|
 |
| legislation | legislation > Animal Welfare Act > inspections
UPDATE: USDA settles with animal protection groups to ensure stricter enforcement measures of Animal Welfare Act; changes use of "teachable moments." Scroll below for more information.
USDA COVERING UP VOLATIONS AT BREEDING FACILITIES Multiple concerns have been expressed about the USDA's conduct in regards to the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act. These concerns have increased in recent years due to new actions by the USDA that do not prioritize the health and welfare of the animals but instead promote the production and business of breeders. A Washington Post article published in October 2018 took a close look at how the USDA enforces the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) for licensees, including breeders, dealers, exhibitors, and research labs.
They found the USDA's enforcement of the AWA had plummeted in 2018. See diagram below. (Credit: The Washington Post. Source: USDA - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.) Article describes other factors and decisions by the USDA.
Another article, published in February 2019 by The Washington Post, presented additional research showing that "USDA inspectors documented 60 percent fewer violations at animal facilities in 2018 from the previous year." See diagram below. (Credit: The Washington Post. Source: Animal Welfare Institute from USDA citations.) Article describes other factors and decisions by the USDA.
Reversal of past policies Some of these new actions appear to be in direct response to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) report conducted and issued in 2010. The OIG report was a scathing assessment of the USDA's enforcement efforts with a long list of recommendations to improve USDA efforts. Rory Kress, "The Doggie In The Window," asked Dr. Gibbens, former Western Regional Director for the USDA, if the OIG report changed anything at the USDA. Gibbons lamented that the efforts were too successful. As he was quoted to say: "After the audit that was released in 2010, the Secretary [of Agriculture] declared the 'Age of Enforcement,' which meant that we were supposed to cite every little thing we found. So we did that and wound up with hundreds of enforcement cases, more than the system could handle. So those were just closed out with warnings..." As Gibbens further explained, this new inundation of violations spurred the USDA to develop another tool, which is now known as "teachable moments" — where certain violations are no longer documented on inspection reports. (Rory Kress, "The Doggie In The Window," p. 38.) Unfortunately, rather than build upon past enforcement successes, the USDA reversed its policies and actions in order to make it easier on breeders and easier for their own agency, but not better for animals. For example, in recent years, Bernadette Juarez, former USDA Deputy Administrator for Animal Care, eliminated numerous veterinary care requirements. Eliminating requirements lowers the number of violations on inspection reports, so the USDA is now able to boast that its compliance rates are higher. Examples:
This means the USDA believes 96-97% of their licensees are doing well - essentially no problems and all the animals within these facilities, believes the USDA, are provided proper care. As with some state agencies, this federal department has prioritized the welfare of the business and the production and sales of the animals; the priority is not the health and well-being of each animal.
A few recent examples of USDA actions: NOTE: Some of the text below is from Bob Baker, ED for Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation. Reprinted with permission. (Missouri has the most commercial dog breeders in the nation.) 1. Failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act When the Agency responds to FOIA requests for copies of inspection reports of dog breeding operations, the Agency blackens out the entire report —the excuse being that such reports are equivalent to personnel and medical records which are exempt from FOIA. NOTE: Animal Folks has waited months and sometimes over a year for data requests to be fulfilled through FOIA. Many documents, if received, are now redacted. Animal Folks is a plaintiff in a lawsuit against the USDA for removal of animal welare documents. Separate lawsuits have been filed in regard to the redacted data. 2. Teachable moments For years, inspectors were told not to document certain violations on the inspection reports but to instead treat violations as "teachable moments" to be documented separately (out of public view). NOTE: Currently, when a USDA inspector utilizes the "teachable moment" policy, or ignores violations in accord with self-reporting or other recently changed policies, the inspector makes the following notation on the official inspection report: "No non-compliant items." Then the inspector documents, either on a separate "teachable moment" document, or in his/her field notes, the specific non-compliant items discovered during the inspection. Federal law (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1010) specifies that it is a crime to falsify a federal document or conceal any material fact. A criminal offense is therefore being committed every time a USDA inspector documents on a federal inspection report that there are "no non-compliant items" at a breeding facility when that inspector knows full well that there is at least one non-compliant item at the facility, and in fact, makes a written record of such non-compliance either on a separate USDA document ("teachable moment" form) or in his/her field notes. The purpose of the "teachable moment" policy, the "self inspection" policy, and other recently adopted USDA policies is to provide misleading and false information to state and local government officials and to the public. A government official who knowingly makes use of false documents or makes any "false representations" is also in violation of 18 U.S.C. sec. 1001 — a crime punishable by up to five years in prison. UPDATE: The Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation sued the USDA about the issue above; "teachable moments" was considered deceptive. In a settlement agreement, the USDA agreed to change its definition of teachable moments and to retrain its staff, including inspectors, to cite violations, rather than giving a "teachable moment," when the licensee's noncompliance "adversely impacts the health or well-being of an animal."
3. Self-Identifying and Self-Reporting If the breeder informs USDA of his/her violations of AWA and makes a promise to correct them, the Agency's inspector will not document the violations on the inspection report. 4. Limited Inspection USDA will now inspect only those kennel buildings and dogs that the breeder consents to let USDA inspect and will document violations only in areas permitted by the breeder. NOTE: This new policy can result in horrendous consequences. Example: An incident in Missouri occurred with a dog breeder who refused to allow a state inspector to inspect an area on his property. The inspector heard barking and insisted on entering this area. The breeder said those animals were "retired" breeding dogs and were not part of his license to be included in regulation. The inspector still insisted on conducting an inspection and entered the dog area. The state inspector found that the dogs were cannabilizing themselves due to total neglect; the breeder admitted he had not been providing any care for these "forgotten" animals. 5. Announced inspections USDA has implemented a "pilot project" to evaluate the use of "announced" inspections whereby USDA calls the breeder in advance and schedules an appointment for the inspection. USDA plans a nationwide implementation of this announced inspections policy if such warnings result in reduced violations during the pilot project. 6. Limitations on Number of Non-Compliant Items The USDA is limiting the number of non-compliant items that can be cited by an inspector to one per category of regulations. For example, if 10 dogs are sick and/or injured and have been denied veterinary care, the breeder can be cited for only one non-compliant item for lack of veterinary care even if all 10 dogs are suffering. 7. Identification of Suffering Animals No Longer Necessary The section on how to identify suffering animals has been eliminated from USDA's Inspection Guide. SOURCE: USDA Inspection Guide, revised May 2018 8. Veterinarian Oversight No Longer Necessary The requirement to ensure oversight by a veterinarian has been eliminated from USDA's Inspection Guide. SOURCE: USDA Inspection Guide, revised May 2018 9. Preventative Veterinary Care No Longer Necessary The requirement for care by a veterinarian to provide vaccinations and parasite control has been eliminated from USDA's Inspection Guide. SOURCE: USDA Inspection Guide, revised May 2018 10. Ignoring of Serious Conditions in Dogs Infected or rotting teeth, overgrown townails that curl into the pads of feet, eye and ear infections, and other so-called "minor" illnesses and injuries are no longer to be documented by USDA. SOURCE: USDA Inspection Guide, revised May 2018 11. Elimination of All Incentives to Provide Veterinary Care on a Continuing Basis If the inspector is able to contact the breeder's veterinarian about sick and injured dogs discovered during the inspection, then no violation is documented regardless of how much the animals have suffered and how long they have gone without treatment. 12. Reporting of Criminal Abuse and Neglect No Longer USDA inspectors are prohibited from reporting abuse and neglect discovered during the inspection process to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. 13. No Unannounced Inspection to Take Place if the Breeder Objects USDA will now accept any number of excuses for a refusal, which can be as general as the breeder having a "personal event" to attend. Instead, USDA will schedule an inspection appointment in advance if a breeder continues to refuse unannounced inspections.
GENERAL OVERVIEW: INSPECTIONS Businesses who are required to be licensed by the USDA are required to be inspected by USDA inspectors. USDA inspections are typically conducted once a year, though licensees with violations may be inspected a few times per year to check if they have "fixed" the problem. For an example of an inspection report of a former Minnesota broker, click on link below. This kennel is now under new ownership and operates as A.J. Angels. Its 2022 federal USDA license application states it may, at one time, have 2,000 dogs. Inspection reports will either list specific violations (citing the Animal Welfare Act) and when these violations must be corrected or, if nothing is witnessed on the inspection day, the report will state "no non-compliances." (Note: As an inspection occurs one day of the year, it may not be truly representative of conditions. Further, even though the inspection is unannounced, if it occurs on approximately the same month or day each year, the breeder/broker may "clean up" the facility for that particular day.) NOTE: Many violations are no longer being cited; see update above.
Compliance vs. non-compliance For years, the USDA had a policy (and created a culture) where inspectors were encouraged to promote "education" of licensees, rather than enforcement of violations. Multiple chances for correction of a violation were given, often resulting in no punitive action and limited consequences for the violator. Due to the USDA's interpretation of the standards within the Animal Welfare Act and how these standards are enforced, many of the inspection reports from past years and decades have stated "no non-compliances" — suggesting that the breeding conditions are acceptable per the Animal Welfare Act. USDA inspections and enforcement of standards have been highly controversial for years. Undercover investigations by private nonprofit organizations and cruelty complaints filed by citizens have proven violations existed, where USDA inspection reports indicated nothing was wrong ("no non-compliances").
Need for state involvement Lax federal enforcement (by the USDA-APHIS) and the need for State involvement was confirmed in an August 2009 declaration (AWA No. D-09-0139) by the former Eastern Regional Director of Animal Care, APHIS-USDA, Elizabeth Goldentyer (regarding a Minnesota dog breeder, Kathy Bauck). States Goldentyer: "One reason APHIS will cooperate with States is because agency resources are limited and APHIS can inspect facilities only a limited number of times. . . In addition, it can, in some circumstances, be difficult for APHIS inspectors to discover instances of animal cruelty or torture. For example, APHIS inspectors will typically only visit a facility once or twice a year, and such inspections are almost always dependent upon the licensee's cooperation and assistance. Thus, APHIS frequently cannot detect or document what happens at facilities when no APHIS inspector is present, or what happens at facilities when a licensee is uncooperative and/or refuses to grant APHIS access to all or part of a licensee's facility. For these and other reasons, APHIS, as authorized by the AWA, will often cooperate with State officials in carrying out the purposes of the AWA." NOTE: There are concerns about the state's ability and skillset to properly inspect dog and cat breeding facilities, due to their focus on business production interests and a livestock background/culture. Any suspected incidents of animal neglect or cruelty should be reported to local law enforcement; due to state privacy laws restricting access to all breeder data, it is not possible to verify if the Board of Animal Health has reported any incidents of animal neglect or cruelty. To provide proper enforcement of the state's breeder law and address the needs of dogs and cats in these kennels, the Companion Animal Board (CAB) bill has been introduced. When passed, the breeder law and kennel law would be transferred from the Board of Animal Health to the CAB. This new board will have the expertise and knowledge to properly enforce the breeder law and kennel law and lead and respond to companion animal issues in Minnesota.
|
 |
"));
