Researchers have found a human-owned animal hospital that is a rare exception in the US.
They also found that the facility is actually a small animal rehabilitation centre, and not a typical animal hospital.
The research was published in the Journal of Applied Ecology.
Human-owned animals and the treatment of animals in hospitals are both relatively common.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), only around 2% of veterinary hospitals are owned by humans.
And even these small institutions typically have only one or two veterinarians.
This makes them ideal for rehabilitation and animal care.
But the study by the Arizona Department of Public Health, University of Arizona and the University of Georgia found that there are actually around 1,000 such facilities in the country.
This means that the human hospital that the researchers found is actually the largest in the United States.
And the animals are inhumanely treated: they are given drugs, antibiotics, and other harmful substances.
Dr Jennifer A. Shulman from the Department of Animal and Plant Health Sciences at the University at Albany, US, and her colleagues were interested in whether there was a “human” or “human-owned” animal hospital in Arizona.
They wanted to know whether the facility could hold any animals that could be moved for rehabilitation or treatment.
They collected a list of over 5,000 species of mammals and birds that were listed as eligible for euthanasia or adoption in Arizona and were placed into three different groups.
The first group was treated humanely.
The second group was kept in a facility for breeding purposes, and the third group was in a “humane” environment where they had to be individually restrained and fed a variety of food and water.
Animals were given vitamins and water that were not normally available to the animals in this group.
The researchers then used an automated software programme to identify the animals.
They then used the results to create a database of animal and human-operated facilities that held these animals.
The database included information on the types of animals housed in the facilities, the number of animals per facility, the types and severity of animals suffering and their rehabilitation.
They looked for facilities with high euthanasia rates, low or no animal welfare measures, or facilities that were operated by multiple different groups, with different staff, veterinarians, and veterinarians working together.
In addition to looking at the euthanasia rate of each facility, they also looked at the number and severity the animals suffered from infections and infections of other animals.
Animals with higher euthanasia and infection rates were more likely to suffer from other diseases, such as bacterial infections, and also more likely than animals with lower euthanasia, to die.
The data revealed that the facilities were generally poorly cared for, and in some cases were not properly licensed to provide animal care to humans.
“We found that these facilities have a high eutha[n]s [number of animals] per facility,” Dr Shulmans told New Scientist.
“In some cases, we found that their euthanasia numbers were more than double those of the animals housed at non-human facilities.”
The researchers believe that the high euthan[ies] can be attributed to a combination of poor training, overcrowding, and inadequate veterinary care, including poor oversight.
“These facilities were not provided with a veterinarian’s license to operate,” she said.
“They had no health inspections or health screenings.”
The facilities were also not regulated by Arizona law.
This led the researchers to conclude that the conditions in these facilities are not suitable for humans.
The AZDOH did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
It is difficult to say why these facilities were chosen, given that they are not in any of the states most commonly visited by people.
In Arizona, animal shelters are usually a good place to go for a visit, but there is a limit to how many animals can be put up for adoption in a given day.
Animal shelters in Arizona have an average daily intake of around 25 animals, Dr Shunmans said.
The average euthanasia was 1,923 animals in the AZDOHS facilities, and an average animal infection rate of 3.8 per 100 animals.
Dr Shumans said that they wanted to understand how the animal population has changed over time, as well as how these facilities performed in terms of euthanasia.
“Our goal was to understand the history of these facilities and what kind of care was provided to animals, and what kinds of conditions they were in, before and after they were euthanised,” she told New Sider.
“The reason why we have a population of animals that is more or less healthy and thriving in these hospitals is because the facilities have been operating successfully for decades.”
The authors of the paper, published in PLOS ONE, believe that animal hospitals in Arizona are the only animal hospital still operating in the state.
Dr A. G. S. Shuler, a veterinary scientist from the