320 • Alternatives to Animal Use in Research, Testing, and Education 
laws permitting the use of pound animals in re- 
search were passed in the decade following World 
War II, when the need for inexpensive research 
models began to mount, and the vast majority of 
jurisdictions still permit it. As table 14-2 shows, 
6 jurisdictions require release of impounded ani- 
mals for research purposes, 7 permit it, 29 nei- 
ther expressly require nor forbid release, and 9 
prohibit the practice. Most delegate that author- 
ity to local animal control officers and authorities 
(89). Release repeals have succeeded in larger 
areas, which are perceived to have the resources 
for less -convenient means of disposition of un- 
wanted animals. Smaller jurisdictions without 
those resources are faced with animal and dis- 
ease control problems that are as persistent as 
ever. Thus, a senate committee in Florida re- 
ported a bill in 1984 that required more-humane 
methods of euthanasia for strays but rejected a 
proposal to prohibit city and county shelters from 
sending excess animals to the University of Florida 
for experimental purposes (114). Similarly, the Hu- 
mane Society in Larimer County, CO, voted unani- 
mously in May 1983 to sell animals to Colorado 
State University for veterinary research in order 
to raise funds. 
Pound release laws, whether mandatory or per- 
missive, have come under close scrutiny in the 
last 10 years at both the State and local level. A 
25-year-old law in New York requiring the release 
of pound animals to State-run research institu- 
tions was repealed in 1979 (21). A bill defeated 
in the Wisconsin Senate by a vote of 2-97 would 
have amended the current law requiring pounds 
and shelters to release unclaimed dogs to State - 
accredited institutions, upon proper requisition, 
for research purposes (33,121). 
A running legislative battle has been taking 
place in the California Assembly for several years. 
Two major bills dominated the legislative agenda 
in 1983 and 1984, but neither received approval. 
Senate Bill No. 883, defeated in 1984 in an assem- 
bly committee, would have repealed current re- 
quirements for pound signs warning owners and 
others that animals could be used in research and 
would have generally prohibited the release by 
local pounds and shelters of live dogs, cats, and 
other animals for the purpose of experimentation, 
testing, demonstration, or research (14). Assem- 
bly Bill No. 1735, left pending in the 1984 assem- 
bly session, would have modified the same law 
by permitting persons leaving strays to stipulate 
that the animal not be used for research purposes. 
Further, it would have extended the mandatory 
holding period for potential research animals and 
prohibited release of any pound animal to a re- 
search facility prior to a determination that the 
facility meets specified standards of humane ani- 
mal care (13). (California law currently provides, 
in a regulation -of ^ -research statute, that the De- 
partment of Health Services may not make any 
rule “compelling the delivery of animals for the 
purpose of research, demonstration, diagnosis, or 
experimentation/’ thus leaving the policy to the 
discretion of local jurisdictions (17).) 
Substantial recent activity has occurred at the 
local level, as well. For 3 years, the City of Los 
Angeles has prohibited the release of cats or dogs 
for research (60). In 1984, commissioners in Jack- 
son County, MI, refused to prohibit the release 
of pound animals to research institutions and 
educational facilities. Advocates of the measure 
subsequently failed in their drive to have the is- 
sue placed on a referendum ballot (102). In 1983, 
the Society for Humane Ethics and Principles peti- 
tioned the Board of Supervisors for Maricopa 
County, AZ, to adopt a policy prohibiting the sale 
of impounded animals to research facilities, fol- 
lowing the State legislature's rejection of the so- 
ciety’s proposal for a State law with identical re- 
strictions (72,83). The board adopted the proposal 
and the policy has been sustained by an opinion 
issued by the State attorney general in 1984 (25). 
In 1985, 11 influential animal welfare organi- 
zations joined in an effort to prevent all use of 
pound and shelter animals for scientific purposes. 
The new National Coalition to Protect Our Pets 
(Pro-Pets), which includes both humane societies 
and antivivisection groups, seeks legislation 
toward this end (64). 
