The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal
& Plant Health Inspection Service (APHS) has been charged with enforcement
of the Animal Welfare Act since the inception of this legislation. Over
the years amendments have been made to the AWA to provide for things such
as exercise for dogs and environmental enhancement for primates. Despite
these legislative improvements, the situation of animals within entities
such as laboratories, exhibitors and dealers has not improved
substantially, leaving many people puzzled. After all, we would like to
think that more and tougher regulations would improve the lot of animals.
The thought which underlies this line of reasoning assumes
that the agency charged with enforcing these new regulations actually has
some interest in living up to its mandate. However, it has become quite
clear that the USDA/APHIS is more interested in serving its customers
(labs, dealers, exhibitors, etc.), than law enforcement.
This should come as no surprise to anyone who has followed
the USDA over the years. Back in 1992 USDA/APHIS was audited by the Office
of the Inspector General (OIG) of the USDA with respect to enforcement of
the AWA regarding animal dealers. The report was summarized:
"Our audit concluded that APHIS cannot ensure the humane
care and treatment of animals at all dealer facilities as required by the
act. APHIS did not inspect dealer facilities with a reliable frequency,
and it did not enforce timely correction of violations during
inspections."
Essentially, with regard to dealers, USDA/APHIS was not
enforcing the law. This situation is echoed by the words of Marshal Smith
a former USDA inspector:
"My territory included 40 kennels in northwest Arkansas. I
approached my new job conscientiously. Records of these pet producers were
transferred to me from a retiring inspector who told me, "If you're smart
you'll do what I did, you'll check everything is OK." I told him that I
intended to abide by the law. Another assumption: I assumed he was a lazy
good old boy, that he was not voicing the agency's mindset. The kennels I
visited had seemingly never been inspected. I was overwhelmed by what I
saw: the wretched looking animals, the mounds of fecal matter reaching in
some cases to my knees, at very least to the wire caging of the rabbit
hutches which most puppy millers used to house the dogs. In every instance
that I recall, the filth and deprivation were shocking. I recorded scores
of violations prompting complaints to my supervisor in Little Rock. . . .
I assumed that further measures were taken to enforce the regulations and
bring offenders into compliance. I later learned that cases were not
developed for enforcement, and that those that were would languish years
before coming to hearing, when they would invariably be dismissed. Thus
some of the most horrendous conditions under which dogs were bred
festered, unfettered by federal intervention."
In 1996 the OIG audited the USDA with respect to animal
exhibitors. The findings were no more encouraging:
"Although APHIS Class "C" exhibitor licenses were intended
solely for those who wish to exhibit animals to the public, our visits to
28 APHIS-licensed exhibitors in 3 states disclosed that 18 (64 percent)
did not actually exhibit their animals, but instead maintained them as
pets. Using the regulations broad definition of an exhibitor, individuals
obtained exhibitor licenses in order to circumvent State or local laws
intended to protect the public by restricting private ownership of wild or
exotic animals such as bears or tigers."
In this instance APHIS regulations and enforcement
practices of the AWA actually allowed individuals to circumvent local laws
and potentially endanger the public. Similar information has come to light
in the statement of current USDA Animal Care Specialist Richard Botelho. A
five-year veteran of almost 1000 inspections inside Florida, Botelho has
made some familiar-sounding statements about the USDA:
"Failing to enforce the minimum standards and regulations
of the AWA, has harmful risks to the animals and to the public.
Potentially dangerous animal are being allowed to be exhibited to the
public without direct control of a handler(s), sufficient distance or
barrier between the animals and the public."
In 1995 USDA/APHIS was again audited by the Office of the
Inspector General (OIG) of the USDA. This time the investigation dealt
with enforcement of the AWA in laboratories:
"APHIS does not have the authority, under current
legislation, to effectively enforce the requirements of the Animal Welfare
Act. For Instance, the agency cannot terminate or refuse to renew licenses
or registrations in cases where serious or repeat violations occur (such
as the use of animals in unnecessary experiments, or failure to treat
diseases or wounds). In addition, APHIS cannot assess monetary penalties
for violations unless the violator agrees to pay them, and penalties are
often so low that violators merely regard them as part of the cost of
doing business."
Essentially, the OIG said that USDA/APHIS lacked
sufficient authority to effectively enforce the AWA within laboratories,
and that the USDA/APHIS didn't effectively utilize the limited authority
that it did have. Have things changed within the USDA since 1995?
Apparently nothing is significantly different. In fact, it appears that
the USDA/APHIS hierarchy may have become openly hostile to effective
enforcement of the AWA.
In 2000 Dr. Isis Johnson-Brown, another former USDA
inspector issued the following statement at a news conference in Portland
Oregon:
"The research institutions I visited, including the Oregon
Primate Center, were not happy to see me coming once they realized that I
was going to hold them to the law. This reaction I expected. What was
surprising to me was my own supervisors were disappointed and unsupportive
of my efforts to simply enforce the bare minimum standards in the Code of
Federal Regulations. The USDA has a good ol' boy relationship with the
research industry and the laws are nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
More than once, I was instructed by a supervisor to make a personal list
of violations of the law, cut that list in half, and then cut that list in
half again before writing up my inspection reports. My willingness to
uphold the law during my site visits at the Primate Center led to me being
"retrained" several times by higher-ups in the USDA."
To summarize the situation at the USDA/APHIS apparently
there is little interest in actual enforcement. In fact, it appears that
the USDA/APHIS hierarchy is openly hostile to law enforcement (Botelho):
"AC management does not support their inspectors, but
supports high profile licensees when complaints are initiated against
them, especially if such facilities threaten lawsuits against the agency.
. . . Since inspectors fear complaints against them and do not get support
from the management, most end up picking their battles at certain
facilities, turning their heads from citing enforcement resulting in poor
work ethics. Other federal employees are given ultimatums to resign or be
fired."
Dr. Brown echoes this idea:
"As Oregon's only inspector, I was responsible for the
oversight of over 120 facilities throughout the state. I barely had time
to visit each facility as required, which for some facilities was no more
than once every three years. If that wasn't enough, I soon found out that
my own supervisors were working against me at every turn."
We must begin to wonder how many times someone has to say
that the animal Welfare Act isn't being enforced before someone will
believe it. The federal government has had ample time to change this
situation, with no meaningful results.
It is clear that instead of being part of the solution to
the nationwide problem of animal abuse within labs, dealers and exhibitors
the USDA has become a supporter of animal suffering by engaging in an
agency-wide policy of non-enforcement. Apparently USDA/APHIS is far more
concerned about keeping registrants and licensees happy than it is about
enforcing the law it is charged to regulate. If the situation within any
of these entities is ever to change then we must reform the USDA. If no
changes are made, then the Animal Welfare Act may as well not exist.
Please join our campaign to force the USDA to enforce the law as it
exists. The health and well-being of animals held within laboratories,
dealers and exhibitors is at stake. Please use our website
www.saenonline.org for more in-depth information, and do these three
things:
1. Contact the members of the House & Senate Agriculture
Committees to demand that they immediately convene investigative hearings
to examine how USDA/APHIS has not been enforcing the Animal Welfare Act.
The members of each Committee are listed on our website at these pages:
House Agriculture Committee:
http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/articles-housecommag.html
Sample letter for Representatives at:
http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/articles-lettertothehouse-sample.html
Senate Agriculture Committee:
http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/articles-senatecommag.html
Sample Letter to Senators:
http://www.all-creatures.org/saen/articles-lettertothesenate-sample.html
2. Contact the Office of the Inspector general to demand
that the current OIG audit of USDA APHIS deal with the agency's
enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.
United States Department of Agriculture
Office of the Inspector General
Room 41-W Jamie Whitten Bldg
1400 Independence Avenue SW.
Washington, DC 20250
(202) 720-5677
3. Contact the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture to
demand both stricter enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act and an internal
investigation of the allegations made by the present and former USDA staff
quoted in this article.
Mike Johanns
Secretary of Agriculture
U.S. Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Ave. SW room 200A
Washington, DC 20250
[email protected]
202-720-3631
Go on to Website of Note
Return to 6 February 2005 Issue
Return to Newsletters
** Fair Use Notice**
This document may contain copyrighted material, use of which has not been
specifically authorized by the copyright owners. I believe that this
not-for-profit, educational use on the Web constitutes a fair use of the
copyrighted material (as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law). If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your
own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright
owner.
