Ping and Pong have lived together for 8 years, and it is a shame that they cannot be retired and live out their lives together. Perhaps this issue is what prompted the students to bring the inadequate cage space to the attention of the IACUC. One could consider what would be the ethical cost/benefit for the continued use of these two dogs. If other animals have been purchased for the same use in the required coursework, what is the value of using these two foxhound crosses for the advancement of knowledge or for the good of society? The dogs are compatible but are becoming less enthusiastic about student manipulations.
Because the research facility is not compliant in the provision of adequate caging for the dogs, we wonder what the purpose would be in contacting the USDA inspector. The USDA inspector might cite the institution for noncompliance, because the dogs are not living in enclosures that meet the requirement of Section 3.6(c)(i). The Animal Welfare Act also has requirements for exercising individually housed dogs, which are defined in Section 3.8(a) and 3.8(c). The Guide states that “wherever it is appropriate, social animals should be housed in pairs or groups, rather than individually, provided that such housing is not contraindicated by the protocol in question and does not pose an undue risk to the animals.” Because the required space cannot be provided to house the dogs together, the research facility must provide adequate primary housing and exercise for the dogs as long as they remain at the facility. The animal facility manager identified cages that are available, although they are not contiguous, which would allow for nose-to-nose contact. The dogs would still be able to have visual contact with each other, however, and perhaps it would also be prudent to exercise them together.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
