318 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
of treatment and care; increasing recordkeeping 
and inspection functions; streamlining investiga- 
tion, complaint, and prosecution procedures; and 
providing additional enforcement resources. Other 
than these proposals, not many other initiatives 
have been put forward to prevent or reduce ex- 
perimental-animal suffering. The model statute 
discussed above has not generated a great deal 
of interest (26). Bills routinely introduced in the 
legislatures of more populous States require per- 
centage reductions in funds spent on animal re- 
search, require consideration and adoption of 
alternatives to animal use, or attack the legitimacy 
of animal usage in some other way. But none has 
yet been taken seriously. Nevertheless, House Bill 
742 in Massachusetts would mandate a 5 percent 
annual reduction per institution in the number 
of animals used in that State’s research labora- 
tories. 
POUND RELEASE LAWS 
Past Trends 
All States have statutes that provide for the sei- 
zure, holding, and humane destruction of un- 
owned or unclaimed stray animals (74). These 
laws, which are most complex and aggressive in 
their application to dogs and cats, attempt to bal- 
ance the need for protection of the public's health 
and safety from unmanaged animals against the 
rights and duties of private animal ownership, 
whether for aesthetic or commercial purposes. 
To serve the interests of public protection and 
welfare, most States provide for the release to re- 
search institutions of unowned or unclaimed ani- 
mals, usually dogs and cats, under certain circum- 
stances or when specified conditions are met, 
such as obtaining a license. Such statutes gener- 
ally provide for a suitable holding period after 
collection or seizure, so that owners have an op- 
portunity to claim their animals, and specify pro- 
cedures to be followed by owners, holding facilities, 
and claiming institutions. Many municipalities also 
have laws either requiring or authorizing the re- 
lease of “random-source” animals to research in- 
stitutions. Definitions of what types of institutions 
qualify to claim random-source animals, and at 
what level of “scientific research,” vary widely. 
As noted, there is little agreement on what legiti- 
mate scientific research is. Sometimes this is left 
to authorities responsible for regulating research, 
independent of general anticruelty laws, and 
some types of educational research activities are 
proscribed (33,36). These laws are summarized 
in table 14-2. 
The authority of States to release unclaimed ani- 
mals to appropriate research facilities has never 
been successfully challenged. In 1359, for exam- 
ple, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts 
declined to rule that such a scheme impaired any 
rights of petitioning humane societies or pet 
owners, or that it called for an unconstitutional 
expenditure of public funds or property (78). The 
force of the court’s ruling was rendered moot by 
the recent passage in Massachusetts of a law, dis- 
cussed below, prohibiting the release or importa- 
tion of pound animals for research purposes. 
Currently, nine States (Connecticut, Hawaii, 
Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jer- 
sey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont) 
prohibit the release of dogs and cats from pounds 
for research purposes (89). The most far-reaching 
of these laws was passed by Massachusetts in 
1983 and went into effect in October 1984. Be- 
sides repealing the State’s old pound release stat- 
ute and eliminating all pertinent references in 
general pound law, the new statute prohibits the 
release by “dog officers” or municipalities of any 
animal to any “business or institution licensed or 
registered as a research facility or animal dealer 
with the United States Department of Agricul- 
ture.” A research “institution” is defined as (77): 
. . . any institution operated bv the United States 
or by the Commonwealth or a political subdivi- 
sion thereof, or any school or college of medi- 
cine, public health, dentistry, pharmacy, veteri- 
nary medicine or agriculture, medical diagnostic 
laboratory or biological laboratory, hospital or 
