Статті в журналах з теми "Animal welfare – United States"
Щоб переглянути інші типи публікацій з цієї теми, перейдіть за посиланням: Animal welfare – United States.
Оформте джерело за APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard та іншими стилями
Ознайомтеся з топ-50 статей у журналах для дослідження на тему "Animal welfare – United States".
Біля кожної праці в переліку літератури доступна кнопка «Додати до бібліографії». Скористайтеся нею – і ми автоматично оформимо бібліографічне посилання на обрану працю в потрібному вам стилі цитування: APA, MLA, «Гарвард», «Чикаго», «Ванкувер» тощо.
Також ви можете завантажити повний текст наукової публікації у форматі «.pdf» та прочитати онлайн анотацію до роботи, якщо відповідні параметри наявні в метаданих.
Переглядайте статті в журналах для різних дисциплін та оформлюйте правильно вашу бібліографію.
1
Glosser, James W., and Phyllis B. York. "The Animal Welfare Act's Impact on the Scientist." Journal of the American College of Toxicology 7, no. 4 (July 1988): 447–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10915818809019515.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The bond between animals and humans has existed for a long time. Humans are entrusted with the stewardship for animal care and well-being as a part of their use. Legislation has addressed humane care of animals in the United States since 1873. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) is responsible for administering many of these laws, including the Animal Welfare Act. Recent amendments to the Animal Welfare Act require regulations to be established for the exercise of dogs and the psychological well-being of primates. It also requires the establishment of an Institutional Animal Committee, training for scientists, consideration of alternatives by the principal investigator, and the establishment of an information service at the National Agricultural Library.
2
Sullivan, Paxton, Sage Mijares, Melissa Davis, Katrina Oselinsky, Catie Cramer, Noa Román-Muñiz, Lorann Stallones, and Lily Edwards-Callaway. "A Nationwide Survey of Animal Science Students’ Perceptions of Animal Welfare across Different Animal Categories at Institutions in the United States." Animals 12, no. 17 (September 5, 2022): 2294. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12172294.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Animal welfare is an increasingly important topic across multiple academic disciplines; however, few studies have investigated student perceptions of animal welfare outside of veterinary medicine. The objective of the study was to evaluate animal science students’ perceptions of animal welfare to determine if perceptions differ across animal categories. An online survey was distributed to animal science programs at institutions across the United States. Quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed on 624 responses. Almost all respondents agreed welfare was important for all animal categories (≥97%). The survey asked respondents to rate the level of importance of 12 welfare parameters and there was evidence that the level of importance differed by animal category (p < 0.0001), e.g., fewer respondents indicated having positive interactions with humans was important for agricultural animals. In a subset of questions about agricultural animals, fewer respondents agreed that swine (325, 52.1%) and poultry (268, 43.0%) are raised with an appropriate level of welfare compared to dairy (425, 68.1%) and beef cattle (421, 67.5%). Four free-response questions asked respondents to report their general perceptions of welfare. Thematic analysis identified multiple themes, such as basic needs and human interaction, with most responses (75%) including two or more themes.
3
Nurse, Angus. "Mainstreaming after Lisbon: Advancing Animal Welfare in the EU Internal Market." European Energy and Environmental Law Review 22, Issue 3 (June 1, 2013): 101–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/eelr2013008.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This article traces the evolution of EU animal welfare law and policy. What scope do Member States have to protect the welfare of animals? Two recent United Kingdom judgments are considered in which animal welfare was condoned as providing a justifiable reason for restricting the free movement of goods. In the absence of an EU animal welfare policy underpinned by a legal basis on which to adopt animal welfare laws, to what extent have the EU institutions legislated in order to protect the welfare of animals. Post Lisbon, what is the significance of the incorporation of animal welfare as a value on which the EU is premised? To what extent can the internal market provision be utilised to legislate for animal welfare? What potential does mainstreaming animal welfare hold for the development of EU animal welfare policy and law, for the CJEU and for compliance with EU animal welfare standards?
4
Fielding, William J., Travis W. Cronin, and Christina Risley-Curtiss. "College Students’ Experiences of Nonhuman Animal Harm in the United States and The Bahamas." Society & Animals 28, no. 7 (December 19, 2018): 752–75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/15685306-12341534.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract This study compares and contrasts experiences of harm to nonhuman animals in the lives of 830 college students in The Bahamas and the United States. Overall, students in The Bahamas were more likely to have been exposed to seeing animals harmed (65%) than those in the United States (16%), and they were more likely to have seen an animal killed (22% in The Bahamas and 12% in the United States). Bahamian students reported a higher rate of participation in harming animals than United States students. Stray animals were at greater risk of harm than animals designated as companion animals. The occurrence of coerced harm to animals including zoophilia was low. Participants were indirect victims of animal harm at older ages than the ages at which they had first witnessed or participated in harming animals. Cross-societal implications of harming animals are discussed in the context of teaching animal welfare.
5
Hitchens, Peta L., Rachael H. Booth, Kirsten Stevens, Annabelle Murphy, Bidda Jones, and Lauren M. Hemsworth. "The Welfare of Animals in Australian Filmed Media." Animals 11, no. 7 (July 2, 2021): 1986. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11071986.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Animals play a significant role in the production of film and television in Australia and globally. Given this, regulating and monitoring their welfare on- and off-set is imperative. We therefore aim to compare Australia’s state and territory-based legislation and regulation to those in the United States and the United Kingdom and assess regulations against the Five Domains Model of animal welfare. Historical examples of animal incidents in Australian film are used to illustrate potential deficiencies. We reviewed archived media for animal welfare incidents on and off production sets. We demonstrate a lack of uniformity, with 37.5% (3/8) of states and territories providing targeted Codes of Practice for animals in filmed media, and partially addressing behavioural interactions or mental state within the Five Domains Model. Three themes of welfare concerns were identified including incidents on-set, incidents off-set, and effects of portrayal on perception or ownership of specific species. This highlights the need for standardised national legislation and improved monitoring and regulation. Further research should quantify the number of animals used in productions, describe the type and duration of the work the animals undertake, investigate the frequency of animal welfare incidents, and explore alternative methods to the use of live animals in film and television.
6
Ortez, Mario, Courtney Bir, Nicole Olynk Widmar, and Christopher A. Wolf. "Perceptions of Prominent Animal Welfare and Veterinary Care Organizations in the United States." Animals 10, no. 3 (March 12, 2020): 472. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani10030472.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
U.S. residents’ perceptions of the impact of prominent animal welfare and veterinary care organizations on pet animal well-being and health care may not be linked to the organization’s stated mission and effectiveness in advancing it, but to the level of recognition people have for the groups. An online survey of 1000 U.S. residents was used to understand the perceived impact of organizations with self-stated dedication to pet animal well-being. Using a Likert-scale, respondents ranked 13 prominent organizations as having a low to high impact on pet animal well-being and health care. The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) had the highest perceived average impact, while People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) had the lowest. A best–worst scaling (BWS) choice experiment was conducted with 7 of the initial 13 organizations to elicit relative rankings by forcing tradeoffs by respondents. Consistent with the Likert-scale results, the ASPCA was ranked as the most impactful organization. The ASPCA’s perceived impact on pet animal well-being and health care may be linked to their high level of recognition among respondents, as this was the organization that respondents most frequently reported having seen/heard stories related to animal well-being and health care.
7
Spain, C., Daisy Freund, Heather Mohan-Gibbons, Robert Meadow, and Laurie Beacham. "Are They Buying It? United States Consumers’ Changing Attitudes toward More Humanely Raised Meat, Eggs, and Dairy." Animals 8, no. 8 (July 25, 2018): 128. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani8080128.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This survey research sampled 1000 US (United States) consumers of meat, eggs, and dairy on their attitudes towards the welfare of farm animals and the willingness to pay for products with trustworthy welfare certifications. Most respondents (70%) reported paying attention to labels that indicate how the animals were raised and 78% believed there should be an objective third party to ensure farm animal welfare. The weighted average of the marginal willingness to pay for products raised under a trustworthy welfare certification was $0.79 for eggs (a 32% premium) and $0.96 for 1 lb. of chicken breast (a 48% premium). In addition, 57% of respondents reported they would be likely to choose a restaurant because it serves welfare-certified animal products and are also willing to pay ≥$5.00 extra per entrée. These findings suggest that many US consumers, particularly millennials, would be willing to seek out higher welfare products if they trust the label claims.
8
Baysinger, Angela, Paul Ayers, Stephanie Wisdom, and Jon P. Holt. "285 Panel: Recent Practical Advancements Related to On-farm Animal Welfare in the United States." Journal of Animal Science 99, Supplement_1 (May 1, 2021): 9–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jas/skab054.015.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract The purpose of this panel session is to highlight recent practical solutions and advancements to farm animal welfare challenges in the United States. Through a moderated discussion with session attendees, professionals and experts representing a variety of livestock industry and academic sectors will be given the opportunity to share their professional experiences in working to improve animal welfare by highlighting examples of practical solutions they have undertaken. Additionally, a discussion will be held on the future direction of farm animal welfare needs and barriers to implementation of animal welfare-related strategies.
9
Carter, H. E. "Farm animal welfare legislation in europe." Proceedings of the British Society of Animal Production (1972) 1990 (March 1990): 8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s030822960001792x.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
There is mounting concern for the welfare of farm animals in all the countries of the European Community and the members states of the Council of Europe. The rapid increase in intensive management systems of poultry, pigs, cattle and fur-bearing animals has been the subject of heated debate in every European country. The publication of Ruth Harrison's book, Animal Machines, a quarter of a century ago, can now be seen as the starting point for the increasing demands for legislation to control what are seen to be new and unnecessarily restrictive ways of keeping farm animals. In the United Kingdom, as long ago as 1965, the Brambell Committee made recommendations that were largely ignored. Animal welfare societies increasingly called for legislation to control the situation. Society generally, on the other hand, welcomed the provision of cheap eggs, cheap poultry meat and relatively cheap dairy products.
10
Mench, J. A. "Assessing Animal Welfare at the Farm and Group Level: A United States Perspective." Animal Welfare 12, no. 4 (November 2003): 493–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600026087.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThe United States has traditionally lagged behind Europe in the adoption of voluntary or legislated standards for the care and treatment of animals on farms. US federal legislation of farm animal practices is minimal, confined to aspects of livestock transport and slaughter. Although some of the livestock and poultry producer (commodity) groups wrote guidelines, codes of practice, or statements regarding the humane treatment of animals in the 1980s, these were usually very general statements of current industry practice, developed with little consultation with independent experts and involving no mechanism for encouraging or ensuring compliance by producers. However, this has changed dramatically in the last few years, with an increasing trend among US retailers to require their suppliers to adopt minimum animal welfare standards. The major chain restaurants and supermarkets are working through their trade organisations, the National Council of Chain Restaurants and the Food Marketing Institute respectively, and with the commodity groups, to develop a uniform set of standards and a national auditing program. Standards and auditing programs have already been approved for dairy cattle, laying hens and meat chickens, and for slaughter, including ritual slaughter (kosher and halal). The process of setting auditable standards is complicated by the lack of legislative underpinning, the scope of the auditing that will be required because of US farm sizes and the large distances between farms, and the varying levels of expertise of potential auditors. For these reasons, ‘engineering-based’ auditing criteria that are relatively easy to measure and to standardise are more common. There are both strengths and potential weaknesses of retail-driven rather than legislatively driven animal welfare standards. Regardless, the recent changes in the US possibly pave the way for increasing dialogue between Europe and the US on farm animal welfare issues.
11
Johnson, A. K. "ASAS Centennial Paper: Farm animal welfare science in the United States." Journal of Animal Science 87, no. 6 (June 1, 2009): 2175–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2008-1519.
Повний текст джерела
12
Reynnells, RD. "United States Department of Agriculture: building bridges through innovative animal well-being initiatives." Animal Welfare 13, S1 (February 2004): S175—S180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s096272860001455x.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractAnimal well-being issues are addressed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) through a variety of agencies and in various formats. Most farmers are good stewards of their animals and will raise them according to societal demands as supported by market choices. Management standards that are perceived to improve upon current practices are being demanded of farmers by buyers of animal products, including corporate restaurant chains and groceries. Professional organisations, USDA, and university representatives, help to address well-being issues and help to create and evaluate standards. The USDA provides leadership in several cooperative programs involving activists and industry, coordinates certification programs, and provides liaisons to multi-state university research committees. A USDA Animal Well-Being Work Group facilitates communications among agency personnel. The USDA developed the Animal Welfare Issues Compendium, a national animal well-being symposium, and cooperates with industry, activists and universities on projects. The USDA provides grant funds for projects that are encouraged to include a component on animal well-being. Special grant funds from Congress have resulted in educational and research projects that complement existing USDA national research and educational initiatives. Regulatory commitments by USDA include the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and the Humane Methods of Slaughter Act.
13
Traystman, Richard J. "The Goal of Animal Welfare, Animal “Rights,” and Antivivisectionist Groups in the United States." Journal of Neurosurgical Anesthesiology 2, no. 3 (September 1990): 153–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00008506-199009000-00001.
Повний текст джерела
14
Tonsor, Glynn T., and Christopher A. Wolf. "US Farm Animal Welfare: An Economic Perspective." Animals 9, no. 6 (June 18, 2019): 367. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani9060367.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The topic of farm animal welfare (FAW) is both complex and controversial, and inherently involves expertise and views from multiple disciplines. This article provides a summary of economic perspectives on FAW issues in the United States. Practices related to FAW can occur through legal, market or voluntary programs. FAW is not a primary driver of US food demand but negative press has industry-wide effects. Aligning FAW supply and demand can be facilitated through labeling, education, and voluntary programs, but all have pros and cons.
15
Vissers, Luuk S. M., Ingrid C. de Jong, Peter L. M. van Horne, and Helmut W. Saatkamp. "Global Prospects of the Cost-Efficiency of Broiler Welfare in Middle-Segment Production Systems." Animals 9, no. 7 (July 23, 2019): 473. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani9070473.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
In the 2000s, the idea of a so-called middle-segment arose in North-West Europe to address the criticism on intensive broiler production systems. Middle-segment systems being indoor housing of slower-growing broiler strains at a stocking density ≤38 kg/m2. Previous literature showed that Dutch middle-segment systems entail a relatively large gain in animal welfare at a relatively low increase in costs, i.e., have a high cost-efficiency. The question is to what extent these findings are applicable to other countries. Therefore, the aim of this study is to gain insight in the global prospects of middle-segment systems by exploring the cost-efficiency of these systems in other parts of the world. A set of representative countries, containing the Netherlands, United States and Brazil were selected. Cost-efficiency was defined as the ratio of the change in the level of animal welfare and the change in production costs. The level of animal welfare was measured by the Welfare Quality (WQ) index score. Data was collected from literature and consulting experts. Results show that in the Netherlands, United States and Brazil a change from conventional towards a middle-segment system improves animal welfare in a cost-efficient manner (the Netherlands 9.1, United States 24.2 and Brazil 12.1). Overall, it can be concluded that in general middle-segment production systems provide a considerable increase in animal welfare at a relatively small increase in production costs and therefore offer good prospects for a cost-efficient improvement of broiler welfare.
16
Reese, Laura A., and Minting Ye. "Minding the Gap: Networks of Animal Welfare Service Provision." American Review of Public Administration 47, no. 5 (January 3, 2016): 503–19. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0275074015623377.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This research focuses on public service provision in the context of an important emerging urban policy issue: increasing numbers of roaming animals in distressed cities in the United States. The case of urban animal welfare policy illustrates a policy domain that relies heavily on informal networks of nonprofit organizations for service provision. How these networks function and the interaction between nonprofit and public entities says much about how cities will be able to respond to increasingly changing policy environments. Based on survey and network analysis of organizations involved in animal welfare service provision in Detroit, the following conclusions are drawn: Urban animal welfare services are much broader than simple animal “control” and encompass the physical, behavioral, and emotional well-being of animals; less common aspects of animal welfare services evidence the highest levels of cooperation; a fragmented network of nonprofit rescues and public entities is providing animal welfare services in the City of Detroit although nonprofit providers dominate; and collaborative service networks vary greatly in size, density, and composition depending on different aspects of services provided.
17
Prickett, RW, F. Bailey Norwood, and JL Lusk. "Consumer preferences for farm animal welfare: results from a telephone survey of US households." Animal Welfare 19, no. 3 (August 2010): 335–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600001731.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractAs animal industry and animal advocacy groups debate how farm animals should be treated, little research has focused on the attitudes of consumers in the United States. This study utilises results of a representative telephone survey to measure consumer attitudes towards farm animal welfare, and investigates how these attitudes vary across individuals. The survey finds that consumers desire high standards of animal care, even if it raises food prices and involves government regulation. Support is particularly strong from females, Democrats, and residents of the Northeastern United States. To provide high standards of animal care, consumers as a whole perceive allowing animals to exhibit natural behaviours and exercise outdoors to be more important than protection from other animals, shelter, socialisation, and comfortable bedding. Consumers vary in their perceptions though, and are divided into three classes: Naturalists, Price Seekers, and Basic Welfarists. Naturalists place great importance on allowing animals to exhibit natural behaviours and exercise outdoors, and comprise 46% of the sample. Price Seekers, comprising 14% of the sample, are primarily concerned with low prices. Basic Welfarists make up 40% of the respondents, and value animal welfare but perceive it can be achieved by simply providing food, water, and treatment for injury and disease. This last group perceives amenities, such as access to outdoors and ability to exhibit natural behaviours, unimportant for the well-being of farm animals.
18
Lund, V. "Postgraduate Teaching in Farm Animal Welfare and Ethics." Animal Welfare 6, no. 2 (May 1997): 105–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0962728600019576.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractA survey was performed in the Spring of 1995 to map postgraduate education world-wide in animal welfare and ethics. Twenty-one universities in ten countries on three continents were identified, that either offered, or had definite plans to start, postgraduate courses relating to animal welfare and/or ethics. Of these universities nine were European, one Australian, one New Zealand, one Canadian and nine were American. In Australia, Canada and the United States courses are given during a semester or quarter of a semester, while in Europe short but concentrated courses or seminars are more common, with several of them aimed at practising veterinarians rather than at postgraduate students. Interest in the subject of animal welfare and ethics seems to be increasing. Many of the existing courses were started during recent years, and two of the most comprehensive programmes offered were started in 1995. Also, four chairs in animal welfare were recently established or were advertised in Europe at the time of this survey. One chair had been established in 1994, in New Zealand, one was to be advertised in the United States and one in Canada. Another trend is towards the establishment of ‘centres’ for the study of animal welfare issues. Associated with these new chairs and centres, educational programmes will probably be started. Few of the present courses focus mainly on farm animal issues, instead they cover a large spectrum of the human-animal relationship. Ethics is a minor part of the courses as compared to the science and animal welfare components.
19
Hoy-Gerlach, Janet, Martha Delgado, Heather Sloane, and Phil Arkow. "Rediscovering connections between animal welfare and human welfare: Creating social work internships at a humane society." Journal of Social Work 19, no. 2 (March 2, 2018): 216–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1468017318760775.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Summary Within a narrative of how two distinct graduate social work internship placements at a humane society were structured and implemented, we address: (1) historic and contemporary rationales for social work roles in humane society settings, (2) development of social work field placements in a humane society, and (3) specific social work learning opportunities afforded. Findings The first petition for removal of a child due to abuse in the United States occurred in 1874 through efforts of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals director. While child protection services have evolved since then, numerous aspects of human–animal interaction are relevant to social work: social support roles of animals, connections between violence toward animals and violence toward humans, therapeutic benefits of animals, companion animal loss, and compassion fatigue among animal shelter and veterinary staff. Encompassing such HAI aspects, we describe the development of two distinct internship placements at a humane society. One placement entailed a twofold focus on: reduction of staff compassion fatigue and development of an Emotional Support Animal placement program (the Hope and Recovery Pet Program); the other placement focused on aspects of the connection between violence toward animals and violence toward people. Applications Aspects of these social work placements can be modified and replicated in humane societies and related settings. Increased awareness of the potential relevance of human–animal interaction across social work practice settings allows for explicit identification of/response to clients’ human–animal interaction-related strengths and concerns, ultimately supporting the well-being of both humans and animals.
20
Eisen, Jessica. "Beyond Rights and Welfare: Democracy, Dialogue, and the Animal Welfare Act." University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, no. 51.3 (2018): 469. http://dx.doi.org/10.36646/mjlr.51.3.beyond.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The primary frameworks through which scholars have conceptualized legal protections for animals—animal “rights” and animal “welfare”—do not account for socio-legal transformation or democratic dialogue as central dynamics of animal law. The animal “rights” approach focuses on the need for limits or boundaries preventing animal use, while the animal “welfare” approach advocates balancing harm to animals against human benefits from animal use. Both approaches rely on abstract accounts of the characteristics animals are thought to share with humans and the legal protections they are owed as a result of those traits. Neither offers sustained attention to the dynamics of legal change in democratic states, including the importance of public access to the facts of animal lives, opportunities for affective storytelling, and multi-faceted public deliberation. This Article offers an alternative avenue for theorizing animal legal protections, drawing on Laurence Tribe’s articulation of law as governed by an “evolving ethic,” wherein successive shifts in legal and public consensus build upon one another in ways that are dynamic and not entirely unpredictable. Drawing on feminist, critical, and relational approaches to law and social change, this Article elaborates a vision of animal law as governed by an evolving ethic wherein legal transformation is deeply connected to the public availability of particular facts of animal use, emotional storytelling, and broader social relationships and power dynamics. The evolving ethic here proposed helps us to shift our focus from a precritical understanding of rights as hard boundaries to a view of rights as a product of dynamic social relationships; and to shift our focus from welfarist balancing calculations to more open-textured dialogue. By conceiving of animal law through the lens of the evolving ethic, we can break free of stale debates about the virtue of rights versus welfare and instead embrace both as tools in a dialogic toolbox deployed in a field of legal transformation that is better characterized by dynamism and dialogue than by teleological advancement toward a predefined goal. The Animal Welfare Act (AWA)—the central legal regime governing the experimental use of animals in the United States, forms the central case study. The AWA regime in its current form works to foreclose public deliberation over concrete cases. The history of this same regime, however, demonstrates that affective storytelling grounded in the particular facts of animal use has been a major driver of democratic legal change protecting animals used in experiments. This Article explores the current structure and historical development of the AWA scheme, demonstrating that the evolving ethic offers insights, beyond those allowed by rights and welfare approaches, into the practical dynamics of animal law and the shortcomings of the current AWA scheme. Informed by the evolving ethic and the AWA’s history of sociolegal transformation, this Article offers AWA law reform proposals that aim to facilitate public deliberation grounded in the concrete facts of animal use—including the introduction of ethical merit review of proposed experiments, changes in the applicable rules of standing, and product labeling. While each proposed reform may yield incremental improvements in the treatment of laboratory animals in the immediate term, the core insight of the evolving ethic is that there is a distinct value in the potential of such proposals to nourish public conversations rooted in particular stories of animal use—conversations that are likely to spur new questions and new conversations, none of which can be fully determined in advance.
21
Driessen, Bart. "Fundamental Animal Rights in European Law." European Public Law 23, Issue 3 (August 1, 2017): 547–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/euro2017032.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Law is fundamentally anthropocentric. However, the philosophical and scientific assumptions underpinning this assume that animals lack any capacity for moral choices, identity or even sentience. In Europe there is a considerable body of animal welfare law, but the current standards of animal welfare legislation do not bridge the gap between those assumptions and scientific reality. This article explores the philosophical concepts underlying the status of animals in law in Europe and the United States and compares them to current biological science. The conclusion is drawn that there is a discrepancy between the assumptions underlying legal systems and recent biological findings. The article suggests that a modern legal approach to the relationship between man and sentient animals should depart from the idea that animals have certain fundamental rights. It then proposes an approach to fundamental rights for animals in Europe and argues why such an approach has to be treaty based.
22
Volsche, Shelly. "Pet Parenting in the United States: Investigating an Evolutionary Puzzle." Evolutionary Psychology 19, no. 3 (July 2021): 147470492110382. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14747049211038297.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Fertility rates continue to decline globally amidst the second demographic transition, marked by urbanization, increased educational attainment, and most importantly, a new flexibility in life-course organization. As a result, some individuals are choosing to bring companion animals in the home rather than raising children. Purpose The purpose of this study is to explore whether these transitions result in differential companion animal attachment and caregiving behavior in the homes of parents (or those who desire to become parents) and nonparents or childfree “pet parents.” Methods A total of 917 respondents completed an online survey via Qualtrics that included demographic questions, the Lexington Attachment to Pets Scale (LAPS), and Likert-scale questions designed to probe direct and indirect caretaking behaviors. Results Nonparents reported more Generalized Attachment and more Affective Responsiveness to their companion animals, as well as increased investment in General Care. They also reported more People Substituting on the LAPS. Parents and nonparents reported similar agreement regarding Animal Rights/Welfare and Training and Play. Conclusion I conclude that nonparents' investment in companion animals much like parents invest in children, but in ways that meet species-specific needs. This supports the notion that nonparents may be nurturing companion animals as a trade-off to raising children, but not as a substitute. This is an evolutionarily novel application of parenting strategies in a new, flexible environment.
23
Benka, Valerie A. "The Ethics of Innovation: Ethical Decision-Making and Review for Field Studies and Projects Targeting Dogs and Cats." Animals 11, no. 12 (December 17, 2021): 3579. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11123579.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
To date, independent ethical oversight of many companion animal welfare initiatives has been limited and, in some instances, inadequate. Beyond a blurred line between “innovation” and “research,” the nature of the work conducted in animal welfare projects is often poorly aligned with established institutional ethical review structures, which are designed for research involving humans or research involving animals and are also focused on industry and academic institutions. This commentary details the struggle of one United States-based nonprofit organization to find ethical guidelines and support for conducting non-traditional field-based animal welfare studies, and subsequent experience establishing an Ethical Review Board to evaluate organizational initiatives. The commentary discusses member selection, materials and processes, and lessons and learnings from the creation and use of an Ethical Review Board. Sharing content of the ethical review process, as well as challenges and learnings from it, is intended to support other organizations and individuals seeking to ensure that innovation for animal welfare consistently meets high ethical standards.
24
Johnston, Connie L. "Geography, Science, and Subjectivity: Farm Animal Welfare in the United States and Europe." Geography Compass 7, no. 2 (February 2013): 139–48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12028.
Повний текст джерела
25
Liu, John Chung-En, Brandon Gertz, and Naomi Newman. "Shark Fin Regulations in the United States: Animal Welfare, Cultural, and Policy Considerations." Case Studies in the Environment 3, no. 1 (December 31, 2019): 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/cse.2018.001438.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Sharks play critical roles in the marine ecosystem, and they face serious threats due to overfishing. Conservation efforts have focused on the consumption of shark fins, especially the “finning” practice that removes the fins of a shark and discards the carcass at sea. This article reviews the shark fin legislation in the United States, including the “finning ban” which outlaws finning practices and the “fin ban” that prohibits the use of shark fins entirely. Our case study specifically focuses on the animal welfare, cultural, and policy debates surrounding these bans. We discuss how and why shark finning is regarded as a cruel practice and whether shark fin bans discriminate against Chinese Americans. At the policy level, there is an ongoing policy debate whether a ban on shark fins in the United States would lead to increased protection of sharks or it would have little effect on the global trade. Due to the lack of detailed information on shark fisheries, the policy discussion is likely to persist. Although this case study focuses only on regulations on shark fins, we would like to emphasize that shark fin industry is not the only threat to sharks. Conservationists also need to consider other issues such as bycatch, habitat destruction, and a wider array of policy tools to protect sharks.
26
Webb, S. "10 Animal Welfare Research Perspectives and Opportunities for the United States Swine Industry." Journal of Animal Science 96, suppl_2 (April 2018): 5–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky073.008.
Повний текст джерела
27
Brown, Jennifer. "286 Where Is On-farm Animal Welfare in the United States Headed? A Canadian Perspective." Journal of Animal Science 99, Supplement_1 (May 1, 2021): 9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jas/skab054.014.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract Both the United States and Canada are major exporters of pork, with market forces and consumer demand playing a more important role than legislation in defining production standards. Canadian welfare standards can be seen as intermediate between those in America and Europe, with the province of Quebec leading the way in Canada’s production of “high welfare” pork. In many other respects- such as farm size, diets, genetics and management, pig farms in Canada and the United States are very similar. What can U.S. producers learn from Canada’s experience in implementation of new welfare standards? This talk discusses Canada’s 2014 implementation of the Code of Practice for the Care and Handling of Pigs. The Code included multiple new requirements, including the transition to group housing for gestating sows, use of analgesics at castration and tail docking, space allowances and the provision of enrichment. Code development is overseen by the National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) in cooperation with the Canadian Pork Council (CPC) and with participation of government, industry and public partners. In 2020, the Pig Code underwent a 5-year review, which resulted in eight major recommendations. Five of those recommendations will require amendments to the code and are yet to be approved. Each change illustrates a balance between economics and welfare in a highly competitive and changing industry. For example, the 2014 Code promoted adoption of group housing for sows by July 1, 2024. While integrated production systems committed to, and invested heavily in, implementation of group gestation, the cost of barn conversion and poor pork returns have been major deterrents on many farms. The CPC estimates that in 2021, 44% of Canada’s sow herd will be managed in groups. The Code review recognized that not all producers will be able to transition by 2024, and that forcing producers to convert on a strict timeline would result in a worsening of the animal’s welfare. The review recommended changing the date for implementation of group housing from 2024 to 2029. This more gradual transition will allow renovations to be part of a scheduled rebuild of an existing facility or new construction, with better long-term outcomes for producers and sow wellbeing.
28
Paarlberg, Philip L., John G. Lee, and Ann H. Seitzinger. "Measuring Welfare Effects of an FMD Outbreak in the United States." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 35, no. 1 (April 2003): 53–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1074070800005939.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Questions have been raised regarding the economic costs of a foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) outbreak in the United States. This analysis examines how welfare changes are measured and argues that they must be decomposed by groups. Producers with animals quarantined and slaughtered because of FMD measure their welfare change using lost sales. Producers not quarantined measure their welfare change using producer surplus. The change in national sales revenue is accurate when the supply elasticity is low. Welfare changes for consumers also must be decomposed because the change in aggregate consumer surplus hides important shifts in welfare among groups of consumers.
29
Brown, Sue-Ellen. "The Under-representation of African American Employees in Animal Welfare Organizations in the United States." Society & Animals 13, no. 2 (2005): 153–62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/1568530054300217.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThe purpose of this research was to document the alleged underrepresentation of African Americans employed in U.S. nonhuman animal welfare organizations. A telephone survey of 32 animal welfare organizations yielded responses from 13 with 1,584 employees. Almost all organizations were reluctant to respond. Of the 13 organizations responding, 62% (N = 8) had no African American employees. African Americans made up 4% (N = 63) of the total number of employees with only 0.8% (N = 12) at the top levels (officials, managers, and professionals). African Americans never made up more than 7% of the employees in their respective organization. This paper discusses a model of, and resources for, successful diversity building in nonprofit organizations.
30
Orlans, F. Barbara. "Animal Pain Scales in Public Policy." Alternatives to Laboratory Animals 18, no. 1_part_1 (November 1990): 41–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/026119299001800107.1.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Pain scales classify the severity of pain inflicted on laboratory animals from little or none up to severe. A pain scale as part of public policy serves beneficial purposes that promote animal welfare. It can be used to educate people about the two alternatives of refinement and replacement, and the need to reduce animal pain. Furthermore, a pain scale has practical applications: 1) in review procedures for animal welfare concerns; 2) in developing policies on the use of animals in education; and 3) as a basis for collecting national data on animal experimentation, so that meaningful data can be collected on trends in reduction and control in animal pain. So far, only a few countries (including Sweden, the Netherlands, Canada and New Zealand) have adopted pain scales as part of their public policy. Most countries, including the United States, have not yet done so. The history of the development and adoption of pain scales by various countries is described and the case is presented for wider adoption of a pain scale in countries not currently using one.
31
Green, D. "(A10) Animal Search and Rescue." Prehospital and Disaster Medicine 26, S1 (May 2011): s2. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1049023x11000239.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
BackgroundIn the United States, animal search and rescue (ASAR) is becoming a recognized component of Search and Rescue (SAR).Discussion and ObservationsUrban Search and Rescue (USAR) teams have long recognized the importance of having trained animal rescuers available to handle the animals that are often with humans seeking rescue. Animals are such an important part of most U.S. families, that in many cases, if the animal isn't included in the rescue efforts, the human will refuse to evacuate. The International Fund for Animal Welfare received a grant in 2010 to develop an ASAR curriculum and to train two Type II ASAR teams in Mississippi and Louisiana. This presentation will provide an overview of that curriculum and the courses that were developed for the unique tasks, skills, and equipment needs for animal search and rescue.
32
Tonsor, Glynn T., and Christopher A. Wolf. "Drivers of Resident Support for Animal Care Oriented Ballot Initiatives." Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics 42, no. 3 (August 2010): 419–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1074070800003606.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Recent high profile incidents and public debates in the United States have highlighted the increasing interest residents have regarding animal rearing and handling practices. This paper examines resident support for national legislation that mirrors Proposition 2, which in November 2008 passed in California. Results suggest perceptions regarding animal welfare information accuracy of livestock industry and consumer groups are particularly influential determinants of voting behavior and demand. The analysis also suggests residents may not fully appreciate price or tax implications when supporting additional animal welfare legislation. Implications for livestock industry and policy makers are provided along with suggestions for additional research.
33
Holoyda, Brian James. "Bestiality Law in the United States: Evolving Legislation with Scientific Limitations." Animals 12, no. 12 (June 12, 2022): 1525. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12121525.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Societies have proscribed bestiality, or sex between humans and nonhuman animals, since the earliest recorded legal codes. In the early American colonies, religious prohibitions against bestiality provided the grounds for punishing those who engaged in such acts. In the 1800′s, Henry Bergh imported the animal welfare approach to the United States, which modernized the legislative treatment of animals in the country. Until recently, however, many laws in the U.S. have been outdated and vague and have utilized moralistic terminology. Since the 1960′s, a growing body of literature has developed suggesting that individuals who harm animals may also interpersonally offend. This concept, known as the Link, has served as a major motivation for advocates to promote new legislation criminalizing bestiality, to modernize old state statutes, and to expand penalties for individuals convicted of having sex with animals. Unfortunately, data supporting the Link between bestiality and interpersonal violence are limited and of questionable generalizability to the broad public. The Link’s weaknesses can assist in guiding further research. This article summarizes the history of bestiality law, the current state of bestiality legislation in the United States, the body of Link-related literature on bestiality and interpersonal violence and other problematic sexual behaviors, and the empirical weaknesses and needs revealed by this legislation.
34
Brown, Sue-Ellen. "The under-representation of African Americans in animal welfare fields in the United States." Anthrozoös 18, no. 2 (June 2005): 98–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.2752/089279305785594225.
Повний текст джерела
35
Bloomsmith, Mollie A., Andrea W. Clay, Susan P. Lambeth, Corrine K. Lutz, Sarah D. Breaux, Michael L. Lammey, Andrea N. Franklin, et al. "Survey of Behavioral Indices of Welfare in Research Chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes) in the United States." Journal of the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science 58, no. 2 (March 1, 2019): 160–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.30802/aalas-jaalas-18-000034.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Chimpanzees demand specialized housing and care and the highest degree of attention to animal welfare. The current project used a survey method to collate information on chimpanzee housing and behavioral indices of welfare across all 6 of the chimpanzee research facilities in the United States. Data were compiled on 701 chimpanzees ranging from 2 to 62 y old (mean age, 26.0 y). All chimpanzees except for one were socially housed; the median group size was 7 animals, and group sizes ranged from 1 to 14. All of the subjects had access to outdoor spaces each day. Daily access to a natural substrate in the chimpanzee's enclosure was available for 63.8% of the subjects. Overall, 94.1% of the chimpanzees used tools to acquire food, 48.1% built nests, 75.8% copulated, and 83.3% initiated grooming bouts. The following atypical behaviors were reported most often: rocking (13.0%), coprophagy (10.0%), and stereotyped behaviors other than rocking (9.4%). There was widespread evi- dence of positive animal training techniques, with nearly all (97.7%) subjects reported to generally voluntarily cooperate with shifting in their enclosure, and 72.2% were reported to present for an injection of anesthetic. We include some comparison between these findings and data describing zoo-housed chimpanzees. In addition, we discuss survey findings in reference to recommendations made by the NIH Working Group on the Use of Chimpanzees in NIH-supported Research. The current survey assessed a larger sample of chimpanzees living under human care than has been published previously. This broad analysis can help to guide future improvements in behavioral management to address behavioral problems or deficits.
36
Weaver, Bobbi Ann. "Research in the Peaceable Kingdom: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography on Animal Law From an International Perspective." International Journal of Legal Information 30, no. 3 (2002): 426–53. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s073112650001012x.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Animal rights and animal welfare issues have reached beyond national boundaries and are now the focus of a variety of international concerns. For example, the current controversy surrounding the sale of bear parts from animals in North America to Asian nations for use in traditional medicines involves the laws of the United States and Canada, the market for bear parts in Asia, and the regulations of trade in endangered species on an international level. Other international animal rights issues include the environmental threat to wildlife in the Antarctica, the importation to the U.S. of coats made from dog and cat pelts, and the impact of animal husbandry on the problem of world hunger.
37
Thomson, Dan. "Beef Cattle Welfare in the United States: Current State and Future Directions." Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 12, no. 2 (March 20, 2009): 159–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10888700902720623.
Повний текст джерела
38
McKendree, M. G. S., C. C. Croney, and N. J. O. Widmar. "Effects of demographic factors and information sources on United States consumer perceptions of animal welfare." Journal of Animal Science 92, no. 7 (July 1, 2014): 3161–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-6874.
Повний текст джерела
39
Anderson, Ronald, and Maurice Wilkinson. "Consumer Welfare and the Livestock Economy in the United States." Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie 31, no. 3 (November 13, 2008): 351–69. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7976.1983.tb01222.x.
Повний текст джерела
40
Lee, Hyeong-Seok. "The Investigation·Supervision System of the Laboratory for Protecting Experimental Animals with Regard to the United States Animal Welfare Act." Wonkwang University Legal Research Institute 25 (June 30, 2021): 43–73. http://dx.doi.org/10.22397/bml.2021.25.43.
Повний текст джерела
41
Hempstead, Melissa N., Taylor M. Lindquist, Jan K. Shearer, Leslie C. Shearer, and Paul J. Plummer. "Health and Welfare Survey of 30 Dairy Goat Farms in the Midwestern United States." Animals 11, no. 7 (July 5, 2021): 2007. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani11072007.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Dairy goat production in the Midwestern United States is increasing at a rapid rate and information on dairy goat husbandry practices applicable for producers in this region is limited. The objective of this study was to survey 30 dairy goat farms in the Midwestern US to provide insight into husbandry practices pertaining to health, welfare, and production, and to identify areas of future research. A questionnaire was developed and comprised 163 questions that were organized into categories including information on the producer (e.g., farming experience), staff, and goats (e.g., herd size, breed), housing, feeding and nutrition, milking practices and production, kid management, husbandry practices (e.g., disbudding, castration, hoof trimming), and health. Areas of future research that can improve goat health, production and welfare include pain relief for husbandry practices such as disbudding and castration, early kid management during birth to prevent illness/disease or mortality (e.g., warm and dry areas for kid rearing), eradication programs for common contagious diseases, training programs and education for claw trimming, disbudding, and udder health. In conclusion, this study provided insight into the husbandry practices carried out on 30 dairy goat farms in the Midwestern US and areas of research to improve health and welfare.
42
McCaskill, Sean. "A Municipal Tail." Southern California Quarterly 103, no. 4 (2021): 398–436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/scq.2021.103.4.398.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
This project examines municipal animal control in Los Angeles between 1880 and 1909. It traces the emergence of municipal animal control from the confluence of animal welfare reform and progressive state expansion. The animal welfare movement in the United States began in the Colonial Era, but soon reflected the influence of changing attitudes in Europe and the rise of anti-cruelty reform movements after the Civil War. As Americans sought to create a better world out of the ashes of that war, many looked towards animal welfare. This movement occurred first on the East Coast, beginning with Henry Bergh’s founding of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) in 1866, and reached Los Angeles by the end of the century. Many in that growing city viewed the dawn of the twentieth century with optimism, hoping for L.A.’s ascendancy into the ranks of the nation’s great metropolises. As a result, they began to look at the city’s problems through an increasingly progressive lens. Newspapers had covered the animal impoundment system’s brutality since the 1880s, but by the end of the century, they carried dramatic exposés of cruelties and corruption at the pound that emphasized connections to larger social issues. Citizens, including an impressive number of women, became activists for animal welfare. The municipal government responded by passing an ordinance that put animal control in the hands of the Humane Animal League, a private animal welfare organization. When the League failed to handle the city’s burgeoning animal population humanely and efficiently, the city assumed responsibility for animal control and created a municipal system. The emergence of municipal animal control in Los Angeles demonstrates a city turning to the extension of state power at the local level to create a more humane and efficient world for both its human and animal inhabitants.
43
Horback, Kristina. "284 Prop 12 and Its Implications for Future On-farm Animal Welfare in the United States." Journal of Animal Science 99, Supplement_1 (May 1, 2021): 8–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jas/skab054.013.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract California’s Proposition 12, also known as the Farm Animal Confinement Initiative, will go into full effect starting in January 2022. This measure changes the minimum space requirement for egg-laying hens, calves raised for veal, and breeding sows within the state of California. These changes include housing that provides 1 to 1.5 square feet of floor space per hen within a cage-free system, 43 square feet of floor space per veal calf, and 24 square feet of floor space per sow. In addition, Proposition 12 would require producers to move the sows from gestation pens into farrowing crates for a maximum of 5 days before they are due to farrow. This measure also prohibits producers outside of California from importing their eggs, veal, or pork into the state unless they meet these minimum housing requirements. The goal of these requirements is to ensure that they animal can lie down, stand up, turn around, and fully extend their limbs without touching the sides of their stalls or another animal. While the intent of this new housing requirement may allow for a greater freedom of movement, animal welfare concerns are still prominent for group housing. For breeding sow, such concerns include injuries caused by social aggression, and, abnormal or harmful behaviors related to feed restriction. These welfare concerns can be addressed when considerations are given to the group composition (e.g., age and size of sows), pen mixing practices (e.g., pre or post breeding), feeding schedule [e.g., collective (trough, floor fed) or individual (electronic sow feeding, free access stalls)], and, pen structural quality (e.g., flooring, enrichment). Given that California represents approximately 15 percent of the American pork market, this measure will have considerable economic and ethical implications related to barn renovations, animal care staff training, and husbandry practices for the entire U.S. pork industry.
44
Phillips, Hannah N., and Bradley J. Heins. "Alternative Practices in Organic Dairy Production and Effects on Animal Behavior, Health, and Welfare." Animals 12, no. 14 (July 12, 2022): 1785. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani12141785.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The number of organic dairy farms has increased because of the increased growth of the organic market, higher organic milk price, and because some consumers prefer to purchase products from less intensive production systems. Best management practices are expected from organic dairy farms to ensure animal health and milk production. Organic dairy producers typically transition from conventional systems to avoid chemicals and pesticides, enhance economic viability, improve the environment, and increase soil fertility. Organic dairy producers respect and promote a natural environment for their animals, is also an important component of animal welfare. Organic producers have few options to mitigate pain in dairy calves. In the United States, therapies to mitigate pain for disbudded organic dairy calves are regulated by the US National Organic Program. Organic producers regularly use naturally derived alternatives for the treatment of health disorders of dairy calves, heifers, and cows. Alternative natural products may provide an option to mitigate pain in organic dairy calves. Despite the reluctance to implement pain alleviation methods, some organic farmers have expressed interest in or currently implement plant-based alternatives. Efficacy studies of alternative remedies for organic livestock are needed to verify that their use improves animal welfare. Non-effective practices represent a major challenge for organic dairy animal welfare. The relationship between humans and animals may be jeopardized during milking because first-lactation cows may exhibit adverse behaviors during the milking process, such as kicking and stomping. The periparturient period is particularly challenging for first-lactation cows. Adverse behaviors may jeopardize animal welfare and reduce safety for humans because stressed heifers may kick off the milking unit, kick at milkers, and display other unwanted behaviors in the milking parlor. This may reduce milking efficiency, overall production, and ultimately reduce the profitability of the dairy farm. Positive animal welfare is a challenging balancing act between the three overlapping ethic concerns. Identifying animal welfare deficits in organic livestock production is the first step in capitalizing on these opportunities to improve welfare.
45
Larson, Jean. "Services of the Animal Welfare Information Center at the National Agricultural Library." Journal of the American College of Toxicology 7, no. 4 (July 1988): 463–66. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10915818809019518.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
The National Agricultural Library (NAL) was created by the first Commissioner of Agriculture after the establishment of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) by the Organic Act of 1862. The NAL now includes a diverse collection of 1.9 million items that are in English and many foreign languages, covering multiple subjects and different formats, including electronic. The Animal Welfare Information Center (AWIC) was established in response to the Animal Welfare Act of 1985 to provide information on employee training, to prevent duplication of animal research, and for improved methods of animal research. The services and access to these services are described. Many items on animal welfare have been collected with primary emphasis on training. Access to this information is through the bibliographic database AGRICOLA. Other available products and services, including references, referrals, database searches, bibliographies on special topics, fact sheets, and a traveling tabletop exhibit, are described, and means of obtaining materials are provided.
46
Rowitt, Janice Baldwin, and Heidi E. Brown. "Disaster event effects on cat and dog populations within United States animal care facility services: A cross sectional study." PLOS Climate 1, no. 8 (August 17, 2022): e0000066. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pclm.0000066.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
It is unclear how disaster events, which are expected to increase due to climate change, will affect animal care services. Understanding the impacts they have on cat and dog populations, and how to integrate animal welfare into disaster preparedness, can facilitate disaster response and improve population health outcomes. Federal Emergency Management (FEMA) disaster data were merged with shelter intake data from SAC (Shelter Animals Count) to compare total number of animals and total number of animals euthanized the month of disaster to the subsequent month and to the same month in the subsequent year. Analyses were stratified by animal (dog /cat), disaster (hurricane/fire), and animal care service type and compared using Wilcoxon Signed Rank test. On average, government animal services (GAS) in counties experiencing a hurricane report an increase in dogs in the facility the month (p<0.05) and year (p<0.05) after a hurricane. In contrast, government contract (GC) and non-government contract (NGC) organizations report fewer cats the month after (both p<0.001) a hurricane. While fire in the county had limited effect on dog occupancy across all facility types, more organizations reported higher numbers of cats the month of a fire compared with the month after (GC p<0.001, GAS p<0.05) and more cats euthanized the month (GC p<0.01) and year (GC p<0.05, GAS p<0.05) after a fire. These findings indicate significant fluctuations in animal service needs during and after disaster events. Using a One Health approach to incorporate animal service organizations in human climate adaptation planning can increase community resilience during disaster events.
47
Garner, Robert. "The Politics of Animal Protection: A Research Agenda." Society & Animals 3, no. 1 (1995): 43–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1163/156853095x00044.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
AbstractThis article seeks to provide a research agenda for the study of animal protection politics. It looks firstly at the animal protection movement's organization and maintenance in the context of Olson's theory of collective action. While existing research suggests that activists tend to be recruited because of the purposive and expressive benefits they offer rather than the material ones emphasized by Olson, these alternative forms of selective incentives can hinder the achievement of the movement's goals. Secondly, the article outlines alternative models of policy-making and shows how they might be operationalized to explain the development of animal welfare policy-making in Britain and the United States. Preliminary observations suggest thatBritain's animal welfare record is more substantial because policy communities have been able to manage and limit change through concessions and cooptation. No such mechanism is available in the American political system where the greater openness and fragmentation often results in severe confrontation and ultimately, stalemate.
48
Xing, Zheng, Jeremy Schefers, Marc Schwabenlander, Yongjun Jiao, Mifang Liang, Xian Qi, Chuan Li, et al. "Antibodies of a novel bunyavirus in domestic and captive farmed animals in the Midwestern United States (P6371)." Journal of Immunology 190, no. 1_Supplement (May 1, 2013): 215.1. http://dx.doi.org/10.4049/jimmunol.190.supp.215.1.
Повний текст джерелаАнотація:
Abstract The Heartland virus (HLV), a new phlebovirus isolated in Missouri from patients with a history of tick bites and symptoms similar to severe fever with thrombocytopenia syndrome (SFTS), is an emerging pathogen. Genetically HLV is closely related to the newly identified bunyavirus (SFTSV) causing SFTS. In this study we tried to identify animal hosts that may be susceptible to and infected with HLV, or a SFTSV-like virus, and may serve as amplifying hosts important in virus transmission in the United States. Blood samples were obtained from several domestic and captive farmed animal species from 29 counties of Minnesota in 2012. An antigen sandwich ELISA for detection of SFTSV NP antibodies was used. Antibodies to SFTSV NP were detected in sera from 64 of 414 cattle (15.5%), 10 of 92 goats (10.9%), 6 of 48 sheep (12.5%), 35 of 296 white-tailed deer (11.8%), and 7 of 39 elk (18.0%). Thirty-four of 64 positive samples had P/N ratios between 4 and 10; and 11 had ratios ≥10. Our data show that both domestic and captive farmed animals were exposed to SFTSV- or HLV-like virus in the Midwestern United States. Since SFTSV and HLV are closely related, the viruses detected in the Midwestern region are most likely HLV or close relatives of HLV. Evidence that a novel phlebovirus infects a variety of domesticated and captive farmed animals as shown in this study validates the concern that SFTSV or HLV could pose a serious threat to animal welfare and public health in the United States.
49
Tonsor, Glynn T. "Public animal welfare discussions in the United States: perspectives from a Missouri farm boy turned economist." Animal Frontiers 8, no. 1 (January 2018): 4–7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/af/vfx002.
Повний текст джерела
50
Mulcahy, Daniel M. "The Animal Welfare Act and the Conduct and Publishing of Wildlife Research in the United States." ILAR Journal 58, no. 3 (2017): 371–78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ilar/ilx024.
Повний текст джерела