Veterinarians, Alumi and Students Call on WSU College of Veterinary Medicine to Spare the Lives of 8 Horses and 60 Goats
To:
Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (iacuc@wsu.edu)
Dean Dr. Dori Borjesson (dori.borjesson@wsu.edu)
Dr. Kelly Farnsworth, Professor of Equine Surgery (farns005@wsu.edu)
Dr. Nina Woodford, DVM, MPH, DACLAM, Campus Veterinarian (nwoodford@wsu.edu)
Dr. Elizabeth R. Cantwell, President (president@wsu.edu)
I am writing to raise concerns regarding the continued use of horses in the Large Animal Junior Surgery laboratory at Washington State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine and to request that the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) review the approved animal use protocol immediately.
The Animal Subject Approval Form (ASAF) approved for this course contains the following statement used to justify the terminal use of animals:
“The animals used in this course are purchased from animals that would be sent to slaughter… the animals utilized in this course are treated with great respect, as opposed to the slaughter house they were destined to end in.” (p. 4)
However, information that has since come to light indicates that this statement does not accurately describe the horses currently used in the protocol. The horses in question were not animals destined for slaughter; rather, they were transferred from a USDA research program. These animals were healthy and eligible for adoption.
Because the protocol justification approved by the IACUC states that animals used in the course are “purchased from animals that would be sent to slaughter” (p. 4), yet the horses scheduled for the laboratory were transferred from a USDA research program and were eligible for adoption, the factual basis presented to the committee does not appear to accurately describe the animals used in the activity.
Under the Animal Welfare Act regulations (9 CFR §2.31), animal activities must be conducted in accordance with the protocol reviewed and approved by the IACUC. If the animals used in the laboratory differ materially from those described in the approved protocol, the activity is no longer consistent with that approval and warrants immediate review by the IACUC to determine whether corrective action or reporting as potential noncompliance is required.
In correspondence, you acknowledged this directly, writing:
“The horses used in this year’s lab were not infected and would have been eligible for adoption had we known in time to alter this year’s course (classes are selected and scheduled far in advance).”
Because the protocol’s harm–benefit justification relies in part on the assertion that the animals would otherwise have been sent to slaughter, this discrepancy raises questions about whether the information provided to the IACUC accurately reflected the circumstances of the animals used in the course.
If the factual basis for the harm–benefit justification presented to the IACUC differs from the actual origin and adoptability of the animals used in the course, it would be appropriate for the committee to review the protocol again with accurate information. This is particularly important where terminal procedures are involved.
In addition to the horses, the course also involves the use of dozens of goats for terminal procedures. While these goats may have been sourced from populations destined for slaughter, it is worth noting that viable alternatives exist for these animals as well. Goat grazing programs are increasingly used across the western United States as an effective method of vegetation management and wildfire mitigation. Many sanctuaries and land stewardship organizations utilize goats to reduce fuel loads and maintain firebreaks in fire-prone landscapes.
Allowing animals such as these goats to be transferred to sanctuaries or grazing programs rather than used for terminal procedures could allow them to continue contributing productively as land managers while also reducing the number of animals euthanized for educational purposes. Exploring such options could align veterinary training with evolving approaches to animal stewardship and land management.
It was noted that the course was not modified this year because classes were already scheduled and that students are already receiving a “reduced” experience with “one less anesthesia and surgery.” While scheduling constraints are understandable in an academic program, institutional timing considerations should not prevent reconsideration of animal use when new information becomes available regarding the animals’ circumstances.
I would also like to raise a related concern about how individuals who have brought these issues forward have been responded to within the institutional community. In communications circulated among students, the credibility of those raising concerns has been questioned, and their affiliations have been cited as reasons to doubt the information they provided. In some cases, these responses have encouraged students to disregard the documentation referenced and instead defer exclusively to institutional authorities.
When individuals raise concerns about protocol accuracy or regulatory compliance, responses that cast doubt on their integrity without addressing the underlying evidence risk discouraging open discussion and may deter others from raising legitimate concerns in the future. Robust oversight systems—including IACUC review—depend on the willingness of students, staff, and faculty to speak up when they believe protocols or practices warrant closer examination.
Encouraging transparent discussion of documented concerns strengthens institutional integrity and supports the ethical training of veterinary students. Conversely, responses that focus on discrediting individuals rather than evaluating the substance of their concerns can create a chilling effect that undermines the very reporting mechanisms designed to protect animal welfare and regulatory compliance.
Importantly, a viable alternative exists for the horses currently involved. A sanctuary has already agreed to receive them:
Triple J Horse Haven
Apple Valley, California
Given these circumstances, I respectfully request that Washington State University:
• Suspend the use of these horses and goats in the Junior Surgery laboratory.
• Refer the matter back to the IACUC for review with accurate information regarding the animals’ origin and adoptability.
• Explore non-terminal alternatives for both horses and goats where feasible.
• Allow the horses and goats to be transferred to sanctuary rather than be killed.
Veterinary education plays a critical role in shaping the professional judgment of future veterinarians. Addressing this issue transparently and ensuring that IACUC review is based on accurate information would demonstrate Washington State University’s commitment to high standards of animal stewardship, regulatory compliance, and professional integrity.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss it further.
Sincerely,
Crystal Heath, DVM
