Ch. 14— State Regulation of Animal Use • 323 
curement and treatment of animals after experi- 
mentation, rather than to specific standards of 
care to be observed before and during research. 
These laws concern themselves primarily with 
dogs and cats, and some merely require or en- 
courage licensing or some other type of certifi- 
cation to enable research facilities to obtain pound 
animals. Several States have passed regulatory 
laws that complement the Federal act, in the sense 
that they exempt facilities from compliance with 
certain responsibilities if they fulfill similar re- 
quirements under Federal law, regulations, or 
guidelines. 
All States have laws providing for the control 
and disposition of stray and abandoned dogs and 
cats. Beginning in the late 1940s, States began 
adopting laws requiring or permitting research 
facilities to purchase strays from pounds and 
shelters. These laws have been the targets of re- 
peal efforts. 
All 50 States and the District of Columbia allow 
some form of pound animal use for research and 
training. To date, 9 States prohibit in-State pro- 
curement (although not importation from out-of- 
State) of pound animals for research and train- 
ing. Of these, Massachusetts will in October 1986 
prohibit the use of any animal obtained from a 
pound. 
Twenty -one States have some provision in their 
codes requiring the teaching of “kindness” or “hu- 
manity” toward, or the "value” of, animals. A few 
place some restrictions on animal use in gram- 
mar and secondary schools. 
Advocates of laboratory -animal protection crit- 
icize current State and local efforts to assure ani- 
mals’ humane treatment for several reasons, the 
main ones being that compliance schemes are 
overly complex and bureaucratic, that training 
and resources are inadequate, and that existing 
laws are not specific enough in their standards 
for care, treatment, and use. One model statute 
would regulate research use more closely by 
establishing classes of eligible research animals, 
based on comparative intelligence, with specific 
proofs to be met before animals in any class could 
be used in experiments. 
Interest is growing in establishing direct, legally 
enforceable rights for animals. Some protection 
groups have endeavored to protect laboratory ani- 
mals by seeking enforcement of anticruelty stat- 
utes or suing those they see damaging animals' 
interests. They have had virtually no success. 
Some have advocated conferring standing to sue 
on animals by applying the traditional concepts 
of guardianship to them. 
Reviewing recent trends in each of these fields 
of law, it appears certain that animal welfare and 
humane groups will continue to press their case 
for reform on all fronts. Thus, it is likely that re- 
search and animal welfare interests will continue 
to collide in all three branches of Government at 
the State and local levels. Though some bills have 
been introduced that seek to reduce animal use 
in experimentation, promote other models, or 
eliminate the use of animals entirely, they have 
not been given serious consideration. 
CASE STUDY: 
FRIENDS OF ANIMALS , INC. v. U.S. SURGICAL CORPORATION 
Every year, the United States Surgical Com- 
pany used approximately 900 dogs to train sales 
representatives in the proper use of their [sur- 
gical] staple guns— a tool that is rapidly replacing 
conventional stitching of wounds or operation 
cuts. The representatives are chosen primarily 
for their sales ability and thus may have little or 
no medical knowledge. Before being sent out on 
the road, they must pass through a six-week 
training course. The company is now the focus 
for animal welfare protest in Connecticut. Their 
position has not been improved by allegations 
of animal abuse in a newspaper expose or the 
fact that one of the dealers who supplied them 
with dogs has been convicted of animal cruelty 
and of receiving stolen animals (101). 
Thus was summarized a dispute between Friends 
of Animals, Inc., a major animal welfare organiza- 
tion, and U.S. Surgical Corporation, a large, pri- 
vate manufacturing interest using dogs to train 
its own personnel and customers in the use of 
its products. Behind local newspaper headlines 
on the case was a running legal battle involving 
several distinct lawsuits in Federal as well as State 
courts. Regardless of the positions or motives of 
