The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Animal & Plant Health Inspection Service (APHS) has been charged with
enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) 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. 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.”
USDA/APHIS was not enforcing the law regarding animal
dealers. 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/APHIS 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 animals are being
allowed to be exhibited to the public without direct control of a
handler(s), or 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 enforce the AWA within labs, and that the agency
didn’t effectively utilize the limited authority that it did have. Have
things changed since 1995? Apparently nothing is significantly
different. In fact, 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. Johnson-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 wonder how many people must 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 at the hands of 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 the
USDA must be reformed. 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 by
laboratories, dealers, and exhibitors is at stake.
Please visit our website www.saenonline.org for
more in-depth information, and do these three things:
1. Contact the Chairs 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.
Bob Goodlatte
2240 Rayburn House Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-5431
202-225-9681 (fax)
Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
416 Russell Senate Office Bldg
Washington, DC 20510
202-224-3521
202-224-0103 (fax)
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 Ave 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
