Our Work

Stay Connected

Support Our Mission

Please support our vital campaigns and outreach programs.

Birds, Rats, and Mice

Update!

On February 22, 2022, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published proposed regulations to protect birds covered by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) and who are used in commercial industries, such as exhibition, breeding, the pet trade, and some types of research. Although the AWA has required the USDA to protect birds for over 20 years, it refused to write regulations, and countless numbers of birds suffered and died because of USDA’s failure to do its job. It was only after a lawsuit, filed by AAVS and our co-plaintiff the Avian Welfare Coalition (AWC), received a favorable ruling from a federal judge that the USDA finally complied.

Following a 60-day public comment period on the USDA’s proposed regulations, the agency is required to publish final regulations by February 22, 2023.

Background

Birds, rats, and primarily mice comprise at least 90 percent of all animals in U.S. laboratories, yet have been denied coverage by the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), a law that provides regulatory oversight of commercial uses of animals, including in research and testing. Enacted in 1966, the AWA was amended in 1970 to protect the health and well-being of all warm-blooded animals used in experiments. However, in 1971, birds, rats, and mice were specifically excluded from AWA regulations by the Secretary of Agriculture. In an effort to gain legal protection for birds, rats, and mice, AAVS launched Project Animal Welfare Act: An Act for All on April 30, 1998.

Fight for Change

In 1998, following earlier actions taken by prominent animal rights groups, AAVS, its affiliate the Alternatives Research & Development Foundation (ARDF), and others filed a petition with the USDA, requesting that the birds, rats, and mice exclusion be removed. A year later, ARDF and two additional plaintiffs (a psychology student and InVitro International, a company that develops non-animal alternative test methods) filed a lawsuit against the USDA claiming that the agency did not have a legal basis to exclude these animals.

On September 28, 2000, USDA settled the lawsuit and agreed to begin the rulemaking process to grant protection of birds, rats, and mice, which included solicitation of comments from all stakeholders to assure that the regulations are enforceable. This agreement with USDA, granting birds, rats, and mice protection under the AWA, was hailed as one of the Top Ten Victories for Animals in 2000.

Although the majority of the scientific community supported protection for these animals, a few biomedical research interest groups, including the National Association for Biomedical Research (NABR), an animal research lobbying organization, persuaded politicians to block the implementation of the settlement. Later, an amendment to the 2002 Farm Bill (Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002), specifically excluded “birds, rats (of the genus Rattus), and mice (of the genus Mus) bred for use in research.”

The USDA notified the public in June 2004 that it had amended the AWA regulations to reflect this change to the law. The USDA also began to solicit comments to begin regulating those birds, rats, and mice, not bred for research, who are covered by the AWA.

USDA to Regulate Birds

As a result of a lawsuit brought by AAVS and the Avian Welfare Coalition, a court order issued in May, 2020 requires USDA to complete rulemaking to protect birds, a process that the agency began 16 years ago. USDA’s failure to provide coverage for these animals has allowed birds nationwide to needlessly suffer in commercial industries covered by the AWA, particularly in exhibition, breeding, and the pet trade.

“AAVS has been working to gain protections for birds since 2000, when USDA first agreed to draft regulations. We were determined that they would not walk away from that commitment,” said Sue Leary, President of AAVS. "In 2004, the agency started the rulemaking process but it never went anywhere. Finally, a court agreed with us that our claim of 'unreasonable delay' had merit, and that was a turning point."

to top