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: Oklahoma breeder with dogs infested with ticks. Dog with ticks on face.
EXACT PHOTO--We found
that 4 of the 19 inspectors incorrectly reported at least one direct violation
as an indirect. After reviewing some of the examples, AC regional management
responded that the inspectors may need additional training in identifying
violations. Examples follow:
Example 1: At a breeder facility in Oklahoma with 96 adult dogs, we observed numerous dogs infested with ticks. One dog’s face was covered with ticks (see figure 5).42
Figure 5: Dog Covered with Feeding Ticks
The inspector required the breeder to take only eight of the infested dogs to a veterinarian. However, she did not identify the dogs in the inspection report or require documentation of the treatment. Therefore, we were not able to determine what happened to this dog.
The inspector reported the ticks as an indirect violation, even though excessive ticks are classified as a direct violation in AC’s Guide. The inspector told us that “without doing a physical exam on the dogs, it would be hard to tell exactly how detrimental the ticks were.” Even so, she reported that some of the dogs “have enough ticks to be concerned about their hematocrit [a red blood cell ratio indicating anemic conditions].”
When we showed figure 5 to a senior veterinarian at AC’s national office and the western regional director, they disagreed with the inspector’s judgment of the violation. Both stated that it should have been reported as a direct violation in the inspection report.
Several months later, we asked for the treatment records to determine if the tick-infested dogs had received appropriate care, since AC’s policy states that “every facility is expected to have a system of health records sufficiently comprehensive to demonstrate the delivery of adequatehealth care . . . [including] dates and other details of all treatments.”
The inspector told us she could not require the records because AC “cannot enforce policy” and current regulations do not require breeders to keep them.
We found that although AWA and AC regulations are silent on treatment records, they do require adequate veterinary care; without these records, the inspector cannot determine if a violator corrected the problem.
We also noted that this inspector had required such records at other facilities, as did other inspectors we travelled with.
Last, the inspector did not identify the specific animals in her inspection report. According to APHIS, the inspector documented and photographed the violation for enforcement action. However, we did not observe her taking any photos when we were there and she could not subsequently produce them. Without the documentation, it would be impossible to identify the animals during re-inspection to determine if they were treated or just disposed of.
Example 1: At a breeder facility in Oklahoma with 96 adult dogs, we observed numerous dogs infested with ticks. One dog’s face was covered with ticks (see figure 5).42
Figure 5: Dog Covered with Feeding Ticks
The inspector required the breeder to take only eight of the infested dogs to a veterinarian. However, she did not identify the dogs in the inspection report or require documentation of the treatment. Therefore, we were not able to determine what happened to this dog.
The inspector reported the ticks as an indirect violation, even though excessive ticks are classified as a direct violation in AC’s Guide. The inspector told us that “without doing a physical exam on the dogs, it would be hard to tell exactly how detrimental the ticks were.” Even so, she reported that some of the dogs “have enough ticks to be concerned about their hematocrit [a red blood cell ratio indicating anemic conditions].”
When we showed figure 5 to a senior veterinarian at AC’s national office and the western regional director, they disagreed with the inspector’s judgment of the violation. Both stated that it should have been reported as a direct violation in the inspection report.
Several months later, we asked for the treatment records to determine if the tick-infested dogs had received appropriate care, since AC’s policy states that “every facility is expected to have a system of health records sufficiently comprehensive to demonstrate the delivery of adequatehealth care . . . [including] dates and other details of all treatments.”
The inspector told us she could not require the records because AC “cannot enforce policy” and current regulations do not require breeders to keep them.
We found that although AWA and AC regulations are silent on treatment records, they do require adequate veterinary care; without these records, the inspector cannot determine if a violator corrected the problem.
We also noted that this inspector had required such records at other facilities, as did other inspectors we travelled with.
Last, the inspector did not identify the specific animals in her inspection report. According to APHIS, the inspector documented and photographed the violation for enforcement action. However, we did not observe her taking any photos when we were there and she could not subsequently produce them. Without the documentation, it would be impossible to identify the animals during re-inspection to determine if they were treated or just disposed of.
