Awhpc Osu Iacuc Complaint 1
Awhpc Osu Iacuc Complaint 1
Awhpc Osu Iacuc Complaint 1
org>
Date: Fri, Apr 1, 2016 at 7:06 PM
Subject: Reporting Animal Welfare Complaint - Mare Sterilization
Research at BLM Burns Corrals
To: iacuc.chair@oregonstate.edu, Rebecca.Henry@oregonstate.edu, He
len.Diggs@oregonstate.edu, Rich.Holdren@oregonstate.edu
To the Members of the Oregon State University Institutional Animal
Care and Use Committee:
I am writing to report urgent animal welfare concerns relating to a
research project under review by your IACUC.
The research in question involves three experiments described in
the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Mare Sterilization Research
Environmental Assessment, to be conducted by Oregon State
University (OSU) in conjunction with the BLM.
Since it is my understanding that the IACUC is currently reviewing this
research, this complaint requires your immediate attention
I am officially submitting the attached comments, specifically
beginning at Section V, page 7, and veterinary statements regarding
the proposed research to your IACUC and asking your IACUC to decline
to approve these proposed experiments, based on the concerns
outlined in these documents.
In brief, these include the following.
1. Functional assessment of ovariectomy (spaying) via
colpotomy of wild mares as an acceptable method of
contraception and wild horse population control
In its June 2013 report, Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse
and Burro Program: A Way Forward, the NAS/NRC recommended
against ovariectomy in wild horses, stating, The possibility that
ovariectomy may be followed by prolonged bleeding or peritoneal
infection makes it inadvisable for field application. (p. 148-149)
A second NAS panel convened by the BLM to evaluate this specific
research proposal recommended it for funding but did not address the
first NAS finding regarding advisability for field setting, but did warn
that the conduct of the procedure on wild horses may cause the
mortality rate to be higher than the 1% reported in the published
literature. For this reason, the NAS/NRC review panel stated that
proposals for less invasive methods would be safer with less risk of
hemorrhage or evisceration and probably less painful.
Specific concerns: