bioRxivZoologyPreprint
Where do animals covered by the US Animal Welfare Act live? Analysis of USDA licensed and registered entities
Abstract
Nonhuman animals are housed in captivity for a range of purposes in the US and other countries. The regulation, oversight, and public transparency of decisions related to the care and use of those animals varies by species and activity. The goals of this paper are 1) to provide a concise and accessible summary of the number and types of facilities either registered or licensed by the USDA and overseen by the federal agency; and 2) to provide concise comparisons of the relative proportion of different types of use of nonhuman animals that fall under the AWA (Animal Welfare Act). Analysis of the publicly-available list of USDA certificate holders produced descriptive data for each state and the US overall. Licensed exhibitors (N=2,640; 33% of total) and breeders (N=2,701; 34% of total) comprise two-thirds of the 8,002 USDA certificate holders. Registered research facilities (N=1,110) account for 14% of the total USDA certificates. The final 19% consists of licensed dealers (N=763; 9%) and registered carriers or interim handlers (N=788; 10%). The number and distribution of types of certificates varies across states. The largest number of exhibitors and dealers are in Florida, while the largest number of breeders are in Missouri. California has the largest number of research registered facilities. Finally, a comparison of the estimated number of animals in the US that are pets, used in agriculture, exhibition, and research suggests that animals in research are between 0.07-2.3% of the total. The comparison also highlights areas in which public information about captive animals in the US is uneven or missing altogether. Together, the current report provides a concise view of basic information and data relevant to public consideration and policy decisions about animals housed in the set of captive settings to which the AWA applies.
Reproducibility ledger
Nobody has reported trying to reproduce this paper yet. Did you replicate an experiment or run the code? Your report saves the next lab a week.
Sign in to file a reproducibility report.
Related papers
- How does perception of zoo animal welfare influence public attitudes, experiences, and behavioural intentions? A mixed-methods systematic review
Nicki Phillips, Laëtitia Maréchal, … Jonathan J. Cooper·Animal Behavior and CognitionPeer-reviewed·Nov 1, 2024
- How do citizens perceive farm animal welfare conditions in Brazil?
R. G. d. Queiroz, C. H. d. F. Domingues, … J. A. R. Borges·bioRxiv·Jul 30, 2018
- Species, causes, and outcomes of wildlife rehabilitation in New York State
M. Hanson, N. Hollingshead, … E. M. Bunting·bioRxiv·Nov 29, 2019
- Adverse effects of hunting with hounds on participating animals and human bystanders
A. Treves, L. Menefee·bioRxiv·Aug 16, 2022
- Freedom of speech predicts animal welfare protection across the globe
Camille M. Montalcini, Thomas Ward Crowther·Scientific ReportsPeer-reviewed·Jun 11, 2026
- A trail camera imagery dataset of contrasting shrub and open microsites within the Carrizo Plain National Monument, San Luis Obispo County, California
Taylor Noble, Christopher Lortie, … H. Scott Butterfield·bioRxiv·Mar 22, 2016