RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS BY PROHIBITING THE CARBON MONOXIDE GASSING METHOD

COVER LETTER; PROPOSED AMENDMENTS; MEMORDANDUM; APPENDIX OF CITED MATERIALS

Petition by:
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 170 East Cotati Avenue Cotati, CA 94931

Submitted to:
RULES DIVISION OF THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 1711 New Hope Church Road Raleigh, NC 27609 & NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF AGRICULTURE 1001 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS BY PROHIBITING THE CARBON MONOXIDE GASSING METHOD

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

Petition by:
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 170 East Cotati Avenue Cotati, CA 94931

Submitted to:
RULES DIVISION OF THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 1711 New Hope Church Road Raleigh, NC 27609 & NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF AGRICULTURE 1001 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

SECTION .0400 - EUTHANASIA STANDARDS 02 NCAC 52J .0401 - ADOPTION BY REFERENCE CURRENT VERSION A person required to obtain a certificate of registration pursuant to G.S. 19A, Article 3 may use any method of euthanasia approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), or the American Humane Association (AHA) which are hereby incorporated by reference, including subsequent amendments and editions. Copies of these documents may be obtained as follows: (1) (2) AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia may be accessed at no cost on their website at www.avma.org. The HSUS Euthanasia Training Manual can be purchased through their website at www.hsus.org at a cost of nineteen dollars and ninety-five cents ($19.95). The AHA publication, Euthanasia by Injection, can be purchased through their website at www.americanhumane.org at a cost of ten dollars ($10.00). PROPOSED VERSION A person required to obtain a certificate of registration pursuant to G.S. 19A, Article 3 may use any method of euthanasia approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), or the American Humane Association (AHA) which are hereby incorporated by reference, including subsequent amendments and editions. Approved methods are those that are either acceptable, or acceptable with conditions when all conditions and recommendations are satisfied. Copies of these documents may be obtained as follows: (1) (2) AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia may be accessed at no cost on their website at www.avma.org. The HSUS Euthanasia Training Manual can be purchased through their website at www.hsus.org at a cost of nineteen dollars and ninety-five cents ($19.95). The AHA publication, Euthanasia by Injection, can be purchased through their website at www.americanhumane.org at a cost of ten dollars ($10.00).

(3)

(3)

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

SECTION .0600 - EUTHANASIA BY CARBON MONOXIDE 02 NCAC 52J .0602 - PROHIBITED USES CURRENT VERSION Carbon monoxide may not be used to euthanize animals in certified facilities in any manner inconsistent with guidelines for the use of carbon monoxide approved by the entities referenced in 02 NCAC 52J .0401. Additionally, carbon monoxide shall not be used to euthanize the following animals in certified facilities: (1) (2) (3) Animals that appear to be less than 16 weeks of age; Animals that are pregnant; Animals that are near death.

PROPOSED VERSION Except as may be permitted by 02 NCAC 52J .0701, Ccarbon monoxide may not be used to euthanize animals in certified facilities. in any manner inconsistent with guidelines for the use of carbon monoxide approved by the entities referenced in 02 NCAC 52J .0401. Additionally, carbon monoxide shall not be used to euthanize the following animals in certified facilities: (1) (2) (3) Animals that appear to be less than 16 weeks of age; Animals that are pregnant; Animals that are near death.

ii

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

SECTION .0700 - EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES 02 NCAC 52J .0703 - METHODS AND STANDARDS CURRENT VERSION Methods of euthanasia used by a certified facility under an extraordinary circumstance or situation must be approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Humane Society of the United States or the American Humane Association for use on that species of animal and must conform to standards set forth by that organization.

PROPOSED VERSION Methods of euthanasia used by a certified facility under an extraordinary circumstance or situation must be approved deemed acceptable or acceptable with conditions by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Humane Society of the United States or the American Humane Association for use on that species of animal under such extraordinary circumstance, and must conform to standards set forth by that organization.

iii

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS BY PROHIBITING THE CARBON MONOXIDE GASSING METHOD

MEMORDANDUM

Petition by:
ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 170 East Cotati Avenue Cotati, CA 94931

Submitted to:
RULES DIVISION OF THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS 1711 New Hope Church Road Raleigh, NC 27609 & NORTH CAROLINA BOARD OF AGRICULTURE 1001 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699

TABLE OF CONTENTS MEMORANDUM ......................................................................................... 1 I. CHANGES TO THE CODE ARE APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO REMOVE AMBIGUITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF THE TERM APPROVED ................................... 3 A. The Codes use of the term approved in Section .0401 for euthanasia under ordinary circumstances is ambiguous because it does not conform to the language used by relevant animal welfare organizations.................................................................................................... 3 B. The Codes use of the term approved in Section .0703 for euthanasia under extraordinary circumstances is ambiguous because it does not conform to the language used by relevant animal welfare organizations.................................................................................................... 4 II. EUTHANASIA BY GASSING IS NO LONGER AN APPROVED METHOD BY ANY OF THE THREE RELEVANT ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS.......................... 5 A. The American Veterinary Medical Association categorizes euthanasia by gassing to be only acceptable with conditions and not recommended for routine euthanasia of cats and dogs................................. 6 B. The Humane Society of the United States categorizes euthanasia by gassing to be unacceptable. .......................................................................... 7 C. The American Humane Association states that euthanasia by gassing is unacceptable. ............................................................................................ 7 D. Other organizations have condemned euthanasia by gassing. ........................ 8 III. EUTHANASIA BY GASSING IS COSTLY, DANGEROUS, AND INHUMANE........................................................................................ 9

A. Euthanasia by gassing is more expensive than other methods which are unconditionally acceptable. ..................................................................... 10 B. Gassing procedures are extremely hazardous to shelter workers. ............. 10 C. Euthanasia by gassing is inhumane................................................................ 11 IV. NORTH CAROLINAS CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED TO LIMIT EUTHANASIA BY CARBON MONOXIDE ONLY UNDER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES ................................ 13 CONCLUSION............................................................................................ 14

MEMORANDUM This memorandum is offered in support of the proposed changes to the North Carolina Administrative Code related to the euthanasia of companion animals. The North Carolina General Statutes broadly empower the Board of Agriculture to adopt rules relating to euthanasia of animals at regulated facilities. N.C. Gen. Stat. 19A-24. As set forth below, the Board should exercise this power to amend the Code because changes are necessary to (1) correct the use of improper and ambiguous terms, (2) conform with updated standards by animal welfare organizations referenced within the code that now deem gassing an unacceptable form of euthanasia except under extraordinary circumstances, and (3) adopt and promote euthanasia procedures of shelter animals that are cost effective, humane and safe. First, certain sections must be amended because, as written, they are ambiguous. Specifically, the Code refers to euthanasia methods approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), or the American Humane Association (AHA). 02 NCAC 52J .0401 (Section .0401); 02 NCAC 52J .0703 (Section .0703). However, when categorizing euthanasia methods, these organizations do not use the term approved but instead classify methods as acceptable, acceptable with conditions, or unacceptable. Some methods are further qualified as recommended or not recommended. As written, the Code is ambiguous as to which euthanasia methods are actually permitted. In other words, approved may refer only to methods that are recommended and unconditionally acceptable, all methods that are not totally unacceptable, or some standard between those two extremes. Additionally, the sections of the Code that refer to approved methods are intended to provide guidance under two very different circumstances: euthanasia methods permitted under normal circumstances pursuant to Section .0401, and euthanasia methods permitted only under extraordinary circumstances pursuant to Section .0703. The Code should be amended to provide the necessary clarity and distinction among the permitted euthanasia methods under these very different

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

MEMORANDUM

circumstances. It should do so by clarifying that approved methods of euthanasia under normal circumstances described in Section .0401 must be either acceptable or acceptable with conditions when all conditions and recommendations are met. Meanwhile, other euthanasia methods that are acceptable with conditions may be permitted under extraordinary circumstances pursuant to Section .0703 only when those extraordinary conditions are present. Second, the Code should be amended because all three of the referenced animal welfare groups among many others have either expressly condemned the practice of euthanasia by gassing or have otherwise demoted the acceptability of the method since the relevant provisions of the Code were enacted in 2009. HSUS and AHA expressly condemn the practice as unacceptable, and, as of 2013, the AVMA designates gassing as not recommended for the routine euthanasia of cats and dogs. This is the same designation that the AVMA provides for euthanasia of companion animals by gunshot. Accordingly, euthanasia by gassing should be treated like other extreme methods of euthanasia that are generally prohibited under Section .0401, and relegated to the exception for extraordinary circumstances provided at Sections .0701 through .0705. Third, the Code should be amended because recent studies and analyses have found that the gassing method of euthanasia is poor policy because it is: (i) less cost effective than other euthanasia methods; (ii) very difficult if not impossible to practice in compliance with the humane requirements set forth in the Code; and (iii) dangerous to shelter workers tasked with executing the gassing procedure. Therefore, ALDF on behalf of itself and its North Carolina members hereby submit proposed amendments to reduce ambiguity in the Code while reconciling the states euthanasia standards with the present-day consensus disapproving of inhumane gassing and preferring the injection method.

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

MEMORANDUM

I.

CHANGES TO THE CODE ARE APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY TO REMOVE AMBIGUITY ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE OF THE TERM APPROVED A. The Codes use of the term approved in Section .0401 for euthanasia under ordinary circumstances is ambiguous because it does not conform to the language used by relevant animal welfare organizations. In relevant part, Section .0401 allows for the use of any method of

euthanasia approved by the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), or the American Humane Association (AHA) (emphasis added). However, the language used by these organizations describing methods of euthanasia are: acceptable, acceptable with

conditions, and unacceptable.1 The organizations further qualify some of the

conditionally acceptable methods as recommended or not recommended.2 The distinction in terminology between the Code and the relevant animal welfare groups gives rise to a significant ambiguity as to what methods are approved under the Code. It is not clear whether approved methods are limited only to unconditionally acceptable methods, or whether it more broadly encompasses acceptable with conditions methods. It is also not clear whether approved methods are limited to recommended methods, or whether they include methods qualified as not recommended. Resolution of this ambiguity may be inferred from the Code itself. North Carolina has implicitly conveyed a preference to limit approved euthanasia methods to those that are either acceptable or acceptable with conditions when all conditions and recommendations are met. For example, the AVMA deems the

See, e.g., American Veterinary Medical Association, AVMA GUIDELINES FOR THE EUTHANASIA OF ANIMALS: 2013 EDITION, I5, at 10 (2013) (Euthanasia methods are classified in the Guidelines

as acceptable, acceptable with conditions, and unacceptable) (emphasis added); American Humane Association, OPERATIONAL GUIDE FOR ANIMAL CARE AND CONTROL AGENCIES: EUTHANASIA BY INJECTION, at 1-3 (2010); and Humane Society of the United States, HSUS EUTHANASIA REFERENCE MANUAL, at 35, 75 (2013) (noting conditionally acceptable and unacceptable methods of euthanasia).
2

See, e.g., AVMA GUIDELINES (2013), supra n.1, at 45 ([carbon monoxide] is not recommended for routine euthanasia of cats and dogs).

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

MEMORANDUM

gunshot method of euthanasia as acceptable with conditions but not recommended as a routine approach to the euthanasia of [companion animals],3 and Section .0702 accordingly classifies gunshot as an extreme method of euthanasia that may only be used when extraordinary circumstances are present. 02 NCAC 52J .0702. In accordance with this preference, Section .0401 should be amended to clarify that approved methods are those that the AVMA, HSUS, or AHA deem to be either unconditionally acceptable or acceptable with conditions when all conditions and recommendations are met. B. The Codes use of the term approved in Section .0703 for euthanasia under extraordinary circumstances is ambiguous because it does not conform to the language used by relevant animal welfare organizations. The Codes provision for approved methods of euthanasia under

extraordinary circumstances at Section .0703 is similarly ambiguous. Section .0703

states that the methods of euthanasia that may be used under extraordinary circumstances are those approved by the AVMA, HSUS, or AHA. However, as explained in the previous section, there is a significant ambiguity as to what methods would be permitted because AVMA, HSUS, and AHA do not use the term approved. To clarify this ambiguity, Section .0703 should be amended to specify that permissible euthanasia methods under extraordinary circumstances are those that are not deemed unacceptable by the AVMA, HSUS, and AHA. This designation would permit methods such as gunshot and gassing that are generally impermissible under Section .0401 but at the same time may be acceptable with conditions under extraordinary circumstances.

AVMA GUIDELINES (2013), supra n.1, at 45 (Gunshot is not recommended as a routine approach to the euthanasia of dogs, cats, or other small companion animals, and should not be used when other methods are available and practicable.)

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

MEMORANDUM

II.

EUTHANASIA BY GASSING IS NO LONGER AN APPROVED METHOD BY ANY OF THE THREE RELEVANT ANIMAL WELFARE ORGANIZATIONS The effective date of the relevant Code provisions regulating euthanasia

methods was March 23, 2009. From that date to the present, Section .0401 has allowed for the use of any method of euthanasia approved by the [AVMA], the [HSUS], or the [AHA] which are hereby incorporated by reference, including

subsequent amendments and editions.4 Similarly, Section .0703 has allowed for
methods of euthanasia approved by these organizations to be performed under extraordinary circumstances. Since March 23, 2009, however, recent amendments and editions to the reference animal welfare guidelines have since condemned the practice of euthanasia by gassing. The AVMA is the most lenient towards gassing, deeming the practice to be only acceptable with conditions and qualifying that it is not recommended for routine euthanasia of cats and dogs [and] may be considered [only] in unusual or rare circumstances, such as natural disasters and large-scale disease outbreaks.5 The other organizations deem the method to be unacceptable. Thus, the practice of euthanasia by gassing is no longer an approved method, and is out of step with current viewpoints on acceptable forms of euthanasia held by numerous organizations that have researched the effects of gassing on the animals and the attendant suffering. Indeed, at the time of this writing, at least nineteen states have banned the practice altogether.6 Accordingly, the Code should be amended to reflect that euthanasia by gassing is now restricted to such extraordinary circumstances.

4 5 6

02 NCAC 52J .0401 (emphasis added). AVMA GUIDELINES (2013), supra n.1, at 45.

In an August 2, 2012 press release, the Humane Society of the United States points out that ninetnees states (AL, AZ, AR, CA, DE, FL, GA, IL, LA, ME, MD, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, TN, VA, and WV) have already banned gas chambers. See Humane Society of the United States, HSUS Condemns the Use of Carbon Monoxide for Euthanasia of Animals in Shelters, available at http://www.animalsheltering.org/resources/policies_guidelines/carbon-monoxide-co-foreuthanasia-of-animals-in-shelters-1.html (last visited April 14, 2014).

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

MEMORANDUM

A.

The American Veterinary Medical Association categorizes euthanasia by gassing to be only acceptable with conditions and not recommended for routine euthanasia of cats and dogs. At the time the Code was enacted, the AVMA Guidelines version in effect

was the 2007 edition. In discussing Inhalant Agents, such as carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, the 2007 AVMA Guidelines noted that both carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide were acceptable means for euthanasia.7 This is no longer the

viewpoint of the AVMA.

Since the 2007 edition was released, the AVMA assembled a Panel on Euthanasia (POE) to [make] every effort to identify and apply the best research and empirical information in revising the Guidelines to comport with the expectations and paradigm of continuous improvement consistent with the Veterinarians Oath.8 The 2013 revision is the result of over three years of research, deliberation, and collaboration among more than sixty individuals, including veterinarians, animal scientists, behaviorists, psychologists, and an animal ethicist.9 In contrast to its past position regarding euthanasia by gassing at the time the Code was enacted, the AVMAs 2013 Guidelines eschew the practice of gassing by carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide as only being acceptable with conditions.10 The Guidelines expressly qualify that the use of carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide is not recommended for routine euthanasia of cats and dogs [but] [i]t may be considered in unusual or rare circumstances.11 Even under such rare or unusual circumstances, such as natural disasters or large-scale disease outbreaks, such practice requires that specific conditions be present. The Guidelines note that alternate methods with fewer conditions and disadvantages are recommended.

American Medical Veterinary Association, AVMA GUIDELINES ON EUTHANASIA, at 610 (2007).

8 9 10 11

AVMA GUIDELINES (2013), supra n.1, at 5. Id. AVMA GUIDELINES (2013), M1.4, M1.6, supra n.1, at 22, 26. Id., S1.3.2, at 45.

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

MEMORANDUM

B.

The Humane Society of the United States categorizes euthanasia by gassing to be unacceptable. HSUS published a Euthanasia Training Manual in 2002 and updated it in

2013 as the HSUS Euthanasia Reference Manual. Since the publication of the Euthanasia Training Manual, HSUS has expressly condemned the use of carbon monoxide for euthanasia in animal shelters. In an August 2, 2012 press release, the HSUS stated that EBI [euthanasia by injection] is the only acceptable humane method [of euthanasia].12 This policy change was reflected in 2013 when it published an updated HSUS Euthanasia Reference Manual, which is incorporated by reference as part of Section .0401. The HSUS Euthanasia Reference Manual declares injection of sodium pentobarbital with the use of anesthetics to be the most humane method of euthanasia for animals at shelters.13 The HSUS Euthanasia Reference Manual notes that the use of both carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide are unacceptable and not considered to be humane euthanasia, and should never be permitted in a shelter setting.14 C. The American Humane Association states that euthanasia by gassing is unacceptable. The American Humane Association has long since renounced the practice of euthanasia by gassing. In its Euthanasia by Injection Operational Guide, the American Humane Association has condemned the use of carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide as methods of euthanasia: American Humane considers euthanasia by the injection of sodium pentobarbital (EBI) to be the only acceptable method for euthanasia of dogs and cats in animal shelters. American Humane considers the use of any other lethal method for dogs and cats in animal shelters unacceptable, including the use of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, nitrous oxide, argon or anesthetic
12 13 14

See HSUS Condemns the Use of Carbon Monoxide for Euthanasia of Animals in Shelters, supra n.6. HSUS EUTHANASIA REFERENCE MANUAL, supra n.1, at viii, 4. Id. at 75.

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

MEMORANDUM

gasses, as well as physical methods, such as drowning, electrocution, gunshot and blunt-force trauma.15 Further, the AHA is vehemently opposed to gassing of animals that it has launched a campaign to Stop Gassing. As it states on its website: American Humane Association believes that euthanizing shelter animals by carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide is inhumane to the animal and harmful to humans. American Humane Association considers euthanasia by injection (EBI) to be the only acceptable and humane means of euthanasia for all shelter animals. In contrast, even with vigilant oversight, euthanizing any animal by means of a carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide gas chamber is inhumane to all animals, especially medium and large dogs, and is demoralizing to the shelter workers. Such outdated and cruel practices also create a public outcry and demean the very purpose of an animal shelter.16 D. Other organizations have condemned euthanasia by gassing. Although not expressly referenced in the Code, other leading organizations have also denounced the use of gassing to euthanize companion animals. Since the Code went into effect, the following organizations have issued statements and/or updated their positions condemning the practice of euthanasia by gassing: National Animal Control Association (NACA): In its Guideline for the Disposition of Animals (approved 08/24/2010; revised 10/02/2010), the National Animal Control Association stated that euthanasia by injection of sodium pentobarbital is the only method of choice for the humane euthanasia of animal shelter dogs and cats. The Guideline Statement goes on to note that NACA condemns the use of carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, nitrous oxide, argon, or anesthetic gases as well as physical methods such as electrocution, gunshot, and blunt force trauma for animal shelter euthanasia of dogs and cats.17

15 16

AHA OPERATIONAL GUIDE, supra n.1 at 1-2.

American Humane Association, Stop Gassing, http://www.americanhumane.org/ animals/stop-animal-abuse/advocacy/campaigns/stop-gassing-campaign.html (last visited April 14, 2014) (emphasis added).
17

National Animal Control Association, Dispositions of Animals - Euthanasia, available at http://www.nacanet.org/guidelines/Guidelines%20Euthanasia.pdf (last revised Oct. 2010).

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

MEMORANDUM

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA): The ASPCA has noted that euthanasia by injection is the most humane, safest, fastest, and least stressful to the animal and is safe for shelter personnel.18 American Animal Hospital Association (AAHA): Injection by sodium pentobarbital is considered the only acceptable method [of euthanasia] for most companion animals.19 Association of Shelter Veterinarians (ASV): ASV has denounced the use of carbon monoxide for individual or mass companion animal euthanasia as unacceptable. ASV notes that euthanasia by carbon monoxide does not meet the basic criteria set out by the AVMArapid loss of consciousness, followed by cardiac or respiratory arrest and to minimize distress and anxiety experienced by the animal prior to loss of consciousness.20 National Federation of Humane Societies (NFHS): In its Position Statement on Euthanasia, NFHS expressly stated that euthanasia by injection is the most humane and dignified method available and that all other approaches are unacceptable.21 NFHS has developed a Euthanasia Best Practice Guide for Companion Animals. As part of the Best Practice Guidelines, NFHS identified twelve Unacceptable Practices, including: [g]as chamber use to administer a lethal dose of carbon dioxide or carbon monoxide.22 EUTHANASIA BY GASSING IS COSTLY, DANGEROUS, AND INHUMANE As set forth above, the proposed amendments to the Code are necessary to

III.

avoid ambiguity and conflict with the animal organizations it references. Additionally, the proposed changes offer tangible benefits to North Carolinians.

18

American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Position Statement on Euthanasia, available at http://www.aspca.org/about-us/aspca-policy-and-position-statements/positionstatement-on-euthanasia (last visited April 14, 2014).
19

American Animal Hospital Association, Euthanasia Position Statement, available at https://www.aahanet.org/Library/Euthanasia.aspx (last revised Oct. 2009).
20

Association of Shelter Veterinarians, Carbon Monoxide Euthanasia of Shelter Animals, ASV Position Statement, available at http://www.sheltervet.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/CO-PositionStatement.pdf (last revised Mar. 2010).
21

National Federation of Humane Societies, Position Statement - Euthanasia, available at http://www.humanefederation.org/EuthPositionStatement.cfm (July 2010).
22

National Federation of Humane Societies, Euthanasia Best Practice for Companion Animals, available at http://www.humanefederation.org/EuthanasiaBestPractice.cfm (July 2010).

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

MEMORANDUM

A.

Euthanasia by gassing is more expensive than other methods which are unconditionally acceptable. In 2009, the AHA undertook a comprehensive analysis comparing the costs

of Euthanasia by Injection (EBI) as compared to euthanasia by gassing. Among the factors considered were Equipment Costs, Labor Costs, and Supply Costs.23 Applying similar, appropriate assumptions, based on animal data from a municipal

animal control agency in North Carolina, it was estimated that the average cost per
animal for EBI was $2.29 as compared to a range of $2.77 to $4.98 (a maximum savings of $2.69 per animal).24 In a study conducted by Katie OConnor Sirakos to the faculty of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in March 2011, it was estimated that in North Carolina 1.6 million dogs and cats were euthanized between 2002 and 2008.25 Using the two-person cost estimate above, this represents a potential cost

savings of nearly $4 million had all of these animals been euthanized by injection as
opposed to gassing. B. Gassing procedures are extremely hazardous to shelter workers. Shelter workers that conduct euthanasia by gassing techniques are at a far greater risk than workers administering EBI.26 Carbon monoxide poses a danger to humans because it is colorless, tasteless, odorless and highly explosive. The AVMA 2007 Guidelines on Euthanasia state: Carbon monoxide is extremely hazardous

for personnel because it is highly toxic and difficult to detect.27 In its most recent
23 24

AHA OPERATIONAL GUIDE, supra n.1, EBI Cost Analysis Matrix 2009, at 25-32.

The range of costs associated with gassing is based on the number of operators present (one or two) and whether a tranquilizer was used. Under 02 NCAC 52J .0609, two persons are required to be present during the of a euthanasia gas chamber. This would place the cost range of euthanasia by gassing between $4.66$4.98 per animalat least $2.37 more per animal than EBI.
25

Katie OConnor Sirakos, Euthanasia in North Carolina Companion Animal Shelters: Interviews with Decreased-Rate Facilities and Comparative Analysis, available at http://www.mpa.unc.edu/ sites/www.mpa.unc.edu/files/KatieSirakos.pdf (March 2011).
26

Sodium pentobarbital is not considered a health hazard to staff unless it is deliberately misused or handled incorrectly. AHA OPERATIONAL GUIDE, supra n.1, at 19.
27

AVMA GUIDELINES (2007), supra n.7, at 10 (emphasis added).

10

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

MEMORANDUM

set of guidelines, the AVMA notes that due to the lethal properties of carbon monoxide approximately 50,000 emergency room visits for carbon monoxide poisoning occur annually. AVMA Guidelines for the Euthanasia of Animals: 2013 Edition, at 22.28 Exposure to dangerous concentrations of carbon monoxide also increases if the gas chamber is not properly sealed. Inspections of gas chambers and CO supply cylinders have revealed faulty seals and dangerous conditions.29 In addition to the harmful exposure to carbon monoxide gases, the use of gas chambers poses another risk to shelter workersexplosions. There have been multiple reports within North Carolina of explosions due to the use of gas chambers.30 31 C. Euthanasia by gassing is inhumane. There is little debate that when euthanasia is appropriate, the selected approach must bring about a rapid loss of consciousness and cause minimal pain, distress and suffering in the animal. The euthanasia process should minimize or eliminate pain, anxiety, and distress prior to loss of consciousness.32 The HSUS Euthanasia Reference Manual (referenced by the Code) recognizes that euthanasia by carbon monoxide is not considered to be humane

28

Low-level exposure (concentrations of .32.45% CO) for one hour will induce a loss of consciousness in humans and death. Id. Chronic exposure to low-level concentrations of CO may pose risks of cardiovascular disease and teratogenic effects (i.e., birth defects). Id.
29

King, M., North Carolina Coalition for Humane Euthanasia, Documented Dangers of Gas Chambers and Carbon Monoxide Poisoning, available at http://www.freewebs.com/ ncche/documentedhazards.htm (last visited April 14, 2014).
30

Explosions of gas chambers in Lincoln County and Iredell County have occurred, injuring shelter workers. American Humane Association, Humane Euthanasia of Shelter Animals Fact Sheet, available at http://www.americanhumane.org/assets/pdfs/animals/adv-ebi-factsheetpdf.pdf (last visited April 14, 2014).
31

This issue is not unique to North Carolina. In 2000, a shelter worker in Tennessee was asphyxiated while operating a gas chamber. Humane Euthanasia of Shelter Animals Fact Sheet, supra n.28. Tennessee has since banned the use of gassing. See Tenn. Code Ann. 44-17-303 (2013).
32

AVMA GUIDELINES (2013), supra n.1, at 15.

11

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

MEMORANDUM

euthanasia, and should never be permitted in a shelter setting33 Although there are specifications for the time required for the gas chamber to reach a particular concentration of gas (46% within twenty seconds); the time by which the animal must be unconscious (forty-five to sixty seconds); and the time by which death must occur (two to four minutes), there is no evidence that suggests the animals are not subject to pain, anxiety and/or distress. The HSUS manual goes on to note that the sound of gas entering the chamber may create fear in animals. Also, because the gas does not render the animal unconscious immediately, the animals go through a period of distress (e.g., rigidity, howling, or vocalization). A 1983 study by Chalifoux and Dallaire evaluated the physiologic and behavioral characteristics of dogs exposed to 6% carbon monoxide (the recommended concentration) and could not determine the precise time of loss of

consciousnesss.34 With the inability to determine the time of loss of consciousness,

compliance to a standard requiring loss of consciousness to occur between forty-five to sixty seconds after exposure is impossible to verify. Additionally, in contrast to EBI, when euthanized by gas, animals lose consciousness and brain function after their vital organs have shut down, thereby causing increased suffering and distress.35 Further, old and injured animalsindeed, the very types of animals often being euthanizedmay be biologically unable to absorb the CO gas as readily as larger, and otherwise healthier animals, which prolongs the trauma and stress suffered by the animal.36 Even more chilling, there are documented instances in which the animals do not always die in gas chambers.37 Euthanasia by gassing does not meet the bare minimum criteria of causing a rapid loss of consciousness and minimizing pain, anxiety and distress of the animal
33 34

HSUS EUTHANASIA REFERENCE MANUAL, supra n.1, at 75 (emphasis added).

ASV Position Statement, supra n.21, citing A. Chalifoux & A. Dallaire, Physiologic and Behavioral Evaluation of CO Euthanasia of Adult Dogs, AM. J. VET. RES. 44:241217 (1983).
35 36 37

Humane Euthanasia of Shelter Animals Fact Sheet, supra n.30. Id. Id.

12

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

MEMORANDUM

prior to the loss of consciousness. Accordingly, this method must be prohibitedor, minimally, permitted only under rare and unusual circumstances. IV. NORTH CAROLINAS CODE SHOULD BE AMENDED TO LIMIT EUTHANASIA BY CARBON MONOXIDE ONLY UNDER EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES The North Carolina code is misaligned with the current AVMA Guidelines because it does not expressly limit the use of gassing only in unusual or rare circumstances. At a minimum, 02 NCAC 52J .0600 (Section .0600) should be amended (if not repealed) to limit the practice of euthanasia by carbon monoxide only under rare and unusual circumstances, such as natural disasters or large-scale disease outbreaks. Indeed, such a last-ditch method should be restricted to the Extraordinary Circumstances set forth in Section .0700 of the Code. The 2013 AVMA Guidelines set forth that euthanasia by carbon monoxide is not recommended for routine euthanasia of cats and dogs [but] [i]t may be considered in unusual or rare circumstances.38 These unusual or rare circumstances are precisely those contemplated by North Carolina when enacting Section .0700 for extraordinary circumstances. It is only under these unusual circumstances when gassing by carbon monoxide may be acceptable by satisfying the AVMAs conditions.39 Section .0600 sets forth the various requirements and prohibitions associated with euthanasia by carbon monoxide. 02 NCAC 52J .0600. Prohibited uses are set forth in Section .0602. For clarification, this section should be amended to make clear that the only times when euthanasia by gassing is permitted are under the extraordinary circumstances of Section .0700.

38 39

AVMA GUIDELINES (2013), supra n.1, at 45

To be clear, HSUS and AHA have condemned the practice of euthanasia by gassing. ALDF similarly advocates for a complete ban of the euthanasia by gassing process, but offers the proposed changes to the North Carolina code in an effort to restrict and limit the practice to only those rare and unusual circumstances deemed permissible by the AVMA as incorporated by North Carolina law.

13

RULEMAKING PETITION TO AMEND EUTHANASIA REGULATIONS

MEMORANDUM

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, ALDF respectfully requests that the Board accept the proposed amendments to the Code contained in this rulemaking petition to ensure that when euthanasia is necessary it is carried out in a humane way in accordance with North Carolina law.

14

[APPENDIX OMITTED]