson suggested antibiotics after PPP experiments on a regular basis.
- Prophylactic antibiotics were given before and after surgeries, such as cranial pedestal implantation as well as cranial pedestal repair and removal, in 59 animals. Staff veterinarians knew of this practice, but we failed to describe it in the protocol.
3. Errors due to Reproductive Services for Breeding in Our Animals
- In 7 animals Reproductive Services took blood samples up to 14 ml in a week under our protocol.
- Reproductive Services conducted ultrasounds in 8 animals under our protocol. Ultrasound examination was not described in the protocol.
4. Record Errors
r94070 6/15/01 Remark by a veterinary assistant says "in chair".
However, this animal did not have cranial pedestal at
this time and there is no chairing record. So, there is no
way that she was in chair.
r96130 7/10/00-7/14/00 Record says she was in chair after cranial pedestal
removal. This is not possible.
r96112 8/8/00 The animal should be 96119. Record has been corrected.
r99046 6/12/01 The animal should be 97046. Record has been corrected.
r98003 6/12/01 The animal should be 98033. Record has been corrected.
r98040 7/10/01 The animal should be 98049. Record has been corrected.
r84108 10/3/00 This monkey does not belong to this protocol, because it
is a male. To take blood Reproductive Services assigned to
our protocol.
rhaa56 10/3/00 This monkey does not belong to this protocol, because it
is a male. To take blood Reproductive Services assigned to
our protocol.
r87100 12/8/00 This monkey does not belong to this protocol, because it
is a male. To take blood Reproductive Services assigned
to our protocol.
rhaq36 4/30/01 Cranial pedestal removal surgery was stated as major
surgery.
r93061 3/13/01 Cranial pedestal removal surgery was stated as major
surgery.
rh1935 10/8/01-10/11/01 Chairing is not stated in colony record.
rh2116 05/14/01 Record states "out of chair on 5/14". But it should be 5/4,
because there is no way that she was in chair for 13 days.
rh2118 04/25/01 PPP experiment was conducted on 4/26/01. The date of
the out chair should be 4/26/01.
r93058 12/10/02 PPP experiment was conducted on 12/11/02. The date of
the out of chair should be 12/11/02.
r96082 11/27/00-11/29/00 Chairing is not stated in colony record.
r98033 1/6/03-1/8/03 Chairing is not stated in colony record.
r99031 2/18/02 & 2/19/01 Two records of cannulation. 2/19/01 is correct, based on
chairing record.
r99031 03/12/02 Cannulated three weeks after last time by accident.
However no PPP experiment was conducted.
r99077 09/10/01 Record says that pedestal repair and cannula implantation.
Only cranial pedestal repair surgery was conducted.
r01050 10/14/02 There is no record saying that ketamine was
injected.
rhYO3 05/12/01 Cannulation date should be corrected to 14th, based on
the chairing record and the PPP experiment, which was
conducted on the 17th.
5. Others
- Three animals had skin lesions after chairing.
* * * * * *
All “Apparent Violations” were recognized during the review process for the renewal of recent protocol (approved on 04/14/03) and discussed with the Graduate School IACUC. Also, my letter date 6/5/02 in response the Dr. Eric Sandgren’s letter date 5/13/03 dealt with some of the issues. Thus, they have been resolved.
Most of the “Inadvertent Violations” are due to unrealistic descriptions in the previous protocol or absence of our recognition, e.g., the activity by the Reproductive Services Unit. We will submit an amendment to correct these errors:
1. A series of 3 ml blood draws up to 12 ml in an experiment will be added to project 2 and project 4.
2. Ketamine dose will be changed from 10-15 mg/kg to 10-20 mg/kg.
3. Prophylactic antibiotic treatments before and after surgeries such as cranial pedestal implantation, cranial pedestal repair and removal, will be added to the protocol.
4. Activities of the Reproductive Services Unit, such as blood draw up to 14 ml/week, ultrasound examination and possible artificial insemination, will be added to the protocol.
Examination of clinical records from 2000 - 2003 by Christine Parks and Amanda Crumbaugh.
- Unsual number of death/serious illness in animals used late 2000 - mid 2002 (23 monkeys used; events of use included even if outside above date range.) Some of the animals were aged. The following are summaries/quotes from the clinical records.
- rhap53-Died 6/17/02, 6 days after experiment (push pull perfusion). Necropsy report in clinical record said : “The infarct and thrombus most likely occurred during the experimental procedure 6 days prior to death. They could account for the latered mentation reported clinically, but the ventricular hemorrhage and acute brain swelling are the most probable reason for the monkeys rapid clinical decline and demise.”
- rhao21 - In 2001, animal had problems such as lethargy, inappetence, lying down in cage after experiment, cannula implant infection, holding hand stiffly, ulcers. Was noted to have a guarded prognosis but recovered (3/2001). Used again in late 2001 and January 2002; ulcers on 1/29/2002.
- 95105 - 3/11 cannulated On 03/15/2002 - poor recovery after experiment (vomiting, lethargy, laying down in cage, dehydrated). 5/28/02 cannula placed. 5/31/2002 - “lethargic and not eating post procedure; evolved to apnea; good hr and pulse; no spontaneous respiration; pc02 61.4 mmttg; pupils fixed and dilated; elected euthanasia - by i.b.” Necropsy: Cerebral/cerebellum edema but no histological diagnosis due to accidental freezing of tissue.
- rh2116 - 03/06/2002 - “received emergency (sic) call that chaired animal had died; dead at least 5 minutes (no crt), attempted chest compressions; no heart beat/blood pressure; called pathologist on duty, left message - by [REDACTED]. Three moderate to severe ulcers on caudal thigh, pressure point in chair; blood on ulcers - by [REDACTED] . . .” Blood clot in heart found on necropsy: probably throwing thrombi into circulation. Laboratory notebook noted that something unspecified is “bloody” or “pinkish” while in the chair.
- 00046 - 11/08/2002 “in chair on experiment; ulcer (1cm) noted on left foot; cleaned and applied ointment; some swelling of foot, foot is warm; able to use foot and is eating; plan-observe - by [REDACTED]” “removed from cahir (sic) procedure 11-7 p.m.; left ankle appears irritated with open sore present on lateral surface; appears bright, alert, responsive and hydrated with good attitude; discuss treatment with vet- by j.b.”
- 00040 - 12/20/200 - “post push-pull observation-animal is lethargic” 12/21/200 - “down in cage; eyes open; will move if touched; push-pull procedure ended 12/20; antibiotic started 12/20; plan- collect cbc/chemistry; monitor closely; [REDACTED] ” Lethargic for a few more days but improved by
Tags: Uncategorized
Illinois House Bill 1486 - Snare Legalization
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
| 1 | AN ACT concerning wildlife.
|
||||||
| 2 | Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois,
|
||||||
| 3 | represented in the General Assembly:
|
||||||
| 4 | Section 5. The Wildlife Code is amended by changing |
||||||
| 5 | Sections 2.33 and 2.33a as follows:
|
||||||
| 6 | (520 ILCS 5/2.33) (from Ch. 61, par. 2.33)
|
||||||
| 7 | Sec. 2.33. Prohibitions.
|
||||||
| 8 | (a) It is unlawful to carry or possess any gun in any
State |
||||||
| 9 | refuge unless otherwise permitted by administrative rule.
|
||||||
| 10 | (b) It is unlawful to use or possess any cable restraint
|
||||||
| 11 | snare or like
snare-like device,
deadfall, net, or pit trap to |
||||||
| 12 | take any species, except that cable restraints
snares not
|
||||||
| 13 | powered by springs, spring poles, or other mechanical devices |
||||||
| 14 | may be used to trap
fur-bearing mammals on land with written |
||||||
| 15 | permission from the land owner or tenant of the land , in water |
||||||
| 16 | sets only, if at least one-half of the snare
noose is located |
||||||
| 17 | underwater at all times.
|
||||||
| 18 | (c) It is unlawful for any person at any time to take a |
||||||
| 19 | wild mammal
protected by this Act from its den by means of any |
||||||
| 20 | mechanical device,
spade, or digging device or to use smoke or |
||||||
| 21 | other gases to dislodge or
remove such mammal except as |
||||||
| 22 | provided in Section 2.37.
|
||||||
| 23 | (d) It is unlawful to use a ferret or any other small |
||||||
| 24 | mammal which is
used in the same or similar manner for which |
||||||
| 25 | ferrets are used for the
purpose of frightening or driving any |
||||||
| 26 | mammals from their dens or hiding places.
|
||||||
| 27 | (e) (Blank).
|
||||||
| 28 | (f) It is unlawful to use spears, gigs, hooks or any like |
||||||
| 29 | device to
take any species protected by this Act.
|
||||||
| 30 | (g) It is unlawful to use poisons, chemicals or explosives |
||||||
| 31 | for the
purpose of taking any species protected by this Act.
|
||||||
| 32 | (h) It is unlawful to hunt adjacent to or near any peat, |
||||||
|
|||||||
| 1 | grass,
brush or other inflammable substance when it is burning.
|
||||||
| 2 | (i) It is unlawful to take, pursue or intentionally harass |
||||||
| 3 | or disturb
in any manner any wild birds or mammals by use or |
||||||
| 4 | aid of any vehicle or
conveyance, except as permitted by the |
||||||
| 5 | Code of Federal Regulations for the
taking of waterfowl. It is |
||||||
| 6 | also unlawful to use the lights of any vehicle
or conveyance or |
||||||
| 7 | any light from or any light connected to the
vehicle or |
||||||
| 8 | conveyance in any area where wildlife may be found except in
|
||||||
| 9 | accordance with Section 2.37 of this Act; however, nothing in |
||||||
| 10 | this
Section shall prohibit the normal use of headlamps for the |
||||||
| 11 | purpose of driving
upon a roadway. Striped skunk, opossum, red |
||||||
| 12 | fox, gray
fox, raccoon and coyote may be taken during the open |
||||||
| 13 | season by use of a small
light which is worn on the body or |
||||||
| 14 | hand-held by a person on foot and not in any
vehicle.
|
||||||
| 15 | (j) It is unlawful to use any shotgun larger than 10 gauge |
||||||
| 16 | while
taking or attempting to take any of the species protected |
||||||
| 17 | by this Act.
|
||||||
| 18 | (k) It is unlawful to use or possess in the field any |
||||||
| 19 | shotgun shell loaded
with a shot size larger than lead BB or |
||||||
| 20 | steel T (.20 diameter) when taking or
attempting to take any |
||||||
| 21 | species of wild game mammals (excluding white-tailed
deer), |
||||||
| 22 | wild game birds, migratory waterfowl or migratory game birds |
||||||
| 23 | protected
by this Act, except white-tailed deer as provided for |
||||||
| 24 | in Section 2.26 and other
species as provided for by subsection |
||||||
| 25 | (l) or administrative rule.
|
||||||
| 26 | (l) It is unlawful to take any species of wild game, except
|
||||||
| 27 | white-tailed deer, with a shotgun loaded with slugs unless |
||||||
| 28 | otherwise
provided for by administrative rule.
|
||||||
| 29 | (m) It is unlawful to use any shotgun capable of holding |
||||||
| 30 | more than 3
shells in the magazine or chamber combined, except |
||||||
| 31 | on game breeding and
hunting preserve areas licensed under |
||||||
| 32 | Section 3.27 and except as permitted by
the Code of Federal |
||||||
| 33 | Regulations for the taking of waterfowl. If the shotgun
is |
||||||
| 34 | capable of holding more than 3 shells, it shall, while being |
||||||
| 35 | used on an
area other than a game breeding and shooting |
||||||
| 36 | preserve area licensed
pursuant to Section 3.27, be fitted with |
||||||
|
|||||||
| 1 | a one piece plug that is
irremovable without dismantling the |
||||||
| 2 | shotgun or otherwise altered to
render it incapable of holding |
||||||
| 3 | more than 3 shells in the magazine and
chamber, combined.
|
||||||
| 4 | (n) It is unlawful for any person, except persons who |
||||||
| 5 | possess a permit to
hunt from a vehicle as provided in this |
||||||
| 6 | Section and persons otherwise permitted
by law, to have or |
||||||
| 7 | carry any gun in or on any vehicle, conveyance or aircraft,
|
||||||
| 8 | unless such gun is unloaded and enclosed in a case, except that |
||||||
| 9 | at field trials
authorized by Section 2.34 of this Act, |
||||||
| 10 | unloaded guns or guns loaded with blank
cartridges only, may be |
||||||
| 11 | carried on horseback while not contained in a case, or
to have |
||||||
| 12 | or carry any bow or arrow device in or on any vehicle unless |
||||||
| 13 | such bow
or arrow device is unstrung or enclosed in a case, or |
||||||
| 14 | otherwise made
inoperable.
|
||||||
| 15 | (o) It is unlawful to use any crossbow for the purpose of |
||||||
| 16 | taking any
wild birds or mammals, except as provided for in |
||||||
| 17 | Section 2.33.
|
||||||
| 18 | (p) It is unlawful to take game birds, migratory game birds |
||||||
| 19 | or
migratory waterfowl with a rifle, pistol, revolver, or |
||||||
| 20 | airgun.
|
||||||
| 21 | (q) It is unlawful to fire a rifle, pistol, revolver or |
||||||
| 22 | airgun on,
over or into any waters of this State, including |
||||||
| 23 | frozen waters.
|
||||||
| 24 | (r) It is unlawful to discharge any gun or bow and arrow |
||||||
| 25 | device
along, upon, across, or from any public right-of-way or |
||||||
| 26 | highway in this State.
|
||||||
| 27 | (s) It is unlawful to use a silencer or other device to |
||||||
| 28 | muffle or
mute the sound of the explosion or report resulting |
||||||
| 29 | from the firing of
any gun.
|
||||||
| 30 | (t) It is unlawful for any person to trap or hunt, or allow |
||||||
| 31 | a dog to
hunt, within or upon the land of another, or upon |
||||||
| 32 | waters flowing over or
standing on the land of another, without |
||||||
| 33 | first obtaining permission from
the owner or tenant. It shall |
||||||
| 34 | be prima facie evidence that a person does
not have permission |
||||||
| 35 | of the owner or tenant if the person is unable to
demonstrate |
||||||
| 36 | to the law enforcement officer in the field that permission has
|
||||||
|
|||||||
| 1 | had
been obtained. This provision may only be rebutted by |
||||||
| 2 | testimony of the
owner or tenant that permission had been |
||||||
| 3 | given. Before enforcing this
Section the law enforcement |
||||||
| 4 | officer must have received notice from the
owner or tenant of a |
||||||
| 5 | violation of this Section. Statements made to the
law |
||||||
| 6 | enforcement officer regarding this notice shall not be rendered
|
||||||
| 7 | inadmissible by the hearsay rule when offered for the purpose |
||||||
| 8 | of showing the
required notice.
|
||||||
| 9 | (u) It is unlawful for any person to discharge any firearm |
||||||
| 10 | for the purpose
of taking any of the species protected by this |
||||||
| 11 | Act, or hunt with dog
gun or gun
dog, or allow a dog to hunt, |
||||||
| 12 | within 300 yards of an inhabited dwelling without
first |
||||||
| 13 | obtaining permission from the owner or tenant, except that |
||||||
| 14 | while
trapping, hunting with bow and arrow, hunting with dog |
||||||
| 15 | and shotgun using shot
shells only, or hunting with shotgun |
||||||
| 16 | using shot shells only, or
on licensed game breeding and |
||||||
| 17 | hunting preserve areas, as defined in Section
3.27, on property |
||||||
| 18 | operated under a Migratory Waterfowl Hunting Area Permit, on
|
||||||
| 19 | federally owned and managed lands and on Department owned, |
||||||
| 20 | managed, leased or
controlled lands, a 100 yard restriction |
||||||
| 21 | shall apply.
|
||||||
| 22 | (v) It is unlawful for any person to remove fur-bearing |
||||||
| 23 | mammals from, or
to move or disturb in any manner, the traps or |
||||||
| 24 | cable restraints owned by another person without
written |
||||||
| 25 | authorization of the owner to do so.
|
||||||
| 26 | (w) It is unlawful for any owner of a dog to knowingly or |
||||||
| 27 | wantonly allow
his or her dog to pursue, harass or kill deer, |
||||||
| 28 | except that nothing in this Section shall prohibit the tracking |
||||||
| 29 | of wounded deer with a dog in accordance with the provisions of |
||||||
| 30 | Section 2.26 of this Code.
|
||||||
| 31 | (x) It is unlawful for any person to wantonly or carelessly |
||||||
| 32 | injure
or destroy, in any manner whatsoever, any real or |
||||||
| 33 | personal property on
the land of another while engaged in |
||||||
| 34 | hunting or trapping on that land
thereon.
|
||||||
| 35 | (y) It is unlawful to hunt wild game protected by this Act |
||||||
| 36 | between one
half hour after sunset and one half hour before |
||||||
|
|||||||
| 1 | sunrise, except that
hunting hours between one half hour after |
||||||
| 2 | sunset and one half hour
before sunrise may be established by |
||||||
| 3 | administrative rule for fur-bearing
mammals.
|
||||||
| 4 | (z) It is unlawful to take any game bird (excluding wild |
||||||
| 5 | turkeys and
crippled pheasants not capable of normal flight and |
||||||
| 6 | otherwise irretrievable)
protected by this Act when not flying. |
||||||
| 7 | Nothing in this Section shall prohibit
a person from carrying |
||||||
| 8 | an uncased, unloaded shotgun in a boat, while in pursuit
of a |
||||||
| 9 | crippled migratory waterfowl that is incapable of normal |
||||||
| 10 | flight, for the
purpose of attempting to reduce the migratory |
||||||
| 11 | waterfowl to possession, provided
that the attempt is made |
||||||
| 12 | immediately upon downing the migratory waterfowl and
is done |
||||||
| 13 | within 400 yards of the blind from which the migratory |
||||||
| 14 | waterfowl was
downed. This exception shall apply only to |
||||||
| 15 | migratory game birds that are not
capable of normal flight. |
||||||
| 16 | Migratory waterfowl that are crippled may be taken
only with a |
||||||
| 17 | shotgun as regulated by subsection (j) of this Section using
|
||||||
| 18 | shotgun shells as regulated in subsection (k) of this Section.
|
||||||
| 19 | (aa) It is unlawful to use or possess any device that may |
||||||
| 20 | be used for
tree climbing or cutting, while hunting fur-bearing |
||||||
| 21 | mammals.
|
||||||
| 22 | (bb) It is unlawful for any person, except licensed game |
||||||
| 23 | breeders,
pursuant to Section 2.29 to import, carry into, or |
||||||
| 24 | possess alive in this
State any species of wildlife taken |
||||||
| 25 | outside of this State, without
obtaining permission to do so |
||||||
| 26 | from the Director.
|
||||||
| 27 | (cc) It is unlawful for any person to have in his or her
|
||||||
| 28 | possession any freshly killed species protected by this Act |
||||||
| 29 | during the season
closed for taking.
|
||||||
| 30 | (dd) It is unlawful to take any species protected by this |
||||||
| 31 | Act and retain
it alive.
|
||||||
| 32 | (ee) It is unlawful to possess any rifle while in the field |
||||||
| 33 | during gun
deer season except as provided in Section 2.26 and |
||||||
| 34 | administrative rules.
|
||||||
| 35 | (ff) It is unlawful for any person to take any species |
||||||
| 36 | protected by
this Act, except migratory waterfowl, during the |
||||||
|
|||||||
| 1 | gun deer hunting season in
those counties open to gun deer |
||||||
| 2 | hunting, unless he or she wears, when in
the field, a cap and |
||||||
| 3 | upper outer garment of a solid blaze orange color, with
such |
||||||
| 4 | articles of clothing displaying a minimum of 400 square inches |
||||||
| 5 | of
blaze orange material.
|
||||||
| 6 | (gg) It is unlawful during the upland game season for any |
||||||
| 7 | person to take
upland game with a firearm unless he or she |
||||||
| 8 | wears, while in the field, a
cap of solid blaze orange color. |
||||||
| 9 | For purposes of this Act, upland game is
defined as Bobwhite |
||||||
| 10 | Quail, Hungarian Partridge, Ring-necked Pheasant, Eastern
|
||||||
| 11 | Cottontail and Swamp Rabbit.
|
||||||
| 12 | (hh) It shall be unlawful to kill or cripple any species |
||||||
| 13 | protected by
this Act for which there is a daily bag limit |
||||||
| 14 | without making a reasonable
effort to retrieve such species and |
||||||
| 15 | include such in the daily bag limit.
|
||||||
| 16 | (ii) This Section shall apply only to those species |
||||||
| 17 | protected by this
Act taken within the State. Any species or |
||||||
| 18 | any parts thereof, legally taken
in and transported from other |
||||||
| 19 | states or countries, may be possessed
within the State, except |
||||||
| 20 | as provided in this Section and Sections 2.35, 2.36
and 3.21.
|
||||||
| 21 | (jj) Nothing contained in this Section shall prohibit the |
||||||
| 22 | use of bow
and arrow, or prevent the Director from issuing |
||||||
| 23 | permits to use a crossbow
to handicapped persons as provided by |
||||||
| 24 | administrative rule. As used herein,
"handicapped persons" |
||||||
| 25 | means those persons who have a permanent physical
impairment |
||||||
| 26 | due to injury or disease, congenital or acquired, which renders
|
||||||
| 27 | them so severely disabled as to be unable to use a conventional |
||||||
| 28 | bow and arrow
device. Permits will be issued only after the |
||||||
| 29 | receipt of a physician's
statement confirming the applicant is |
||||||
| 30 | handicapped as defined above.
|
||||||
| 31 | (kk) Nothing contained in this Section shall prohibit the |
||||||
| 32 | Director
from issuing permits to paraplegics or to other |
||||||
| 33 | disabled persons who meet the
requirements set forth in |
||||||
| 34 | administrative rule to shoot or hunt from a vehicle
as provided |
||||||
| 35 | by that rule, provided that such is otherwise in accord with |
||||||
| 36 | this
Act.
|
||||||
|
|||||||
| 1 | (ll) Nothing contained in this Act shall prohibit the |
||||||
| 2 | taking of aquatic
life protected by the Fish and Aquatic Life |
||||||
| 3 | Code or birds and mammals
protected by this Act, except deer |
||||||
| 4 | and fur-bearing mammals, from a boat not
camouflaged or |
||||||
| 5 | disguised to alter its identity or to further provide a place
|
||||||
| 6 | of concealment and not propelled by sail or mechanical power. |
||||||
| 7 | However, only
shotguns not larger than 10 gauge nor smaller |
||||||
| 8 | than .410 bore loaded with not
more than 3 shells of a shot |
||||||
| 9 | size no larger than lead BB or steel T (.20
diameter) may be |
||||||
| 10 | used to take species protected by this Act.
|
||||||
| 11 | (mm) Nothing contained in this Act shall prohibit the use |
||||||
| 12 | of a shotgun,
not larger than 10 gauge nor smaller than a 20 |
||||||
| 13 | gauge, with a rifled barrel.
|
||||||
| 14 | Nothing contained in this Act shall prohibit the use of |
||||||
| 15 | locking type cable restraints for use in water trapping. |
||||||
| 16 | Written permission of the owner of the land over which the |
||||||
| 17 | water is standing or flowing is not required for water sets.
|
||||||
| 18 | (Source: P.A. 92-325, eff. 8-9-01; 92-651, eff. 7-11-02; |
||||||
| 19 | 93-807, eff. 7-24-04.)
|
||||||
| 20 | (520 ILCS 5/2.33a) (from Ch. 61, par. 2.33a)
|
||||||
| 21 | Sec. 2.33a. Unlawful trapping.
|
||||||
| 22 | (a) It is unlawful to fail to visit and remove all animals
|
||||||
| 23 | from traps and cable restraints staked out, set, used, tended, |
||||||
| 24 | placed or maintained at least
once each calendar day.
|
||||||
| 25 | (b) It is unlawful for any person to place, set, use, or |
||||||
| 26 | maintain a
leghold trap or one of similar construction on land, |
||||||
| 27 | that has a jaw spread
of larger than 6 1/2 inches (16.6 CM), or |
||||||
| 28 | a body-gripping trap or one of
similar construction having a |
||||||
| 29 | jaw spread larger than 7 inches (17.8 CM) on
a side if square |
||||||
| 30 | and 8 inches (20.4 CM) if round;
|
||||||
| 31 | (c) It is unlawful for any person to place, set, use, or |
||||||
| 32 | maintain a
leghold trap or one of similar construction in |
||||||
| 33 | water, that has a jaw spread
of larger than 7 1/2 inches (19.1 |
||||||
| 34 | CM), or a body-gripping trap or one of
similar construction |
||||||
| 35 | having a jaw spread larger than 10 inches (25.4 CM) on
a side |
||||||
|
|||||||
| 1 | if square and 12 inches (30.5 CM) if round;
|
||||||
| 2 | (d) It is unlawful to use any trap with saw-toothed, |
||||||
| 3 | spiked, or toothed jaws;
|
||||||
| 4 | (e) It is unlawful to destroy, disturb or in any manner |
||||||
| 5 | interfere with
dams, lodges, burrows or feed beds of beaver |
||||||
| 6 | while trapping for beaver or
to set a trap inside a muskrat |
||||||
| 7 | house or beaver lodge, except that this shall
not apply to |
||||||
| 8 | Drainage Districts who are acting pursuant to the provisions
of |
||||||
| 9 | Section 2.37;
|
||||||
| 10 | (f) It is unlawful to trap beaver with: (1) a leghold trap |
||||||
| 11 | or one of similar
construction having a jaw spread of less than |
||||||
| 12 | 5 1/2 inches (13.9 CM) or
more than 7 1/2 inches (19.1 CM), or |
||||||
| 13 | (2) a body-gripping trap or one of
similar construction having |
||||||
| 14 | a jaw spread of less than 7 inches (17.7 CM) or
more than 10 |
||||||
| 15 | inches (25.4 CM) on a side if square and 12 inches (30.5 CM) if
|
||||||
| 16 | round, except that these restrictions shall not apply during
|
||||||
| 17 | the open season for trapping muskrats;
|
||||||
| 18 | (g) It is unlawful to set traps closer than 10 feet (3.05 |
||||||
| 19 | M) from any
hole or den which may be occupied by a game mammal |
||||||
| 20 | or fur-bearing mammal
except that this restriction shall not |
||||||
| 21 | apply to water sets.
|
||||||
| 22 | (h) It is unlawful to trap or attempt to trap any |
||||||
| 23 | fur-bearing mammal
with any colony, cage, box, or stove-pipe |
||||||
| 24 | trap designed to take more than one
mammal at a single setting.
|
||||||
| 25 | (i) It is unlawful for any person to set or place any trap |
||||||
| 26 | or cable restraint designed to
take any fur-bearing mammal |
||||||
| 27 | protected by this Act during the closed
trapping season. Proof |
||||||
| 28 | that any trap or cable restraint was placed during the closed |
||||||
| 29 | trapping
season shall be deemed prima facie evidence of a |
||||||
| 30 | violation of this provision.
|
||||||
| 31 | (j) It is unlawful to place, set, or maintain any leghold |
||||||
| 32 | trap or one of
similar construction within thirty (30) feet |
||||||
| 33 | (9.14 m) of bait placed in
such a manner or position that it is |
||||||
| 34 | not completely covered and concealed
from sight, except that |
||||||
| 35 | this shall not apply to underwater sets. Bait shall
mean and |
||||||
| 36 | include any bait composed of mammal, bird, or fish flesh, fur,
|
||||||
|
|||||||
| 1 | hide, entrails or feathers.
|
||||||
| 2 | (k) It shall be unlawful for hunters or trappers to have |
||||||
| 3 | the green hides
of fur-bearing mammals, protected by this Act, |
||||||
| 4 | in their possession except
during the open season and for an |
||||||
| 5 | additional period of 10 days succeeding
such open season.
|
||||||
| 6 | (l) It is unlawful for any person to place, set, use, or |
||||||
| 7 | maintain a
cable restraint
snare trap or one of similar |
||||||
| 8 | construction in water, that has a loop
diameter exceeding 15 |
||||||
| 9 | inches (38.1 CM) or a cable or wire diameter of more
than 1/8 |
||||||
| 10 | inch (3.2 MM) or less than 5/64 inch (2.0 MM), that is |
||||||
| 11 | constructed
of stainless steel metal cable or wire, and that |
||||||
| 12 | does not have a mechanical
lock, anchor swivel and stop device |
||||||
| 13 | to prevent the mechanical lock from
closing the noose loop to a |
||||||
| 14 | diameter of less than 2 1/2 inches (6.4 CM).
|
||||||
| 15 | (m) It is unlawful for any person to place, set, use, or |
||||||
| 16 | maintain on land a cable restraint or one of similar |
||||||
| 17 | construction that has a loop diameter exceeding 15 inches (38.1 |
||||||
| 18 | cm). It is unlawful for any person to place, set, or maintain |
||||||
| 19 | on land a cable restraint or one of similar construction that |
||||||
| 20 | does not have a relaxing mechanical lock, anchor swivel, and |
||||||
| 21 | stop device to prevent the relaxing mechanical lock from |
||||||
| 22 | closing the noose loop to a diameter of less than 2 1/2 inches |
||||||
| 23 | (6.4 cm).
|
||||||
| 24 | (n) It is unlawful for any person to place, set, use, or |
||||||
| 25 | maintain a cable restraint or one of similar construction that |
||||||
| 26 | would reach any fence when fully extended.
|
||||||
| 27 | (o) It is unlawful for any person to place, set, use or |
||||||
| 28 | maintain on land or in water a cable restraint that is attached |
||||||
| 29 | to a drag or a movable object. It is unlawful to set a cable |
||||||
| 30 | restraint on land without an in-line swivel between the cable |
||||||
| 31 | restraint lock and the end swivel at the point of fastening.
|
||||||
| 32 | (Source: P.A. 85-152; 86-1354.)
|
||||||
| 33 | Section 99. Effective date. This Act takes effect upon |
||||||
| 34 | becoming law.
| ||||||
Tags: Uncategorized
Research Animal Resources Letter to University of Wisconsin ACUC - July 10, 2003
The University of Wisconsin Madison
To: Tim Mulcahy
Chair, All Campus ACUC
From: [REDACTED]
RARC
RE: Dr. Terasawa and Protocol G00146
Date: July 10, 2003
Enclosed please find my report of the review of the clinic histories of Dr. [REDACTED] animals on protocol G146 for the last three years. Also enclosed is a memo from Dr. [REDACTED] reporting the results of her own investigation of laboratory notebooks and clinical records.
As you can see, there have been a variety of deviations from her approved protocols over this period of time. There have also been more negative outcomes than expected for the animals on the push pull perfusion studies, especially for aged animals. I understand that the All Campus ACUC will decide whether she can continue to do animal research here at the university, and may allow the Graduate School ACUC to lift her suspension and approve her most recent protocol at their discretion. If this is the case, I submit the following ideas to prevent future reoccurrences of these types of problems.
First, the [REDACTED] veterinary staff should review the clinical records of all of her current animals on a regular basis and report to the Graduate School ACUC any events of concern (once a month or once every two months.) Second, someone should review her current laboratory notebooks and report to the ACUC as above (perhaps [REDACTED] from the [REDACTED]. Third, a letter should be crafted to Dr. [REDACTED] explaining to her that further serious violations will result in loss of ability to perform animal research at the university. Last, Dr. [REDACTED] should reply in writing that she understands and accepts these conditions.
I believe a period of one year of close observation should be sufficient to assure compliance and understanding by Dr. [REDACTED] and her staff.
Tags: Uncategorized
Minutes of University of Wisconsin’s Graduate School Animal Care Committee - May 12, 2003
The University of Wisconsin Madison
Graduate School Animal Care Committee
May 12, 2003
Present: Bolton, Evans, Fechner, McCentee (n.v.), Sandgren, Schultz-Darken, Welter and Zhang
Absent:
Abbott
Guests: Dr. Kemnitz, Amanda Crumbaugh, Dr. Parks
Approval of April 14, 2003 Minutes
Sandgren/Schultz-Darken moved for approval pending minor corrections. Vote was unanimous.
Compliance Issues
Recently, two USDA investigators visited RARC and the Primate Center.
During this investigation the investigators learned that monitoring was not provided continuously for chaired animals as described in protocol [REDACTED]. During a 2-5 minute absence by a technician, an animal in the chair died. The fact that the animal died during the experimenter’s absence was not provided to the Graduate ACUC at the time of the animal’s death. It is clear to the committee that the lack of continuous monitoring constitutes a protocol violation.
[REDACTED] noted that the USDA investigators also raised a concern about the length of time needed between chairing episodes. The PI verbally reported to the investigators that she waits four weeks between chairing sessions, but the investigators found records from summer 2002 where only three weeks of rest was given between sessions. The length of rest time between sessions was not explicitly stated in the protocol. [REDACTED] will investigate this inconsistency.
Dr. Nancy Schultz-Darken noted that many of the concerns of the USDA investigators regarding this protocol highlight the necessity that the descriptions of the procedures be very clear, especially given the nature of the experiments. The AAALAC site visitors voiced many of the same concerns in March 2000.
In light of new information related to this protocol, it seems that the committee is not confident that the procedures are being followed as detailed in the approved protocol. Additionally, it seems that there are inadequacies in the protocol as it currently stands that could impact the animals’ health.
Dr. Sandgren identified two issues for the ACUC to address:
1 - The lack of continuous monitoring (the protocol violation); and
2- Increase the familiarity of the committee with the exact nature of [REDACTED] experiments.
It seems that critical information regarding this experiment was never made known to the committee. The committee discussed a response letter from [REDACTED] regarding the break from continuous monitoring. (See attached letter dated 05/07/03). [REDACTED] letter states that she will revise the protocol to re-emphasize that substitute lab staff will cover for any time when researchers take breaks so that continuous attendance is ensured. The committee accepted this proposal provided that the substitute must have visual contact with the restrained animals.
Welter/Schultz-Darken moved to suspend [REDACTED] and have the ACUC send a letter to [REDACTED] to included the committee’s acceptance of her plan to include substitute monitors and contingencies under which protocol reinstatement could occur. (See attached letter dated May 13, 2003.) Voted was unanimous with Su-Chun Zhang abstaining.
In the course of studying documentation regarding the incident with protocol [REDACTED] the USDA investigators also inquired about [REDACTED] surgeries and asked to see the intraoperative records. It appeared that these records were not immediately accessible to the investigators. This was of high concern to the investigators.
Documentation of Monitoring During Surgeries
A concern was raised by the USDA investigators regarding the lack of consistent documentation of monitoring during surgeries. Dr. Sandgren distributed a draft policy for surgical monitoring and record keeping. The committee read the draft and made suggestions for clarifications and additions.
There do not seem to be specific requirements described in AWAR of the type of intrasurgical monitoring documentation. Dr. Parks is consulting with USDA and other agencies to get more information. “Standards of Veterinary Care” have been cited as the best guideline for surgical monitoring documentation, which is what Dr. Sandgren’s proposed policy is loosely modeled upon.
Dr. Kemnitz left the meeting at this time.
Dr. Parks reminded the committee that the committee could adopt a minimum policy and then require more stringent monitoring documentation for invasive procedures described in particular protocols. Attending vets and PIs can also choose to upgrade the monitoring documentation.
Tags: Uncategorized
U.S. Food and Drug Association — Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment
Animal Cloning: A Risk Assessment
DRAFT Executive Summary
October 21, 2003
A. Overview
Cloning is the colloquial term used to describe the process of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT), and falls on a continuum of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) currently used in agriculture. These are summarized in the Technology Overview (Chapter II) of the Cloning Risk Assessment. In the subsequent chapters and appendices of the Risk Assessment, the Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM or the Center) at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) presents a science-based review of the risks that may arise in species traditionally used for food in which cloning has been accomplished (e.g., cattle, swine, sheep, and goats). Chapter III provides a general overview of the process of risk assessment and how it has been applied to animal cloning. Chapter IV addresses potential health risks to animals involved in the process of cloning, while Chapter V addresses potential food consumption risks that may result from edible products derived from animal clones or their progeny. In order to make this process as transparent as possible, all of the information that has been used is publicly available. This limited our analysis to publications from peer-reviewed journals and to one large data set on bovine clones made available by a clone producer. The document concludes with appendices containing background information, a complete bibliography, and a glossary of terms.
B. Methodology
1. Data Analysis
Both the animal health and food consumption risk assessments evaluated information within a framework developed by CVM called the Critical Biological Systems Approach (the Systems Approach), which divides the life cycle of an animal clone into five functional developmental nodes. Developmental Node 1 incorporates the initial technical steps involved in SCNT, from cell fusion through fetal development. Developmental Node 2 encompasses the perinatal period, including late gestation, labor induction in the dam, delivery, and the critical few days after birth. The third developmental node, Juvenile Development and Function, covers the period of rapid growth between birth and the onset of puberty. The Reproductive Development and Function Node includes puberty and reproductive function throughout the reproductive life of clones. The Post-Pubertal Maturation Node consists of all non-reproductive functions of sexually maturing or mature clones, including growth, weight gain, disease frequency, aging, and, where available, lifespan.
The nature of each risk assessment (i.e., animal health or food consumption) shaped the manner in which the available data were evaluated. For example, identification of adverse outcomes for animal health included both the animal clone and the surrogate dam carrying the pregnancy. Emphasis was placed on the clonesÂ’ development and probability of normal development, compared with other ARTs, such as artificial insemination (AI), in vitro fertilization (IVF), and blastomere nuclear transfer (BNT). For food consumption risks, however, frankly deformed and diseased clones were excluded from the analysis (because such animals would be condemned at slaughter, as currently practiced with conventional animals), and emphasis was placed on identifying subtle hazards that could have arisen as the result of the SCNT process. Because of the assumption that hazards would be subtle, data sets were evaluated on as fine a level of resolution as possible, including individual animals or even individual analytes per animal in order to have as sensitive a screen as possible for adverse outcomes (and thus potential food consumption risks). Thus, although the data sets considered by both risk assessments may have overlapped considerably, the methods by which they were evaluated differed. Most importantly, however, the conclusions of the two risk assessments may differ with respect to the amount of risk present.
One of the conditions of this risk assessment is that all of the information that CVM has used is also available to the public. Although more information was received from clone producers than is available in the Risk Assessment document, some has not been used in this iteration of the risk assessment due to time constraints. By far the greatest amount of information identified addressed bovine clones, followed by swine clones. Although the data base on goat clones was quite small, it is fairly comprehensive with respect to developmental nodes. Very little information was available for sheep clones.
The risk assessment excludes clones derived from donor cells that are transgenic (i.e., cells that contain heritable DNA inserted by molecular biology techniques) from the identification of adverse outcomes. Transgenic clones are considered to occupy a different “risk space” from “just clones” because the transgenic event is accompanied by a series of construct-specific risks.
2. Limitations on Conclusions from Qualitative Risk Assessments
This is a qualitative, comparative risk assessment that does not attempt to assign a quantitative value to estimates of risk or safety. The strongest conclusions that can be drawn regarding positive outcomes in risk assessments of this type are “likely to be as safe as” because outcomes are weighed against comparators of known or inferred safety. Safety is the condition of absence of adverse effects; as a result, certainty of safety is approached, but never reached. Applied to the health of animal clones, the finding of “as safe as” means that the cloning process is likely to be as safe as other ARTs. Applied to the safety of edible products derived from clones, the finding means that food products derived from animal clones are likely to be as safe as corresponding products from non-clones, or as safe as foods that we eat every day. On the other hand, risks can be characterized in a qualitative, comparative risk assessment because adverse outcomes can be observed.
C. Risks to Animals Involved in Cloning
Although increased in frequency relative to other ARTs, none of the adverse outcomes noted in animals involved in the cloning process are qualitatively different from those observed in other ARTs. Risk appears to be elevated in some species (e.g., cattle and sheep) relative to others (swine and goats). Adverse outcomes are noted with the highest frequency in the earliest stages of a cloneÂ’s development. Most embryo clones fail to develop, and pregnancies terminate spontaneously due to fetal abnormalities or difficulties with placentation. Many of these anomalies tend to be related to fetal overgrowth, often referred to as Large Offspring Syndrome (LOS), although other frank developmental abnormalities have been noted.
1. Pregnancy through the Perinatal Developmental Period
Large Offspring Syndrome, or LOS, has been noted in many of the early reports of cloning in cattle and sheep as well as other ARTs. LOS is generally thought to consist of a nexus of clinical signs that may be directly related to fetal oversize (at least 20% heavier than the average birth weight for the breed), the size of the damÂ’s uterus, and dystocia (difficulty giving birth) during labor. LOS thus delineates most of the risks to both animal clones and their surrogate dams. Other signs, such as under-developed respiratory, cardiovascular and renal (kidney) systems may not be due to intrauterine effects, but are often considered part of the syndrome due to the frequency with which they occur in combination with the overgrowth phenomena. Many animals born with LOS have excess fluid in their placentae or organs (hydrops), which may contribute to their large size. The causes of LOS are not known, but may be related to a combination of incomplete reprogramming of the somatic cell nucleus and the in vitro culture conditions that IVF and SCNT embryos experience. Large Offspring Syndrome has not been reported in swine or goats.
Cattle and sheep carrying clone pregnancies are at risk of developing hydrops and dystocia. Neither of these complications has been reported in swine or goats carrying clone pregnancies. Dystocia is an identified hazard for any pregnancy, clone or not, that goes to term. A common cause of dystocia is incompatibility between the size of the fetus and the pelvic opening through which it must pass.
Other frank abnormalities that have been noted among stillborn and neonatal clones include flexor tendon contracture, which may result from crowding in the uterus, and respiratory failure. The latter, which is one of the most commonly reported clinical signs in neonatal clones, may result from numerous causes, including inadequate surfactant and failure of the lungs to inflate. Many calf clones are born with large umbilici, often with patent blood vessels, which can increase the risk of bacterial infection. These umbilical problems are generally resolved surgically.
2. Juvenile Developmental Node
Most prepubertal cattle, sheep, swine and goat clones appear to grow and develop normally following the early neonatal period. None of the reports evaluated in this risk assessment indicated any anomalies that have not been observed in animals derived via other ARTs or natural breeding. Healthy clones appear to be physiologically similar to their conventionally bred counterparts or their genetic donor. Alterations in physiological parameters (clinical chemistry and hematology measures) that may have been noted early in the cloneÂ’s life appear to resolve within a month or two of birth, and the health of bovine clones, in particular, is confirmed by veterinary records.
Some clones, although surviving the early neonatal period, died during the juvenile period due to either congenital abnormalities that did not resolve or failure to thrive. One dwarf calf that suffered skeletal defects and gastro-intestinal problems did not recover and was euthanized. Other calves in this group had no apparent health problems.
A few frank developmental defects have been noted. Cryptorchidism (failure of testicular descent) was reported in three calves derived from the same cell line. Hyperkeratosis, a thickening and crusting of the skin that may predispose the animal to skin infections and observed in naturally bred pigs, was observed in one porcine clone. Both conditions may be related to genetics of the nuclear donor, although hyperkeratosis in swine is more often related to nutrition. Neither condition is necessarily attributed to cloning.
3. Reproductive Function
Because of the newness of the technology, very few animal clones have lived to reproductive age, and there are very few publications that specifically address reproductive function. In general, the cursory mentions of bovine reproductive capacity indicate that most clones are as fertile as their conventional counterparts, although there are reports of individual heifer clones that may fail to become pregnant after attempts at insemination. No specific studies of the reproductive capacity of bull clones were identified, although there are reports of “normal” fertility on individual bull clones in articles addressing other portions of the life cycle of clones. No adverse outcomes (e.g., infertility, low sperm motility) have been reported for reproduction in male goats or sheep, but only one study in each of these species has been identified. No studies addressing the fertility of porcine clones were identified.
4. Post-Pubertal Maturation
No studies specifically addressing the health of post-pubertal clones were identified. Instead, cursory information from studies examining other portions of the clonesÂ’ life cycles was reviewed. No specific reports of risks to clone health were found. This observation must be tempered with the lack of clones that could populate this developmental node, plus the lack of impetus to publish studies addressing the health of clones of this developmental stage.
5. Conclusions for Animal Safety Based on Available Information
No reports of risks qualitatively different from those encountered by animals involved in modern agricultural practices were detected, although the frequency of the risks appears to be increased in some species during the early portions of the life cycle of animal clones.
There is an increased risk of adverse outcomes for surrogate dams bearing bovine and ovine clones relative to dams bearing non-clone pregnancies. These risks are best characterized by dystocia, likely due to LOS, and hydrops. The risk to swine and goat surrogates bearing clone pregnancies does not appear to be increased relative to dams bearing non-clone pregnancies.
Early reports of cloning in cattle and sheep indicated that most clone pregnancies failed to result in live births. As the technology improves, however, the proportion of live, normal births appears to be increasing. Most of the increased risk for the bovine and ovine clones appears to be related to LOS, although other frank developmental defects are observed. These risks do not appear to apply to porcine and caprine clones.
As clones grow and develop, they appear to become as healthy as their conventional counterparts. There do not appear to be any health risks to apparently normal clones that survive beyond a few weeks of birth. Data are very limited on the health and functionality of clones beyond the juvenile developmental period. Information on reproductive function is limited to a few studies, but appears to indicate that clones are not at increased risk of reproductive failure relative to animals produced using other ARTs or natural breeding. The information on non-reproductive maturation in animal clones is essentially limited to that provided by one clone producer. It indicates that clones in the 6-18 month cohort are virtually indistinguishable from their age- and breed-matched comparators.
D. Food Consumption Risks
1. Two-Pronged Approach to Identifying and Characterizing Food Consumption Risks
The food consumption risk assessment assumes that all clones and their products would be subject to the same local, state, and federal regulations as conventional food animals and their edible products. These rules exclude frankly malformed, diseased, and otherwise unhealthy animals from the human food supply. Therefore, this assessment focuses on clones that appear to be healthy. Because scientific and regulatory communities have traditionally assumed that it is highly unlikely that “silent” pathways producing intrinsic toxicants exist in food animals, the only hazards that could arise in animal clones would be from incomplete or inappropriate reprogramming of the genetic information from the donor somatic nucleus (i.e., epigenetic effects). These would allow a clone to develop with apparently normal appearance and functions, but with sub-clinical physiological anomalies, and are referred to as “subtle hazards.”
In order to determine whether these subtle hazards pose food consumption risks, CVM has developed a two-pronged approach. The previously described first component, the Critical Biological Systems Approach, is based on the hypothesis that a healthy animal is likely to produce safe food products, and incorporates a systematic review of the health of the animal clone or its progeny. It accepts that at this time, SCNT is a biologically imprecise and inefficient process, but recognizes that animals are capable of biological repair or adaptation. The cumulative nature of the Critical Biological Systems Approach allows for the incorporation of both favorable and unfavorable outcomes. The former, provided that all other measures appear to be normal, will result in the finding that the clone is likely to produce food that is safe for consumption; the latter implies that clones with anomalies are likely to be considered unsuitable for food.
The second component, or the Compositional Analysis Method, assumes that food products from healthy animal clones and their progeny that are not materially different from corresponding products from conventional animals are as safe to consume as their conventional counterparts. It relies on the comparison of individual components of edible products, and the identification of the appropriate comparators.
Assessing the safety of food products from animal clones and their progeny, at least during these early stages of the development of the technology, is best accomplished by using both approaches: prospectively drawing on our knowledge of biological systems in development and maturation, and in retrograde, from an analysis of food products. Subtle hazards and potential risks that may be posed by animal clones must, however, be considered in the context of other mutations and epigenetic changes that occur in all food animal populations.
At this time, CVM anticipates that for economic reasons (i.e., a cost of tens of thousands of dollars per clone), “founder” animal clones are not likely to be slaughtered for meat, and that most of the food products from cloned lineages will enter the food chain as first progeny1 of animal clones, or their subsequent offspring. If, however, the technology would become sufficiently cost-effective, it is possible that clones themselves could be consumed for food.
Animal clones could also be introduced into the food supply as meat if conditions outside the producerÂ’s control forced herd culling (e.g., loss of funding), if clones suffered non-recoverable injuries, or if older clones had reached the end of their functional utility (e.g., breeders). Milk from clones, however, could enter the food stream. Information on the composition of clone meat or milk is extremely limited. Very few of the bovine clones are old enough to have been bred, given birth, and begun lactating. One study has been identified on the composition of milk from clone cows; no studies on the composition of meat from clones have been identified.
2. Preliminary Conclusions Regarding Potential Food Consumption Risks
a. Bovine Clones
i. Perinatal Bovine Clones
The underlying biological assumption for this age cohort is that clones may be fragile at birth possibly due to residual incomplete or inappropriate reprogramming of the donor nucleus. Many of these animals adjust to life outside the womb within a relatively short period of time, either on their own, or with assistance from caregivers. The data on the overall health of the clones are consistent with such a hypothesis. Nonetheless, because of the consistently reported relatively poor condition of clones at birth, and variability of their physiological parameters, it is difficult to prove that these animals do not differ materially from their age-matched conventional cohorts. Given that live neonatal clones are unlikely to enter the food supply, they pose an extremely limited risk for consumption as food. Moribund or euthanized clones might enter the food supply via rendering; if they met all of the conditions imposed for euthanized non-clone neonates, they would not likely pose risks greater than the non-clones.
ii. Juvenile Bovine Clones
The underlying biological assumption for this developmental node is that if any anomalies were to be found in the youngest clones, and those animals were to survive to be healthy adults, the juvenile developmental node would be a period of equilibration and normalization. The data are consistent with such a hypothesis: juvenile bovine clones are largely healthy and normal. The results from the information supplied by the clone producer and the peer-reviewed literature indicate that clones show the appropriate physiological responses to developmental signals. The data set from the clone producer indicates the overall health of these animals is comparable to their age-matched comparators, with the exception of the sequellae of umbilical problems and cryptorchidism. Although these outcomes pose risk to the animals, if appropriately managed, they do not appear to pose any food safety concerns. The peer-reviewed literature indicates that although some animals at this developmental node have alterations in physiological parameters such as body temperature, some hormone and cytokine levels, these discrepancies are resolved relatively rapidly (by approximately 50 days of life). Thus, even for physiological parameters in which differences were detected between clones and controls, most resolved soon after birth in apparently healthy animals. Juvenile bovine clones are likely to be as safe to eat as their contemporary conventional comparators.
iii. Adult Bovine Clones
The underlying biological assumption for this developmental cohort is that there is no fundamental reason to suspect that animals derived via SCNT would produce toxins, there are no introduced genes from other sources, and any biological changes that are not immediately apparent (e.g., gross malformations) would, at most, tend to present subtle changes that do not pose food consumption concerns. The weight of the evidence is consistent with this biological prediction. Non-healthy clones are immediately apparent, and culled from the herd. Data from the clone producer indicate that healthy clones of the oldest (6-18 months) cohort evaluated are virtually indistinguishable from their comparators even at the level of clinical chemistry and hematology. The available information on reproductive function in cows or bulls of this age cohort is quite limited, but appears to indicate that clones have normal reproductive function and give birth to healthy offspring. These observations provide a high degree of confidence to the CenterÂ’s judgment regarding the health of bovine clones.
Edible products from healthy adult bovine clones are therefore likely to be as safe to eat as those from non-clone adult cattle. The consistency of the observations provide the Center with a high degree of confidence in judgments regarding the health of (and likely food safety of edible products derived from) bovine clones. The Center notes that although these animals may be used for food, given the economic considerations involved it is not likely that large numbers of clones will enter the food supply. The most likely scenarios for these animals to be introduced into the food supply are as the result of non-treatable injury or old age.
There is one study presenting a com