The document discusses the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), outlining its role in governing the treatment and care of animals used in research, highlighting its limitations and historical evolution. It details the regulations for research facilities, licensing of dealers, and the broader implications of animal advocacy, including the ethical considerations surrounding pain and suffering inflicted on research animals. Key amendments to the AWA over the years reflect a gradual shift towards increased protections for animals, although significant gaps remain in regulatory coverage.

1. Animal Advocacy
Animals in Science and the
Animal Welfare Act
This work by Valerie LangWaldin, J.D., M.L.S. is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 International License.

2. Animals in Science and the
Animal Welfare Act

4. Animal Welfare Act
7 USC Sec. 2131 • The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is
the federal law that governs the
humane care, handling, treatment,
and transportation of animals used
in laboratories. Contrary to
popular belief, it does not prohibit
any experiment, no matter how
painful or useless; it simply sets
minimum housing and
maintenance standards for
confined animals.
– The AWA also covers dealers who sell
animals to laboratories, transporters of
animals, dog and cat breeders, puppy
mills, zoos, circuses, roadside
menageries, and animal exhibitors,
carriers, and intermediate handlers.

5. The Nature of Science Science
• Most science
does not deal
with the
infliction of pain
on nonhuman
animals.

6. • Issue first arose in Great Britain
• National Anti-Vivisection Society formed in
1875
Policy Discussion

7. SPECTRUM OF THOUGHT

8. Spectrum of Thought
Some individuals and
organizations believe
that animals should
not be used in
research at all.
Others vigorously
defend the use of
animals.
Some think that
animals must be used
in research, but they
would allow it only
under strict criteria
and only when
absolutely necessary.

10. Are different species or sources of animals
more acceptable than others? (Animals
specifically bred for research use versus
stray pets from local government pounds.)

11. Are different species or sources of animals
more acceptable than others?

12. Duties toward these animals?
• Are there duties toward
the animals used in
research that deal with
conditions of housing and
care before experiments?
What level of pain may be
inflicted? What are the
duties toward the animal
after the experiment?

13. If some use of animals is appropriate, then
how do you draw the line between
acceptable and unacceptable?

14. Remember…
• The first anti-cruelty law in the U.S.
adopted in 1867 in N.Y. contained only
one exception: the perceived needs of
science.
– Section 10.
• Nothing in this act contained shall be construed to
prohibit or interfere with an properly conducted
scientific experiments or investigations… under the
authority of the faculty of some regularly
incorporated medical college or university…

15. • that supports the notion that animals should have a
pain-free life.
– The pursuit of science has long been one of the areas where the
interests of animals have been set aside for the needs of human
science.
No law exists…

16. • Should science be exempt from the
general animal protection laws known as
the anti-cruelty laws?
We need to ask ourselves:

17. Do we know what constitutes pain
and suffering in various species?
• Since animals, unlike
humans, usually cannot
volunteer to partake in
experiments, when is it
appropriate to subject
animals to activities which
produce pain, suffering or
death?

19. Interest of Animals, Scientific Progress
Each passing
decade the
U.S. gives
more weight to
the interests of
animals.
The evolution at
the federal level
can be seen in
the increasingly
detailed focus of
the federal
Animal Welfare
Act on the actions
of science.

20. • From USDA Animal Welfare Reports
– Total animals reported used in research
(excluding rats, mice and birds):
• 1985 – 2,153,787 at 1,105 reporting facilities
• 1999 – 1,217,998 at 1,232 reporting facilities
• 2001 – 705,602 at 1,216 reporting facilities
Animals in Research

21. But…
Rats, mice, birds
• Rats and mice represent
approximately 90 percent
of the animals used in
research. They are not
included in the above
numbers because
facilities are not required
to report on them.

22. 1990 1998 2004
Dogs 109,992 70,541- 64,932-
Cats 33,700 23,238- 23,640+
Primates 47,177 54,927+ 54,998+
Rabbits 399,264 288,222- 261,573-
Animals in Research – does not include rats and mice,
which run into the millions each year

23. Why a meaningful reduction?
3 Main Reasons:
• (1) Individual scientists are increasingly
unable to make these decisions behind
closed laboratory doors.
– Most institutions have Animal Care
Committees in place that require anyone
undertaking scientific research where animals
are involved to first justify their proposal by full
presentation to the Committee.

25. Why a meaningful reduction?
3 Main Reasons:
• (2) There has been increasing awareness
that the housing of animals before and
after experimentation raises as many
issues than the experiments themselves.

26. Why a meaningful reduction?
3 Main Reasons:
• (3) The cost of keeping animals has
become significant enough that economic
factors can contribute to reductions in the
number of animals used. This increased
cost even prompts some researchers to
seek alternatives to the use of live
animals.

27. Would you believe…
The USDA itself has become a
focus point for finding alternatives to
the use of animals in research.
Click here.

28. So let’s get on with the story
of
the Animal Welfare Act

29. 1960s
• Two big issues brewing
– (1) Animals in science, research and testing
– (2) Story in Life magazine about how pet dogs
and cats were being stolen and sold to
research facilities
• (Life, Vol. 60, Feb. 4, 1966)

31. Summary of AWA Over Time
• 1966 law – created a licensing system for
animal dealers and laboratories that use
dogs, cats, rabbits, monkeys, hamsters
and guinea pigs.
• Limited to care, handling, housing, and
transport conditions of prior to ultimate use
by research facilities

32. 1966 Law – 3 Main Purposes:
• (1) To protect owners of pet dogs and cats
from theft
• (2) To prevent the use or sale of stolen
cats or dogs for purposes of research or
experimentation
• (3) To establish humane standards for the
treatment of dogs, cats and certain other
animals by animal dealers and research
facilities

33. In 1966, after significant lobbying by a
number of scientific organizations,
Congress opted not to interfere with the
use of animals in research, teaching or
tests by research facilities.
Hands off approach

35. Source of the Dogs and Cats:
Illegal, Stolen Animals
• Now, back in 1966 as the AWA was just
evolving, the demand for research
animals was so high that there was a
huge demand for stolen pets. Stolen pets
were quickly moved across state lines and
the system was inadequate in
apprehending and / or convicting the
thieves.

37. Illegal, Stolen Animals
• So, the AWA prohibited any registered
research institution from acquiring dogs or
cats from any source other than
government licensed sources.

38. 1966 Law
(1) Secretary of Agriculture had to set up a
regulatory program to license all dealers in dogs
and cats and a system of record keeping was
required for all dealers and research facilities.

39. 1966 Law
(2) All animal dealers were required to register
with the USDA, and research facilities were
required to purchase dogs and cats from only
licensed dealers.

40. 1966 Law
(3) The law directed the Secretary of Agriculture
to provide humane care provisions enforceable
through inspections.

41. 1970 Amendments
• (1) Definition of animal was expanded to
include warm-blooded animals generally
(1966 law only included dogs, cats,
primates, guinea pigs, hamsters and
rabbits).

42. 1970 Amendments
• (2) Animal exhibitors (such as zoos,
circuses and roadside shows) and
wholesale pet dealers were brought under
the regulatory provisions of the Act.
– Exhibitors and dealers had to have licenses to
operate and became subject to inspections

43. 1970 Amendments
• (3) Certain humane standards in
laboratories were to be maintained at all
times.
• Temperature, food, water
• Pain-killing drugs if they did not interfere with
research – but this is a real loophole.

44. 1976 Amendments
• Didn’t deal with research facilities and
dealers. Instead, dealt with:
• Transportation carriers and handlers, and
• A new provision was added to make it a
crime to knowingly sponsor, participate in,
transport, or use the mail to promote
animal fighting.

46. 1985 Amendments
Focused mainly on issue of
animal research

47. 1985 Amendments
– Minimum levels of care were defined more
clearly.
• Required dogs held by research facilities to be
exercised
• Required a physical environment adequate to
promote the psychological well-being of primates
– This was the first time that Congress extended scope
of the law beyond just physical requirements like
food and water. Lawmakers acknowledged that
primates have legal interests in some quality of
mental life.

48. 1985 Amendments
Animal research facilities were required to
create Institutional Animal Committees
and include a member of the public on the
committee.
First time Congress directly stated that its
intent was to govern by regulation certain
actions that might occur during a scientific
experiment.

49. Institutional Animal Care
Committees
The primary statutory responsibility of
the committee is to engage in
inspections of the research facility at
least twice a year.

50. Institutional Animal Care Committees
• (A) At least one member shall be a doctor of
veterinary medicine
• (B) At least one member
– Shall not be affiliated in any way with such facility
other than as a member of the Committee
– Shall not be a member of the immediate family of a
person who is affiliated with such facility
– Is intended to provide representation for general
community interests in the proper care and treatment
of animals

51. 2002 Amendments (Progress?)
• Provisions which would have stiffened
penalties for animal fighting did not pass.
• Early versions of the bill mandated the
humane euthanasia of “downers”
(animals who are too sick or injured to
walk in to a slaughterhouse) but these
proposed changes were also eliminated.

52. 2002 Amendments
• The USDA had just agreed to expand the
definition of “research animal” to include
rats, mice and birds. However, Sen.
Jesse Helms from NC proposed an
amendment, which passed, that denied
AWA protection to these creatures.
• As a result, birds, mice and rats are not
protected by the AWA.

54. Not a broad anti-cruelty law and
does NOT deal with all species

55. Use of animals in K-12 education
Hunting, fishing, trapping
Slaughter (under the federal Humane Slaughter Act)
Animals in agriculture production
Retail pet stores
Veterinary care of animals outside licensed and registered institutions
Injuries by animals or inflicted upon animals
Animals other than mammals (reptiles)
State and county fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, purebred dog and cat
shows
NOT COVERED BY THE AWA:

59. SO what IS covered by the
AWA?

60. Covered by the AWA:
• Theft of pet dogs and cats being sold to research and testing
facilities
• Breeding and wholesale distribution of some mammals
– (mostly dogs and circus animals)
• Auctions
• Animals in research labs (universities and private industry) including
horses used as research
• Transportation of listed animals
• Mammals in zoos and exhibitions (but this excludes state and
county fairs, livestock shows, rodeos, purebred dog and cat shows,
and any other fairs intended to advance agricultural arts and
sciences)

62. Animal Welfare Act is a
regulatory scheme of licenses
and inspections to establish
minimum conditions

63. Congress delegated the job of
developing particular
requirements for the care of
animals to the USDA, and
in particular, the USDA’s
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS)

64. These requirements are species-
specific.
• Example: If a cat is kept in a cage in an
institution registered under the AWA, then
the keeper of the cat must satisfy the
following regulations:
– (a) Heating, cooling and temperature. The sheltered
part of sheltered housing facilities for dogs and cats
must be sufficiently heated and cooled when
necessary to protect the dogs and cats from
temperature or humidity extremes and to provide for
their health and well-being. The ambient temperature
in the sheltered part of the facility must not fall below
50 deg. (10 deg. C) for dogs and cats not acclimated
to lower temperatures…

67. Dog Exercise and Primate
Psychological Well-Being
AWA Regulations

68. Dog Space and Exercise
C-13
Page C-13

69. Page C-14
Housing for Primates
C-14

70. This is the cage size which satisfies the
regulations for great apes.

71. Sec. 3.81 Environment enhancement to
promote psychological well-being.
Primates
•
Dealers, exhibitors, and research
facilities must develop, document, and
follow an appropriate plan for
environment enhancement adequate to
promote the psychological well-being of
nonhuman primates.
The plan must be in accordance with
the currently accepted professional
standards as cited in appropriate
professional journals or reference
guides, and as directed by the attending
veterinarian. This plan must be made
available to APHIS upon request, and,
in the case of research facilities, to
officials of any pertinent funding
agency..

72. An Insider’s View:
Viktor Reinhardt
The Impossible Housing and
Handling Conditions of Monkeys in
Research Laboratories C-16
C-16

73. Animal Legal Defense
Fund : Landmarks & Victories

74. Animal Legal Defense Fund v.
Glickman
2000

75. ALDF v. Glickman
• When ALDF discovered a chimpanzee named Barney in
a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)-licensed
roadside zoo, he was languishing in solitary confinement
on the cement floor of a cage. Deprived of
companionship and veterinary care, he suffered from
severe psychological and physical distress until he
escaped from his cage and was shot and killed by a zoo
employee. On behalf of Mark Jurnove, a frequent zoo
visitor disturbed by the isolation and neglect that marked
Barney’s daily life, ALDF sued the USDA for failing to set
standards to protect primates under the federal Animal
Welfare Act (AWA).

77. ALDF v. Glickman
• In October 1996, a U.S. District Court Judge found the USDA in
violation of the AWA and ordered the agency to develop stricter
standards, emphasizing the need to address the psychological well-
being of primates in captivity. U.S. District Court Judge Charles
Richey called the USDA’s failure to issue such standards.
"egregious." "This case involves an abject failure in the rulemaking
process…to enforce the AWA," he stated.

78. ALDF v. Glickman
• While the Court of Appeals later held that the "standards" set by the
USDA were already adequate, they upheld the decision that
Jurnove did have legal standing to sue to protect the interests of
animals under the AWA. This decision established that animal
activists have standing to sue under the Animal Welfare Act and has
been cited frequently in subsequent litigation promoting humane
treatment of animals.

79. BARNEY Page C-21 Heart of Matter
Barney

80. The Law does not require the
elimination of pain and distress.
Requires that pain and distress be
“minimized”

82. Risk of pet theft is not with research institutions but
farther back in the chain of transfer.

83. Euthanized
Humane
Society
(Private)
City Pound
(Govt.)
Euthanized
Pet
Owners
Stolen Collectors
CLASS B
DEALERS
(Licensed)
CLASS A
DEALER
(Private
Breeders)
Auctions
Exhibitors
CLASS C
CLASS B
DEALERS
Purpose
Bred
Animals
Profit Corp.
Research &
Testing
Research
Institution
Vet &
Medical
Schools

84. To Discourage Use of
Stolen Animals
RECORD
TRAIL
• Record trail
follows animal
through chain
of transfer
DEALER
HOLDING
PERIOD • 5 days

85. The problem lies in someone stealing the animals
and selling them to a licensed dealer.
So, dealers are required to do their homework and require
proof of ownership from those they purchase the animals from.

88. Source of Dogs and Cats:
Legal, Random Sources
 Aside from us of stolen pets for research,
the use of EX-PETS generates a lot of
debate.
 The issue arises when local shelters or pounds
sell ex-pets rather than euthanize them.
 Prior owners are usually not aware of this
possibility.

90. Class A, B, and C Dealers
 Class “A” License (breeder) – business
involves only animals that are bred and
raised on the premises

91. Class A, B and C Dealers
 Class “B” licensee means a person
whose business includes the purchase
and/or resale of any animal. Class B
licensees include brokers, and operators of
an auction sale. Usually do not take
physical possession of the animals.
 But C.C. Baird operated differently. He took
possession of the animals.

93. Class A, B and C Dealers
 Class “C” (exhibitor) means a person
who business involves the showing or
displaying of animals to the public.

94. AWA is REGULATORY
 All facilities licensed or registered under
the Animal Welfare Act are inspected.
Requested inspection reports and
supporting documentation can be found
here.

95. Section 4 of the AWA
 No dealer or exhibitor shall sell or offer to sell
or transport or offer for transportation, in
commerce, to any research facility or for
exhibition or for use as a pet any animal, or buy,
sell, offer to buy or sell, transport or offer for
transportation, in commerce, to or from
another dealer or exhibitor under this
chapter any animals, unless and until such
dealer or exhibitor shall have obtained a
license from the Secretary and such license
shall not have been suspended or revoked.

96. Dealer Defined
 The term “dealer” means any person who,
in commerce, for compensation or profit,
delivers for transportation, or transports,
except as a carrier, buys, or sells, or
negotiates the purchase or sale of
 (1) any dog or other animal whether alive
or dead for research, teaching, exhibition,
or use as a pet, or

97. Dealer Defined
 (2) any dog for hunting, security, or
breeding purposes, except that this term
does not include-
 (i) a retail pet store except such store which
sells any animals to a research facility, an
exhibitor, or a dealer.

98. Recap:
 Recap:
 1. The USDA is responsible for
coming up with regulations necessary for
enforcing the AWA.
 2. Within the USDA, the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (“APHIS”)
investigates.

99. Two Types of Investigations:
 Routine (no advance notice)
 As a result of complaint filed – APHIS is
required to investigate

100. Violation Procedure
If USDA thinks violation deserves sanctions,
a civil complaint filed within the USDA.
(1) Administrative Law Judge presides (ALJ appointed by USDA)
(2) Suspension or revocation of license and civil fines
(3) If the decision of the Administrative Law Judge is appealed,
it goes to a Judicial Officer (usually defers to ALJ).

101. Average Length
540 DAYS!
(Once violations are noted and get to
the point where the person or entity is
taken to court)

102. For a list of PEOPLE who
are exempt from licensing
requirements see page
384.

103. Animals Included Under the AWA
 Live or dead
 Dog or cat – wild or domestic
 Monkey (“nonhuman primate mammal”)
 Warm-blooded animals except birds, rats,
mice

104. Animals NOT Covered by the AWA
 Birds, mice and rats

105. Animals NOT Covered by the
AWA
 Horses used as pets, or for exhibition, or on
farms

106. Animals NOT Covered by the
AWA
 Farm animals intended for use as food

107. Animals NOT Covered by the AWA
 Livestock or poultry used for improving
animal nutrition
 So a sheep used in different experiments at
the same university are subject to different
rules:

108.  When sheep are used in a medical center to study
use of drugs in preventing premature birth, the
sheep are protected under the AWA.
 Same sheep if used for nutritional studies are not
covered.

109. ENTER PAWS
 Why is the bill necessary?
 The PAWS bill is necessary because
currently all commercial breeders of dogs
and cats who sell their animals directly to
the public avoid AWA licensing and
humane handling requirements even when
they are selling a large number of
animals.

111. Pet Animal Welfare Statute (PAWS)
– 2007 - NEVER BECAME LAW
 Strengthens existing law covering commercial breeding
facilities by amending the Animal Welfare Act (AWA).
 The PAWS legislation would require that any commercial
breeder who sells more than six litters of dogs or cats,
and produces more than 25 puppies or kittens, directly
to the public in a year be licensed by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA).

112. PAWS
 The growing popularity of the Internet has
created an unintentional loophole in the current
law, allowing these commercial breeders to
classify themselves "retail pet stores" and evade
all federal oversight. As a result, raising animals
in deplorable conditions and selling them to
someone sight unseen has become even easier,
and is a highly profitable business. These high
volume dealers are commonly referred to as
"puppy mills."

114. PAWS
 Some of the more technical aspects of the
bill address a growing frustration that the
enforcement of the AWA has been
hampered by cumbersome procedures and
limited resources. One great concern has
been the growing number of breeders
overseas who see the United States as a
lucrative market for dogs, whom breeders
can mass produce with no humane
regulations or oversight.

115. PAWS
 The public source records section of the bill will
allow the USDA to determine the origin of dogs
and cats coming into the United States and trace
their pathway, allowing for better control of
disease and inhumane treatment. Sections
expanding the temporary suspension and giving
the USDA the ability to enjoin breeding
operations will enhance the USDA's enforcement
capability.

117. PAWS
 This bill will not regulate people who sell an
occasional litter of puppies, but will give the
USDA the opportunity to inspect and ensure
humane treatment of animals at large facilities.
The bill is carefully aimed at closing the current
loophole in the AWA that allows commercial
breeders who sell over the Internet to go
unchecked.

118. Roach Case, 1992
Trying to get around the
law….

119. Roach Laboratories Case, 1992
Roach produced and sold an antiserum from the blood of rabbits,
goats, and sheep.
Antiserum production involves injection into a live animal followed by
extraction of blood.

120.  Complaint filed by the Administrator of
APHIS (USDA’s Animal & Plant Health
Inspection Service)
 Alleged that Roach operated as a dealer
without being licensed
 Operated a research facility without being
registered
 Refused to allow APHIS to inspect the
records and facilities of Roach
Laboratories
Roach Laboratories Case, 1992

121. Roach’s defense:
• Roach argued he was
not a dealer and
therefore did not
require a dealer’s
license.
– He tried to make the
argument that there is a
difference between
selling serum and
antiserum and that he
only tested blood from
individual animals
instead of a pool of
animals.

122. Roach’s defense:
Roach also said he
did not obtain the
rabbits from a dealer
in commerce .
For these procedures,
Roach bought 198
rabbits from Shelton’s
Bunny Barn, which is a
licensed dealer under
the AWA.

123. Roach’s defense:
Research Facility
Roach said that
he was not is not a
“research facility”
as defined by the
Animal Welfare Act
and therefore was
not required to be
registered with the
USDA.
Animal Welfare Act

124. What is a research facility?
That’s all the law says.
 7 U.S.C. § 2132 (e) The term
“research facility” means any school
(except an elementary or secondary
school), institution, organization, or
person that uses or intends to use
live animals in research, tests, or
experiments, and that (1) purchases
or transports live animals in
commerce, or (2) receives funds
under a grant, award, loan, or
contract from a department, agency,
or instrumentality of the United
States for the purpose of carrying
out research, tests, or experiments.

125. Court found:
 Roach was a dealer and
should be licensed as
such.
 Roach was a research
facility and should be
registered as such.
 Roach should allow
inspections of the
facilities as required by
the AWA.

126. Page C-9
And see Case Study C-3 on Page C-12
Case Study C-2

127. Challenges

128. Final Report On Environment Enhancement To
Promote The Psychological Well-being Of
Nonhuman Primates
U. S. Department of Agriculture Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Animal Care, Riverdale, MD
July 15, 1999
What follows is a summary of issues raised
in both the mail survey and telephone
interviews of APHIS Animal Care
employees… C-25

129. Results of Surveys & Interviews
 Minimum Criteria Needs Clarification
 Lack of Enforceability
 Minimalistic and One-Sided Enhancement
Programs
 Questionable Implementation of the Facility
Plans
 Low Levels of Appropriate Social Grouping
 Practices that Perpetuate Abnormal Behavior
 Poorly Furnished Environments

130. 1. Minimum Criteria Need
Clarification
 The standards in 9 CFR §3.81 emphasize the
presence of a physical document called an
“environment enhancement plan for
primates” at each facility, but the standards
contain few solid criteria on which an
inspector can judge the content of the plan
as “in compliance” or “out of compliance.”
The regulations state that the plan must
address social grouping, enrichment of the
physical environment, special
considerations, and restraint devices, but
what is required in order to address these in
a minimally compliant manner is unclear.
Some inspectors said they had the
impression that the only legally necessary
condition for compliance was the existence
of the document itself, regardless of its
contents.

131.  Some inspectors said they could recognize
a plan that was not in accordance with
professional literature or was not
“adequate to promote psychological well-
being.” i.e., the inspectors said if it’s bad,
they can tell.
 However, they had concerns about Agency
support for particular interpretations or
judgement because of the vague language
and nature of the performance standard.
2. Lack of Enforceability

132.  Many employees supported the idea that
enhancement programs be required to
address several different aspects of a
primate’s environment and behavior,
beyond the superficial breakdown.
 E.g., feeding of treats or provision with a
simple rubber toy, in an otherwise barren,
stimulus-poor environment
3. One-Sided ‘Enhancement’Programs

133. 4. Questionable
Implementation
Animal Care inspectors
recommended facilities be required
to provide better documentation of
implementation.

134. 5. Low Levels of Social Grouping
 Some Animal Care
inspectors felt that there
were too many singly
housed primates.
 All of these reasons reflect
convenience for the
owner(s), not primary
consideration for the
psychological needs of the
animals.

135. 6. Practices that Perpetuate Socially Incompetent
Individuals or Abnormal Behavior
 Animal Care inspectors were
concerned that dealers
involved in the pet trade
continue to remove infants
from their care-giving
parent(s) at an inappropriately
early age, for reasons other
than medical necessity.
 These practices are known to
produce socially incompetent
adults and contribute to the low
levels of social grouping already
identified.

136. 7. Poorly Furnished Environments
C-27

137.  In conjunction with the release of this report,
a policy was proposed and published, Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, Draft
Policy on Environment Enhancement for
Nonhuman Primates, Federal Register: July 15,
1999 (Volume 64, Number 135) page 38145-
38150 [Proposed Rules] [Docket No. 98-121-
1]. But this was a policy for “guidance” not
proposed new regulations, and has yet to be
finalized into a formal policy of the agency.

138. If you want an accurate, excellent analysis of the AWA, click here.

139. Association for Assessment and
Accreditation of Laboratory Animal
Care C-31 *** The Future?
Enter AAALACA

140. Animal Law
CRJS 231
Hudson Valley Community College
Valerie A. Lang, J.D., M.L.S.