Since October 2016, Vermont Packinghouse—a small slaughter facility in Springfield, Vermont—has received four suspensions and over a dozen noncompliance records documenting humane slaughter violations.
Date created: September 5, 2017
Last updated: September 5, 2017
For three weeks in March, Jefferson salamanders have the right of way on a busy stretch of road in Burlington, Ontario. Only about 100 of the threatened amphibians (known locally as “Jeffies”) exist in the area, within a forested stretch along the Niagara Escarpment.
Date created: May 7, 2012
Last updated: January 16, 2020
Poultry engineered to quickly grow freakishly large is a big welfare problem in animal agriculture. So it was good news when Global Animal Partnership (GAP), a third-party animal welfare rating system for food, recently announced that it will require slower growth-rate genetics for all chickens raised under its program.
Date created: July 1, 2016
Last updated: January 15, 2020
On July 23, the National Milk Producers Federation Board of Directors approved a resolution opposing tail docking of dairy cows in their industry guidelines, recommending the practice be phased out by 2022.
Date created: December 4, 2012
Last updated: January 16, 2020
Small whales, dolphins and porpoises are hunted for commercial and subsistence purposes across the globe. They are killed for human consumption, fisheries bait, and to reduce the perceived competition for fish or damage to fishing nets. Some are also captured alive to supply the aquarium industry, with frequent overlap between those involved in the killing and the live capture. Small cetaceans also face indirect threats which may impact them cumulatively or synergistically. Such threats include bycatch (accidental capture in fishing gear), chemical and noise pollution, ship strikes, habitat destruction, over-fishing of prey species, and climate change—which can impact prey, breeding and feeding habitats and migration routes.
Date created: June 27, 2011
Last updated: August 14, 2023
A record-breaking $11 million has been awarded to plaintiffs suffering from horrendous odors emanating from hog factories in Berlin, Missouri.
Date created: July 9, 2010
Last updated: January 9, 2020
Shuanghui International, a Chinese meat processing company, has agreed to purchase U.S.-based Smithfield Foods, a development that raises numerous concerns. Sale of the world’s largest pork producer to a company that is heavily subsidized by the Chinese government is expected to result in less competition and further consolidation in the pork industry worldwide.
Date created: August 23, 2013
Last updated: January 15, 2020
Imprisoning more than one million breeding sows in the U.S., gestation crates used by Smithfield Foods are severe forms of punishment designed with one goal in mind: increased profit.
Date created: November 6, 2009
Last updated: May 2, 2022
A wolf in Minnesota was shot and killed this February after a truly horrible encounter with a strangling snare. Wolves are not legal targets for such devices, but snares are sanctioned year-round to kill coyotes in the state.
Date created: June 29, 2018
Last updated: June 29, 2018
Feeding enrichment promotes
non-injurious foraging and/or food processing activities |
| Macaques will work for food even when identical food is freely available [Anderson & Chamove, 1984; Evans et al., 1989; Line et al., 1989b; O'Connor & Reinhardt, 1994]. This suggests that they have a need to get actively involved in the food acquisition process. In the laboratory, this need is usually not met because food is offered in such a way that no or little effort is required to collect and process it [Bartecki, 1993]. |
 | |
Photos 80 & 81: When given the choice of:
(1) collecting their daily ration of 33 biscuits from the ordinary, freely accessible food box (photo 80), and/or
(2) working for the retrieval of the same biscuit ration from a food puzzle, i.e., food box remounted and bolted directly onto the mesh, away from original large access hole (photo 81),
eight adult rhesus males spent on average:
(1) 0.5 minutes collecting 29 biscuits from the food box, and
(2) 11.2 minutes retrieving 11 biscuits from the food puzzle during 60-minute test sessions [Reinhardt, 1994d].
They consumed all the biscuits (11) for which they had worked, but only 52% of the biscuits (15) which they had hoarded without effort. |
|
| | |
Photos 82* & 83*: Offering the daily biscuit ration in the food puzzle instead of in the ordinary food box results in a more than 100-fold increase in time devoted to food gathering behavior - i.e., foraging behavior - in pair-housed rhesus [Reinhardt, 1993a].
In a study with 158 rhesus monkeys, 89% of the animals accepted the food puzzle as primary feeder. The remaining 11% did not retrieve enough biscuits (e.g., because of dental problems making it difficult to pull biscuits through the mesh). Their food puzzle was reconverted into a normal food box, to assure unrestricted access to the food [Reinhardt, 1993b].
In one remarkable case, a blind, pair-housed rhesus female learned to use the food puzzle, and she retrieves her daily biscuit ration as skillfully as other animals do [Reinhardt & Garza-Schmidt, 2000].
Working for their standard food rather than collecting it from freely accessible food boxes does not impair the animals' body weight maintenance [Reinhardt, 1993b,e; Murchison, 1994; Bertrand et al., 1999].
It may not always be possible to create a food puzzle by simply remounting the food box; different cage modules may require different modifications to make the removal of biscuits a more time consuming activity for the animals [e.g., Murchison, 1994,1995; Reinhardt & Garza-Schmidt, 2000].
The food puzzle is a structural element of the cage, re-designed to serve as primary feeder. Therefore, no extra time is needed to clean it and bait it with special food items. |
|
| | Photo 84*: The usefulness of the food puzzle as permanent, primary feeding enrichment device has been confirmed in stump-tailed macaques (M. arctoides; photo 84; Reinhardt 1993c), Japanese macaques (M. fuscata; Yanagihara et al., 1994) and long-tailed macaques (M. fascicularis; Reinhardt & Garza- Schmidt, 2000). |
|
| | Photo 85: A variety of custom-made
[e.g., Line & Houghton, 1987; Bramblett & Bramblett, 1988; Moazed & Wolff, 1988; Markowitz & Line, 1989; Gullekson et al., 1991; Kaplan & Lobao, 1991; Lam et al., 1991; Murchison, 1991,1992; Bayne et al., 1991,1992; Clark, 1992; Murchison & Nolte, 1992; Bartecki, 1993; Holmes et al., 1994; Taylor et al., 1994; Niemeyer et al., 1998] and commercial foraging devices - such as this puzzle feeder [e.g., Bloom & Cook, 1989] - for macaques have been described. They are relatively expensive and require extra labor time to load and clean them [Bayne et al., 1993].
Little published information is available on the long-term usefulness of these devices [Reinhardt, 1993d]. |
|
| | |
Photos 86* & 87*: The 'ceiling puzzle' is probably the least expensive foraging 'device'.
Placing the daily biscuit ration on the ceiling of the cage - instead of in the food box - requires no extra material and no extra personnel time, but it induces an 80 to 290-fold increase in foraging time, depending on the shape of the biscuits [Reinhardt, 1993e].
Monkeys tend to hoard food when they have free access to it. It is common for a rhesus macaque, for example, to get hold of as many biscuits as possible at the moment of feeding, fill both cheek pouches to the brim, hastily grab the remaining biscuits from the food box and drop most of them on the floor, and only then start consuming biscuits. Inevitably, some biscuits lying on the floor get in contact with feces and/or urine and are consequently rejected by the animal. Care staff have to remove these discarded biscuits from the cage to prevent the development of mold in the corners of the cage. This problem does not exist in the ceiling puzzle and food puzzle situation: There is no hoarding; once a biscuit has been laboriously retrieved, it is quickly consumed [Reinhardt, 1993a,e; Murchison, 1994,1995]. It may happen that fragments of biscuits fall down in the course of the foraging process, but they are usually so small that they pass through the mesh of the floor to be flushed away in the drop pan. The cages of animals who get involved in the foraging process are distinguished by the absence of spoiled food [Reinhardt, 1993e; Reinhardt & Garza-Schmidt, 2000]. |
|
| | |
Photos 88* & 89: Produce of the season introduces some variety into the monotonous standard feeding regimen. It would be a waste of time chopping fruits and vegetables for the animals [cf. Smith et al., 1989]; they have all the time needed and seemingly enjoy processing the food themselves.
Every macaque should receive at least one whole fruit - such as an apple (photo 88) - or one whole vegetable - such as corn on the cob (photo 89) - on a daily basis. Who could argue that the animals do not deserve these special treats? |
|
| | | | Photos 90 & 91 When seasonal produce is not available, ice cubes (photo 90; cf. McNulty, 1993) or peanuts in the shell (photo 91) provide a welcomed substitute. |
|
| | |
Photo 92: Handing food treats directly to the animals not only provides another option of feeding enrichment but it also offers a simple way to promote and foster a positive human-animal relationship. The beneficial effect of this 'technique' is reflected in the fact that rhesus macaques show a reduction of behavioral disorders not only while treats are handed out but also later, on days when they receive no treats [Bayne et al., 1993]. This carryover phenomenon has not been observed when monkeys receive foraging devices [Watson, 1992; Bayne et al., 1993; Novak et al., 1998], demonstrating that caregivers play a crucial role in safeguarding the well-being of the animals [cf. Wolfle, 1987; NRC, 1998]. |
|
Date created: January 21, 2009
Last updated: May 3, 2017
Pair formation of adults(photos 27-35)
Photo 27: Pair formation protocol for previously single-caged adult rhesus macaques
| | | While individually caged adults readily accept juveniles as companions, adult conspecifics are likely to trigger overt aggression [Southwick et al., 1974; Line, 1987]. This xenophobic response is often used as a warning against pair formation. Coe [1991] for example, makes the following prediction: "Especially when new pairs are formed and dominance relationships are being established, there is a strong likelihood that the veterinarian will be kept quite busy suturing wounds." Rosenberg & Kesel [1994] make a similar assertion cautioning that "when adult rhesus monkeys are first paired ... there are always injuries incurred."
It would contradict basic ethological principles to put two strange rhesus in a cage and wait for the predictable, possibly injurious fight over dominance [e.g., Maxim, 1976].
Why not allow two strangers to first establish their dominance-subordination relationship without risk of injuring each other during a non-contact familiarization period? They will not have to fight 'again' over dominance but rather can engage in affiliative social interaction when being transferred to a new home cage [Reinhardt, 1988]. |
|
| Photos 28 & 29: Two adult male rhesus macaques in a double cage with grated partition (photo 28) allowing non-contact familiarization. Partners can see but not touch each other (photo 29). In most cases they will establish a clear-cut dominance-subordination relationship without injuring each other within 24 hours [Reinhardt, 1989a,1994a]. | |
|
How do you know that two animals
have established a dominance-subordination relationship? |
| | |
Photos 30 & 31: (1) Looking away (photo 30) and grinning (photo 31) are shown in an unidirectional manner by the subordinate partner. |
|
| | |
Photos 32 & 33: (2) grimacing (photo 32) and moving out of the way (photo 33) are shown in an unidirectional manner by the subordinate partner. |
|
| | |
Photos 34 & 35: (3) Staring (photo 34) and threatening (photo 35) are not reliable signs for an established dominance-subordination relationship. These gestures often occur in a bidirectional manner and may serve as a mere bluff. |
|
Date created: January 21, 2009
Last updated: May 3, 2017
Group-housing (photos 12-14)
Animate enrichment provides compatible companionship
for the expression of non-injurious social behavior |
| | |
Photos 12 & 13: Housing nonhuman primates in groups would be the ideal way of social enhancement (photo 12), but there can be serious problems associated with it.
Overt aggressive conflicts are rather common in groups kept in research laboratories (photo 13). Referring to rhesus macaques, Rolland [1991] makes the following observation: "By far the most common physical problem that I treat as a clinical veterinarian is trauma sustained by macaques in group-housing situations. This occurs even when no changes have been made within a previously compatible group [e.g., Reinhardt et al., 1987a; Judge et al., 1994]. The incidence of traumatic injuries is increased when new groups are formed [e.g., Bernstein & Gordon, 1977; Line et al., 1990a; Reinhardt, 1991a; Clarke & Blanchard, 1994; Westergaard et al., 1999] or when animals have to be removed and reintroduced into a group [e.g., Southwick, 1967; Bernstein et al., 1974] for medical reasons, as inevitably occurs. Trauma may range from superficial abrasions to multiple wounds and lacerations, sometimes leading to life-threatening loss of blood and shock." During an eight-month period, "there were 57 injuries requiring removal from group housing and treatment in the clinic in our group-housed, timed mating colony of about 120 females." Mortality caused by fighting may occur at a rate of 10 or even more deaths per 100 group members per year [Kaplan et al., 1980; Kessler et al., 1985]. |
|
| | Photo 14: Are rhesus macaques really so aggressive? Probably not, because the species thrives in groups under natural living conditions [Southwick et al., 1965; Lindberg, 1971].
It is us who create the problem, by forcing the animals to live in a confined, inadequately structured environment which is bound to provoke conflicts. Moreover, personnel often is lacking the time, the administrative authority - to guarantee optimal group stability - and the knowledge to manage group-housed animals in accordance with ethological principles. |
|
Date created: January 21, 2009
Last updated: May 3, 2017
Inanimate Enrichment photos93-108
Inanimate enrichment increases
complexity of the cage environment,
thereby promoting non-injurious activities |
"Providing toys to captive primates might seem an obvious and simple solution to enriching their environment, though it is absolutely clear that no inanimate playthings can compare with the presence of a compatible conspecific" [Dean, 1999].
Macaques - just like human infants - are too intelligent for not getting quickly bored by most of the commercial toys. "The attention span is limited to a day or two at most, and it is important to use any specific object only periodically, providing constant variety to keep the animals interested" [Dean, 1999; cf. Ross & Everitt, 1988; Crockett et al., 1989, 1998; Hamilton, 1991; Line et al., 1991; Weick et al., 1991; Bartecki, 1993; Cardinal & Kent, 1998; Morgan et al., 1998]. Needless to say, that a toy becomes more attractive and stimulates more sustained interest when it is shared with a companion [cf. Novak et al., 1993]. | | | | Photos 93* & 94*: Unlike most commercial toys, dry deciduous tree branches cut into 'gnawing sticks' do not lose their novelty effect, since they steadily change their configuration and texture due to constant wear and progressive dehydration [Champoux et al., 1987; cf. photo 94].
In a study of 60 pair-housed rhesus macaques who were exposed to gnawing sticks for 18 months, individuals were engaged in stick use on average 5% of the time [cf. Line & Morgan, 1991], with subadults interacting more with the sticks than adults [Reinhardt, 1990b].
The animals use the sticks for manipulating (photo 93), gnawing (photo 94), nibbling, chewing, hugging, playing and perching. Long-term use of gnawing sticks by several hundred rhesus has resulted in no recognizable health hazards [Reinhardt, 1997a; cf. Line & Morgan, 1991]. |
|
| | Photo 95*: Depending on the size of the individual animal, gnawing sticks have a length of 12-30 cm and a radius of 2-6. Sticks cut of sun-dried read oak (Quercus rubra) branches are particularly suitable because they gradually wear into flakes that are so small that even large quantities pass through sewer drains without clogging [Reinhardt, 1992e]. After 1-6 months, they usually become so small that they have to be replaced [Reinhardt, 1997]. |
|
| | | Photo 96*: Stump-tailed macaques (M. arctoides) also benefit from read oak gnawing sticks which "not only provide some distraction [mean 6% of time] but may also be a means of dental care" [Reinhardt, 1990]. |
|
|
Photo 97a*: As with toys, mirrors do not evoke much interest in singly caged rhesus macaques, and subjects tend to quickly get bored with them [Kaplan & Lobao, 1991; O'Neill et al., 1997; Goode et al., 1998].
Other species, such as long- tailed macaques (M. fascicularis, as in the photo (by Richard Lynch), and pig-tail macaques (M. nemestrina) seem to show more sustained curiosity responses to mirrors [O'Neill et al., 1997]. |
| The problem of declining use of inanimate enrichment devices usually seen with monkeys can be addressed by rotating the animals through a well-structured recreation cage larger than the standard home cage or through a specially designed playroom. The usefulness of this technique has been demonstrated in long-tailed macaques (M. fascicularis; Bryant et al., 1988; Gilbert & Wrenshall, 1989; Lynch & Baker, 1998), stump-tailed macaques (M. arctoides; Blackmore, 1989) and Japanese macaques (M. fuscata; Tustin et al., 1996); studies with rhesus macaques are still missing. | | | Photo 97b: Windows offer highly valued entertainment (photo by Richard Lynch). Pairs of long-tailed macaques who were transferred regularly for 1 1/2-hour periods to a playroom spent about 67% of the time looking out the windows (Lynch and Baker, 2000). | | The limited information available does not suggest that television or radio music are valued sources of enrichment for caged rhesus macaques [Line et al., 1990c; Kaplan & Lobao, 1991; Harris et al., 1999]; however, there is evidence that individuals can be trained to respond to computer-controlled video-tasks in ways that can be defined as enriching [Washburn & Rumbaugh, 1992]. |
|
| | | | Photos 98 & 99*: More important than a toy, a gnawing stick, a mirror or television is a perch for caged macaques. It no longer restricts the animals to a terrestrial life style - to which they are biologically not adapted - but opens up the vertical dimension thereby increasing the usable cage space and promoting species-typical arboreal activities such as climbing, leaping, balancing, bouncing, perching and looking-out (photo 98). Serving as a prop for exercise the perch has therapeutic value for animals suffering from cage paralysis [authors' own unpublished observation]. The perch also allows for species-typical vertical flight responses in alarming situations [Lindburg, 1971; Chopra et al., 1992] and for retreat to a dry place during the daily cage cleaning (photo 99). Access to elevated, 'safe' sites has survival value for macaques. This explains why caged animals never lose interest in a perch.
In a study with 25 adult single-caged rhesus males who were exposed to a perch for 12 months, individuals sat on their perch on average 28% of the time [Reinhardt, 1989b]. Inexpensive perches can readily be made from branches of dead deciduous trees (photo 98; Reinhardt et al., 1987c) - preferably from read oaks to forestall clogging problems of sewer drains [Reinhardt, 1992e] - or sections of polyvinyl chloride (PCV) pipes (photo 99; Reinhardt & Smith, 1988).
The diameter of a perch must be large enough so that an animal can comfortably sit on it over extended periods of time. Rhesus monkeys are inquisitive animals who want to know what's going on outside of their cage, and they show a strong preference for sitting in the front rather in the middle or rear of the cage [Reinhardt, 1989c; Woodbeck & Reinhardt, 1991]. Therefore, perches should always be installed in such a way that they enable the occupant to sit right in front of the cage (photos 98 & 99); probably, this fosters a sense of security by giving the animal visual control over the environment outside of the cage [cf. van Wagenen, 1950; Niemeyer et al., 1998].
Swings are less suitable than perches to enhance cage space complexity. When given the choice, rhesus monkeys clearly prefer perches over swings, presumably because perches - unlike swings - are fixed structures permitting relaxed posturing rather than unstable balancing in a cage that is too small for accurate adjustments of body movements [Kopecky & Reinhardt, 1991; cf. Dexter & Bayne, 1994; Phillippi-Falkenstein, 1998]. |
|
| | | | Photos 100 & 101: When being exposed to a branch and a PVC pipe, identically installed and identically sized (photo 100), singly housed rhesus show no significant preference but spend equivalent amounts of time with each type of perch [Reinhardt, 1990e]. Branches also serve as attractive objects for gnawing (photo 101), but this renders them less durable, requiring regular replacement. |
|
| Photo 105a*: In order to be useful, a perch not only has to be installed in a way that it allows the animal to sit on it close to the front of the cage without touching the ceiling, but it also has to be high enough so that the animal can use the space under it as needed (right graph; Reinhardt & Reinhardt, 1999a). A perch is not properly placed when it blocks part of the minimum floor space needed by the occupant (left and center graph) "to make normal postural adjustments with freedom of movement" [USDA, 1991]. |
|
| | Photo 105b: The height of the minimum-size standard cage is insufficient to permit the appropriate placement of a perch (photo by Matt Rossell). |
|
| | Photo 106: All macaque species - not only rhesus - withdraw in alarming situations by taking to the vertical dimension of their environment, and "spend most of the day in elevated locations and seek the refuge of sleeping trees at night" [NRC, 1998; cf. Roonwal & Mohnot, 1977; Wheatley, 1980].
All macaque cages should be provisioned with at least one perch that enables the occupant(s) - here a stump-tailed macaque - to sit well above the floor of the cage. |
|
Photo 107*: Structural enhancement of the vertical dimension is particularly important for animals who are confined in lower-row cages, and hence forced to lead a terrestrial life style for which they are not adapted. They sit on perches signifi- cantly more often than upper-row caged animals [Reinhardt, 1989b; Woodbeck & Reinhardt, 1991; cf. Shimoji et al., 1993], probably to get at least a short distance away from the 'unsafe' horizontal dimension of the room.
But even with access to perches, lower row-caged animals are unable to retreat to a 'safe' place above the human predator who periodically captures them and subjects them to life-threatening situations and distressing procedures. They "might per- ceive the presence of humans above them as particularly threatening" [NRC, 1998].
The lower-row cage not only is a potentially distressing living environment for macaques which my introduce an uncontrolled extraneous variable into research data [Reinhardt & Reinhardt, 2000b], but it is also an unacceptably dark living environment for them [Reinhardt, 1997; Reinhardt & Reinhardt, 1999b]. |
|
| | | | Photos 108 & 109*: Macaques are diurnal animals. In the traditional double-tier system, however, monkeys of the bottom row live in the crepuscular shade area of the upper row. Illumination is often so poor that animal care staff routinely uses flashlights to identify animals and check their well-being [Reinhardt, 1997]. No systematic research has yet been conducted to assess the impact of the cave-like lower row housing environment on the occupants' well-being. A preliminary study conducted with a small number of long-tailed macaques, however, indicates that subjects kept in relatively dark lower-row cages exhibit more abnormal behaviors and are more active than subjects housed in significantly brighter upper-row cages [Schapiro et al., 2000].
It stands to reason to suggest that improving the species-inadequate lighting conditions of lower row-caged macaques would be an effective environmental enrichment strategy, which may foster the behavioral health and the general well-being of the animals.
It is perhaps no coincidence that federal law stipulates that that "lighting must be uniformly diffused and provide sufficient illumination ... to ensure the animals' well-being" [USDA, 1991]. Needless to say, this cannot be accomplished in a double-tier caging system, where 50% of the animals are kept in a shady environment.
It is surprising that cage location of research monkeys is rarely mentioned in scientific articles [Reinhardt & Reinhardt, 2000b], although the environment of upper and lower row-housed animals markedly differs both in terms of illumination and living dimension. Not accounting for these variables may increase variability of data and, consequently, the number of experimental animals needed to obtain statistically acceptable results.
It should be remembered that the double-tier caging arrangement - which is still the prevailing caging system for macaques [Rosenberg & Kesel, 1994] - was introduced in the 50's as an emergency situation to accommodate hundreds of thousand of monkeys used for the development of vaccines. Actually, "the original cages used for housing monkeys individually were modified [stacked] chicken or turkey cages constructed of galvanized wire" [Kelley & Hall, 1995; cf. Stone, 1962]. Today, the animals are stuck in this out-dated system not because there is an emergency, but because it saves money to house twice the number of animals in double rows instead of in single rows. Keeping macaques in a single-tier rather than double-tier system in high cages equipped with perches would be an important refinement of husbandry and research methodology. Such housing would (a) enable all animals of a room to access the 'arboreal dimension' of their enclosure and retreat to 'safe vantage points' above the human predator, (b) offer all animals of a room the option of uniform illumination, and (c) provide more favorable conditions for professional animal care. |
|
Date created: January 21, 2009
Last updated: May 3, 2017
PrefaceSeeing the inside of a primate research facilityfor the first time was a shocking experience for me, not onlyas a psychologically healthy person but also as a scientist whohas been trained to rigorously control extraneous variables whichmight influence research data.
There were hundreds of animals kept in barren,tiny single-cages with nothing to do but stare at bleak wallsand wait for their term to be subjected to life-threatening procedures.The cages were all stacked on top of each other in double-tiersto accommodate maximum numbers of them in windowless rooms. Thefollowing poem—written by an animal technician at a prestigiousprimate research laboratory - puts exactly into words how I felt.
Hope DashedWalking, dazed
past cage and cage and cage
each contained an emotion
fear, depression and rage
each unique
one aggressive, the next is meek
a thousand lives locked away
with futures bleak
in stainless steel
a world surreal
no friend to touch
or sun to feel
entire lives kept complete
in 4.3 square feet
from birth through life
till last heartbeat.
Is it really far fetched to compare this situationwith that of human prisoners kept in concentration camps?
It so happened that I soon got the opportunityto work in such a laboratory as clinical veterinarian and ethologistto improve the housing and handling conditions for the animals.
My priorities were a) allowing the animalsto actively express their need for social contact and social interactionwith at least one compatible conspecific, b) training the animalsto cooperate rather than resist during procedures, c) encouraginganimal care staff to see the individual animal as a sensitivebeing rather than as a serial-numbered research tool, d) makingthe vertical dimension of the cage accessible to the animals,and e) allowing the animals to spend some time of the day foraging.
I am grateful that the laboratory allowed meto partially break the inertia of tradition and introduce housingand handling techniques, which not only contradicted but alsodisproved conventional wisdom.
This collection of photos speaks of my concernsin regard to the traditional way of housing and handling of macaquesand of my successes in developing refinement alternatives. Itis my wish to inspire animal care personnel, scientists, veterinarians,and colony managers to allow themselves to feel compassion forthe animals in their charge and to have the courage to translatethese feelings into action, for the well-being of the animalsand for their own happiness.
Viktor Reinhardt
Mt. Shasta, September 7, 2000
Date created: January 21, 2009
Last updated: May 3, 2017
PréfaceMa première visite dans un centre derecherche de primatologie fut une expérience choquantepour moi, non seulement en tant que personne saine psychologiquement,mais aussi en tant que chercheur formé à rigoureusementcontrôler les variables extérieures qui pourraientbiaser les données scientifiques.
Il y avait des centaines d'animaux dans detoutes petites cages individuelles dénudées avecrien d'autre à faire que de regarder fixement les murstristes et attendre leur tour pour être assujétisà des procédures terrifiantes. Les cages étaientsuperposées en double étage pour accomoder un nombremaximum d'animaux dans des pièces sans fenêtres.Ce poème – composé par un technicien animaliertravaillant dans un laboratoire de recherche primatologique prestigieux– exprime exactement ce que je ressentais.
Espoir briséStupéfait, marchant le longdes cages,
et des cages, et des cages,
chacune contenant une émotion
la peur, la dépression, et la ragechacune unique
l'une aggressive, sa voisine résignée
un millier de vies enfermées
avec des futurs désolésun monde surréel
d'acier inoxidable
sans jamais pouvoir toucher un ami
ni sentir le soleildes vies entières complètescontenues
dans un mètre carré*
de la naissance pendant toute une vie
jusqu'au dernier battement de coeur
On pourrait même comparer cette situationà celles des prisonniers humains dans des camps de concentration.
J'eus bientôt l'occasion de travaillerdans un tel laboratoire en tant que vétérinaireet éthologiste pour améliorer les conditions devie des animaux et la façon dont ils sont traités.
Mes priorités furent: a) de permettreaux animaux d'exprimer activement leur besoin de contact et d'interaction sociale avec au moins un congénère compatible,b) de dresser les animaux à coopérer au lieu derésister pendant les procédures, c) d'encouragerle personnel animalier à percevoir un animal comme un êtresensible plutôt que comme un instrument de recherche numéroté,d) de rendre la dimention verticale accessible aux animaux, ete) leur permettre de passer du temps à fourrager.
Je suis reconnaissant que le laboratoire mepermit de surmonter partiellement l'inertie de la tradition etd'introduire des techniques d'hébergement et de manipulation,qui non seulement allaient à l'encontre des vues conventionnelles,mais les réfutaient même. Cette collection de photosparle de mes préoccupations concernant la façontraditionnelle de loger et manipuler les macaques et de mes succèsà developper des alternatives de raffinement. C'est mondésir d'inspirer le personnel animalier, les chercheurs,les vétérinaires, et les administrateurs de coloniede se permettre d'éprouver de la compassion pour les animauxà leur charge et d'avoir le courage de mettre cette compassionen action, pour le bien-être des animaux et pour leur proprebonheur.
Viktor Reinhardt
Mt. Shasta, September 7, 2000
* 4.3 square feet
Tabledes Matières
Date created: January 21, 2009
Last updated: May 3, 2017
There is widespread concern that aged rhesus monkeys who have been housed singly for a long time would do better living alone than sharing a cage with a companion. Ten female and five male rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), 22 to 33 years old and deprived of physical contact with any other conspecific for more than 10 years, were socialised with weaned infants (11 pairs) or with each other (2 female -female pairs) using two standard methods of pairing. Pairing was associated with a total of 7 non-injurious aggressions during the first hour. Pairs were compatible (no visible signs of injury, adequate food sharing, no signs of depression) in every case throughout a one year follow-up period.
Date created: May 27, 2016
Last updated: November 11, 2020
Isosexual pair-housing of ten female and six male previously single-caged adult stump-tailed macaques (Macaca arctoides) was attempted. Partners were introduced to each other following the establishment of rank relationships during a three-day non-contact familiarization period. Pair formations did not entail serious antagonism; instead companions engaged in conciliatory interactions.
Date created: May 27, 2016
Last updated: September 16, 2020
The practicability of social enrichment for singly caged adult rhesus monkeys was examined. Twenty-nine weaned rhesus monkey infants were removed from breeding troops to avoid overcrowding and were placed with unfamiliar singly caged adults.
Date created: May 18, 2016
Last updated: November 11, 2020
A review of the scientific literature gives evidence that transferring previously single-caged adult macaques to permanent compatible pair-housing arrangements (isosexual pairs, adult/infant pairs) is associated with less risk of injury and morbidity than transferring them to permanent group-housing arrangements. Juvenile animals can readily be transferred to permanent group-housing situations without undue risks.
Date created: January 21, 2009
Last updated: December 6, 2022
This study, which was funded by a Refinement Grant from AWI, examined the impact of nonhuman primate social housing status on compassion fatigue in laboratory animal care professionals, who are at an elevated risk of experiencing this condition. Compassion fatigue is a consequence of stress that results from caring for suffering individuals, leading to a gradual erosion of empathy and compassion.
Date created: June 24, 2024
Last updated: June 28, 2024
Solar storms eject high-energy particles from the sun, which stream toward Earth and disrupt communications systems and the planet’s magnetic field.
Date created: March 25, 2020
Last updated: March 25, 2020
The reader can’t get past the cover of Maria Goodavage’s book Soldier Dogs—featuring a black Lab in goggles with her head on a camouflaged lap—without uttering an audible “awwww!” From that point on you are hooked on this highly readable account of Military Working Dogs (MWDs).
Date created: August 10, 2012
Last updated: April 24, 2024
For over 50 years, Lolita (a.k.a. Tokitae, Toki, and Sk’aliCh’elh-tenaut), an orca originally captured from the Southern Resident killer whale population, has been languishing as the only orca in a tiny tank at the Miami Seaquarium.
Date created: January 3, 2022
Last updated: January 3, 2022
International trade in wild-caught Solomon Islands Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins continues with little sign of ending so long as the demand for dolphinariums persists.
Date created: February 25, 2010
Last updated: January 9, 2020
AWI has followed the saga of the Russian “whale jail” for over a year now. It began in summer 2018, when 90 beluga whales and 11 orcas were captured in the Russian Far East and held in small holding pens all winter. Three of the belugas and one of the orcas died by the following spring.
Date created: October 10, 2019
Last updated: August 24, 2020
