I am a second year, so early on, an attend Virginia-Maryland Regional, who as of a few years ago stopped doing invasive/terminal surgery and offering more alternatives. Almost all of our "real surgery training" minus spay/neuter, is done fourth year under the supervision of vets with actual client dogs.
Can you interpret this write-up and how it would compare to your vet school. DPU , I appreciate the points you are trying to make (I agree with a lot of them myself) but like I said before….
I did not start this thread to debate the “rights and wrongs” of using animals, alive or dead, in teaching or research.
I started it to comment on the “rights and wrongs” of using shelter animals as opposed to lab-bred dogs for live teaching purposes, in school that do use live animals.
Of course, we all would like to have wonderful models for everything, and would love to switch to an all-donors program of cadaver/dog donation. However, until then, we still have live animals, and we need to address the current situation (ie argue against using lab dogs, while we still use dogs) AS WELL AS push for more reforms.
I will, however, comment on the seizure article, even though it only addresses research dogs.
The economic factors are straightforward. Many have shown that the use of pound animals is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
So we shouldnt use pound dogs because it would cause more expense to researchers? Are they trying to advocate saving research money? I am confused. Also, the average lab dog costs $500 while the average pound dog costs $20. I don’t think it usually costs 480$ to deworm and deflea and give vaxes to a dog.
First, it is precisely those animals who are most adoptable that experimenters tend to choose. They prefer docile, well-socialized, medium-sized animals, precisely the animals likely to be adopted.
True. But they were not taken until they were absolutely slated to be euthanized. Schools do not just walk in and swipe the most adoptable dogs as soon as they are brought in.
Second, there is no comparison between humane euthanasia in a shelter and the experience of an animal in a laboratory experiment before being killed
They must be referring to some crazy medical school experiments… but the animals used in research at my school are only used for canine allergen and canine hypothyroid testing, and are treated very well, and not “killed” at the end of any sort of procedure.
The quality of research is another consideration. Animals from shelters often carry diseases. It is entirely unknown what diseases they may have had and what medications, if any, they may have been given. Their ages are unknown.
Alright, true, but I am referring more to the use of teaching dogs – not research dogs…it doesn’t really matter if the dog is 4 or 5 or 10, or what vaccinations it has had, if you are using it to practice subQ injections.....
People bringing animals into a shelter expect that animals will either be adopted or humanely euthanized. If a person bringing an injured or sick animal into a shelter sees an animal dealer loading animals from the back door of the shelter, the person will very likely turn around and choose not to leave the animal at the facility. When people know that pound seizure is routine, they tend to leave animals on the street.
First of all, animal “dealers” do not just drive up and load off animals in view of everyone. Secondly, those “dealers” ie class B dealers, rose to prominence because of the shelter law – there are two ways to acquire animals now, thought these dealers and through labs. Class B dealers can be real scumbags, too. Schools, at least mine, would directly pick up the animal themselves, discreetly, and in small numbers
Management and employees of shelters are adversely affected, as well.
They never say how….I can’t see how? I can see being sad if you thought dogs were being "rounded up for horrible experimentation"...but no....that is NOT what is happening, unless my school has some crazy basement program I don't know about ;)
Medical researchers should never try to save a few dollars at the expense of an already overburdened animal control system.
I do not see how this is at the expense of a shelter, because technically we would be helping them from constantly staying full. And didn’t they say already that it was *more* expensive to get a shelter dog? So how are researchers saving money?
Again DPU, I very much appreciate your arguments against the use of animals. I agree with a lot of them myself. However, that debate is a whole other kettle of fish and I am just tired of fighting with people on message boards. I started this thread about acquisition policies, and that’s basically what I want to focus on…