|
 |
 issue |
issue > commercial breeders > inspections
The Animal Welfare Act (AWA) regulates the humane care and handling of dogs, cats, and other laboratory animals. The AWA requires USDA-licensed facilities to be inspected. Authority Authority to conduct inspections (and follow-up on complaints of abuse and noncompliance) has been granted to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) - Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) - Animal Care (AC) unit. Due to limited resources, inspections are infrequent; due to poor management and enforcement practices, compliance by breeders is minimal. Inspectors and training As of 2010, the agency employs 99 inspectors. Per 2010 USDA audit report: "Before Animal Care issues a license, it conducts a pre-licensing inspection because by law applicants must be in full compliance with AWA and regulations. After a license is issued, AC inspectors perform unannounced inspections at least biennially to ensure the facilities remain in complaince with AWA. If an inspector finds AWA violations, the dealer is given anywhere from a day to a year to fix the problems depending on their severity. During a recent audit of AC, it was found that inspectors gave the dealers an average of 16 days to correct their violations. After inspectors are hired, they receive 5-6 weeks initial training on animal care standards and inspections. Thereafter, they receive annual training in the form of national or regional conferences as well as meetings with their supervisors." Number of inspections In FY 2008, the inspectors conducted 15,722 inspections on licensed and registered facilities (including dealerss, exhibitors, research facilities, etc.). In FY 2008, there were 4,604 licensed breeders and 1,116 licensed brokers. Previous years:
Minnesota There are 2.5 USDA inspectors for all of Minnesota. These inspectors must inspect licensed breeders as well as exhibitors, dealers, brokers, zoos, research laboratories, circuses and animals transported via commercial airlines. No inspections are required for non-licensed breeders/dealers. For further information about the AWA, go to: Animal Welfare Act
A lack of enforcement Whether or not Animal Welfare Act (AWA) standards are strictly or loosely enforced during inspections is a policy decision. Field inspectors follow the direction given to them by ‘top officials’ at the USDA-APHIS. Throughout the years, multiple audits have been conducted by the USDA Inspector General to assess the practices of the USDA-APHIS-Animal Care Program. In May 2010, an audit report was submitted entitled Inspections of Problematic Dealers. The focus of this audit was on "dealers with a history of violations in the past 3 years. Another objective was to review the impact of recent changes the agency made to the penalty assessment process." Their assessment:
To read the full 2010 audit report, go to: USDA - Inspections of Problematic Dealers
Previous audits The USDA-APHIS-Animal Care program has been audited in previous years, including 1992, 1995 and 2005. Each audit varied based on its objective. Each audit cited specific and multiple problems with recommendations; each subsequent audit showed little improvement by the USDA-APHIS-AC. See link below for the 2005 Audit Report.
The 2005 Auditor identified numerous recommendations in the report; one particular observation made: “Discounted stipulated fines assessed against violators of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) are usually minimal. Under current APHIS policy, Animal Care (AC) offers a 75-percent discount on stipulated fines as an incentive for violators to settle out of court to avoid attorney and court costs. In addition to giving the discount, we found that APHIS offered other concessions to violators, lowering the actual amount paid to a fraction of the original assessment. An Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) official told us that as a result, violators consider the monetary stipulation as a normal cost of conducting business rather than a deterrent for violating the law.” This and other actions illustrate how inspectors are supposed to behave, according to policy set by USDA-APHIS officials. Today, legal action is rarely taken against breeders who violate USDA standards. (There are no State breeding standards in Minnesota.)
Multiple chances given while animals wait Instead of imposing fines for violations or shutting down facilities, the USDA has chosen to educate breeders about AWA requirements. If violations are found, multiple chances are given to breeders for them to “fix” the problem. Animals are not removed while compliance is occurring. In 2006, (Detroit Free Press), “the USDA in 2004 opted not to fine Heartland Kennels [a puppy mill in southwestern Minnesota] — which sent at least 123 pups to local pet shops in 2005 — after citing the facility for repeated violations that include confining dogs to cramped, dirty cages that offer no protection from the wind, rain and snow. In a letter to the facility, the USDA said its run of violations used to result in fines or closure, but current policy “is to encourage compliance through education and cooperation rather than legal action”.… The USDA’s Office of Inspector General has criticized the agency since the 1990s for failing to adequately crack down on violators. And in a blistering September 2005 report, the inspector general found an ineffective monitoring and inspection system and concluded the USDA failed to take action against “violators who compromised…animal health.” Inspections are useless if violations are found and no action is taken. Because Minnesota has no State law to regulate dog and cat breeders, it has no authority to take action where the USDA has failed.
Freedom of Information Act Inspection reports can be obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. Go to:
Some inspection reports for Minnesota breeders are also posted at the link below:
Supporting links |
 |
"));
