Animal Folks Minnesota

Businesses who are required to be licensed by the USDA, such as breeders who breed dogs and cats or brokers who buy and sell the puppies and kittens, are also required to be inspected by USDA inspectors.

USDA inspections are typically conducted once a year, though problematic breeders and brokers may be inspected multiple times per year.

Inspection reports for all USDA licensees are available online on the USDA website. Go to:

• USDA: Animal Welfare License and Registration List

For an example of an inspection report of a Minnesota broker, click on link below:

• Inspection Report: Clearwater Kennels

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. Furthermore, 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.)

Compliance vs. non-compliance

For years, the USDA had a policy (and created a culture) where inspectors were encouraged to promote "education" of breeders, rather than enforcement of violations. Multiple chances for correction of a violation were given, often resulting in no punitive action and limited consequences for breeders.

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 inspections reports indicated nothing was wrong ("no non-compliances.").

In 1985, 1992, 1995, 2005 and recently in May 2010, five major audits were conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the USDA’s Animal Care (AC) Program. Each audit identified multiple deficiencies by the USDA-APHIS-AC, and these deficiencies (in past years) were not corrected. In fact, the Inspector General cited the USDA for a “lack of clear National guidance.”

• For a link to the 2010 and 2005 audits, click here.

The 2010 OIG audit is the most recent audit and the USDA is attempting to respond to the OIG recommendations and improve its enforcement practices. See: Improvements

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 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 offten cooperate with State officials in carrying out the purposes of the AWA."

Whistleblower cases

Below are links to viewpoints about USDA behavior, in regards to whistleblower cases. These cases deal primarily with animals for use in research.

"));