Home Page |
Stop Animal
Exploitation NOW!
Articles and Reports The Betrayal of Animal Protection - - The Corruption of the USDA Introduction 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: Sample letter for Representatives at: Sample Letter to Representatives: Senate Agriculture Committee: Sample Letter to Senators: 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 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
Return to
Articles and Reports |
We welcome your comments
and questions
Welfare (d-42)
This site is hosted and maintained by:
The Mary T. and Frank L. Hoffman Family Foundation
Thank you for visiting all-creatures.org.
Since