 |
|
| R & R Research sells dogs and cats it receives from Montcalm County Animal Shelter to research facilities. ©iStock.com |
|
Many of the pets at the Montcalm County Animal Shelter in Stanton, Mich., aren't destined for loving, adoptive homes—they're headed for a company that sells dogs and cats into research.
The Montcalm County Board of Commissioners, which oversees the shelter, currently provides pets free of charge to Howard City, Mich.-based R & R Research. The for-profit business is one of 11 U.S.-based Class B dealer facilities licensed by the USDA to round up live "random source" dogs and cats—from shelters, auctions, flea markets, private individuals and other sources—to sell to animal research facilities.
Decision Deferred
At a public meeting held on January 26, the County Commissioners, under pressure from outraged community members, voted to extend the shelter's contract with R & R Research for six months instead of renewing the 5-year contract. In addition, the commissioners voted to form a "Blue Ribbon Committee" to investigate the issue and make recommendations to the board.
| VICTORY! |
|
On April 27, the Montcalm County Board of Commissioners voted not to renew their contract with R & R Research. Read more » |
The committee has not yet been formed, but it is expected to submit its findings by the end of the contract extension, when the board will make a final decision.
"When an animal shelter sells or gives away pets for research, it not only exposes animals to potentially inhumane conditions, it destroys the public's trust in the shelter," said Kim Intino, director of animal sheltering issues for the Humane Society of the United States. "We're hoping that Montcalm County Board of Commissioners will see the light and realize that their shelter is there to help animals—not harm them."
Profiting from Pets
Under the Montcalm County Dog Law Enforcement Ordinance, dogs who have not been picked up by their owners or adopted from Montcalm County Animal Shelter after four days may be released to "any reasonable person who will undertake to remove said dog."
This ordinance allows the shelter to give unadopted or unclaimed pets to R & R Research, which can then sell the dogs and cats it receives to research facilities. In exchange, R & R Research euthanizes other animals for the county and disposes of their bodies.
 |
|
| The USDA has documented a number of owned pets at the R & R Research facility. © iStock.com |
|
R & R Research has been cited by the USDA for Animal Welfare Act (AWA) violations multiple times since 1997.
In a report dated March 2005, a USDA inspector cited the facility for "receiving [sic] stray cats from the city of Howard City, which has no animal pound or shelter." According to the USDA, when obtaining live random source dogs and cats from shelters, Class B dealers may do so "only from state, county and city owned or operated animal pounds or shelters."
The USDA has also documented a number of owned pets at the R & R Research facility, some of whom were sold to research facilities. Between August 1995 and December 2002, USDA inspectors noted six microchipped dogs and one cat at the facility. Three of these pets were returned to their owners and four were sold to a research facility.
It is impossible to know how many owned pets who did not have microchips, or were not scanned for microchips, were sold by R & R Research to research facilities instead of being returned to their owners.
Dirty Dealings
The controversy surrounding Class B dealers of random source dogs and cats is not limited to R & R research. Widespread opposition to these dealers is based not only on the unsavory nature of the business, but also on the repeated violations of the AWA by several dealers, documented for decades by both the USDA and independent investigators.
The number of these operations has dwindled over the past several years as the biomedical community has largely moved away from using random source dogs and cats, and educational institutions have increasingly turned to non-animal teaching methods.
Undercover investigations by animal protection groups, coupled with enforcement actions, have also driven many of the worst offenders out of the business. In 1993 there were 100 Class B dealers of random source dogs and cats selling to research; in 2001 there were just 20.
Of the 11 Class B dealers of live, random source dogs and cats currently licensed by the USDA, two are under investigation for apparent violations of the Animal Welfare Act. The license of one of the 11 dealers, Oklahoma-based dealer Henry Lee Cooper, was suspended in August for five years by the USDA for alleged violations of the AWA.
In recent years, the USDA has cited the failure of several Class B dealers of random source dogs and cats to comply with the minimum requirements of the AWA, including even the most basic requirements for food, water, shelter and veterinary care for the animals in their possession.
 |
|
| Widespread opposition to Class B dealers of "random-source" dogs and cats is fueled by periodic exposés of the inhumane conditions at dealers' facilities. © iStock.com |
|
Undercover investigators have documented Class B dealers of random source dogs and cats buying pets from "bunchers" (unlicensed dealers) who have stolen the animals from owners' yards, cars, and farms, and who have misrepresented themselves when responding to "free to good home ads" and "adopting" animals from animal shelters.
In addition, investigators have documented dealers abusing the animals they hold before selling them to research facilities.
In one high-profile case, the 2006 HBO documentary "Dealing Dogs" brought attention to the fraudulent means that former dealer C.C. Baird used to obtain random source animals and the abuse and neglect endured by dogs held at his facility.
The USDA revoked Baird's Class B dealer license, charged him with more than 100 counts of animal abuse and neglect and ordered him to pay a $262,700 penalty—the largest civil penalty assessed and paid in connection with violations of the AWA. Baird also pled guilty in a separate civil case and was sentenced to probation and ordered to pay a fine.
Updated April 30, 2009
