UNITED STATES INSPECTOR GENERALS REPORT -
MAY 2010 - USDA
COMMERCIAL DOG BREEDING INDUSTRY - NEWPORT BEACH CITIZENS WANT BAN ON USDA PET
STORE PUPPIES
documented case study: cleanliness
EXACT PHOTO-EXAMPLE 3: At a facility in Ohio with 88 adult
dogs, AC cited the breeder for 23 violations (including 7 repeats) during 3
inspections from August 2005 to January 2008. In July 2007, AC sent an official
warning to correct the identified care and cleanliness violations or face a
“more severe penalty.” In January 2008, AC found the same violations but,
instead of imposing a more severe penalty, sent another official warning.
National instructions state that an official warning can be sent if no other
enforcement action was taken against the violator in the previous 3 years.33 In
this case, the violator had received an official warning 7 months before so a
more serious action was warranted. When we asked AC why a more serious action
was not taken, regional management told us that the breeder was making
progress. Consequently, national instructions were not followed in order to
give the breeder “a reasonable opportunity” to comply with AWA.
Four months later, during our visit to the facility in June 2008, AC cited the
breeder for another 9 violations (including 4 repeats). For example, a large
amount of feces and urine was pooled under the kennels producing an
overpowering odor (see figure 4). The inspector recommended no enforcement
action.
Figure 4: Deep Pool of Feces and Urine Under Occupied Kennel
The breeder was cited for cleaning and sanitation violations during this
inspection.
Four months later, the breeder was re-inspected and cited for 4 more violations
(including 3 repeats). Again, AC took no enforcement action because the
violator was “making credible progress,” as noted in AC’s “Enforcement Action
Option Worksheet.”
