UNITED STATES INSPECTOR GENERALS REPORT -
MAY 2010 - USDA
COMMERCIAL DOG BREEDING INDUSTRY - NEWPORT BEACH CITIZENS WANT BAN ON USDA PET
STORE PUPPIES
Not picture of exact
breeder for EXAMPLE 2.4 : (but you get the picture right, being caged for life
in an environment that is less than the whole 6 inches on either side of the
dog that is actually legal by USDA standards-- these dogs spend their entire
lives like this)
We found some inspectors did not adequately describe some violations in inspection reports. At one facility in Oklahoma, the inspector cited the breeder for inadequate floor space. Although her report stated “several dogs are kept in kennels that are not large enough to satisfy their space requirements,” the inspector provided no further details. This lack of documentation may impact future litigation. In a prior ALJ case, when the Department similarly charged another breeder, the ALJ ruled in favor of the breeder stating “without any documentation as to the size of the shelters in the pen, a determination as to their adequacy cannot be made.”
In summary, the issues and examples discussed above seriously impacted APHIS’ ability to enforce AWA. Using their own judgment, some inspectors did not always report direct or repeat violations correctly according to the Guide and did not always document violations with sufficient evidence. When we discussed this issue with the agency, both the deputy administrator and the western regional director generally agreed that the inspectors should be provided more training. In particular, the deputy administrator suggested additional training in shelter medicine and animal abuse.
To correct these deficiencies, we agree that APHIS should provide more comprehensive training and detailed guidance to its inspectors and supervisors on direct and repeat violations, enforcement procedures, evidentiary requirements (e.g., adequately describing violations), shelter medicine, and animal abuse. Also, the agency should revise the Guide to require photos for all violations that can be documented in this manner.
We found some inspectors did not adequately describe some violations in inspection reports. At one facility in Oklahoma, the inspector cited the breeder for inadequate floor space. Although her report stated “several dogs are kept in kennels that are not large enough to satisfy their space requirements,” the inspector provided no further details. This lack of documentation may impact future litigation. In a prior ALJ case, when the Department similarly charged another breeder, the ALJ ruled in favor of the breeder stating “without any documentation as to the size of the shelters in the pen, a determination as to their adequacy cannot be made.”
In summary, the issues and examples discussed above seriously impacted APHIS’ ability to enforce AWA. Using their own judgment, some inspectors did not always report direct or repeat violations correctly according to the Guide and did not always document violations with sufficient evidence. When we discussed this issue with the agency, both the deputy administrator and the western regional director generally agreed that the inspectors should be provided more training. In particular, the deputy administrator suggested additional training in shelter medicine and animal abuse.
To correct these deficiencies, we agree that APHIS should provide more comprehensive training and detailed guidance to its inspectors and supervisors on direct and repeat violations, enforcement procedures, evidentiary requirements (e.g., adequately describing violations), shelter medicine, and animal abuse. Also, the agency should revise the Guide to require photos for all violations that can be documented in this manner.
