Conclusion
The inspection reports included with this report represent approximately twenty five percent of the total that I have reviewed. The purpose for the additional reviews not included with this report was to determine the consistency with USDA inspections and reporting procedures. Since this report complements other investigative activity none of the licenseeÍs were selected solely due to information contained in the inspection reports. Unfortunately the overwhelming majority of inspection reports reviewed confirmed USDAÍs lax inspection policies that permit licenseeÍs to operate with repeat violations that are not properly documented or reported for enforcement action. These policies are a primary reason for the decline in cases referred to USDAÍs Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES). Evidence of this can be seen by the relatively few USDA press releases issued subsequent to Administrative Hearings.

USDAÍs has implemented inspection policies that circumvent the intent of the Animal Welfare Act thus imperiling the health and well being of animals supposedly protected by the Act. Inspection reports now contain a brief narrative instead of a more detailed accounting of conditions, as was the case with the report previously used. Now USDA acknowledges that they have adopted a risk based inspection system that will "ƒdetermine the inspection frequency for individual licensees and registrants." Numerous facility operators that were reviewed for this report were subjected to frequent inspections, however, there was little indication that significant improvements were implemented to assure the health and well being of the animals in their care. Another disturbing revelation made by USDA was the admission that "ƒthe percentage of facilities in compliance (55.7percent) and a goal (60 percent) for FY 1999." USDAÍs statistical information regarding enforcement actions is also both disturbing and misleading. For 1998 there were 456 cases reported with 416 submitted to Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) staff. This is misleading in that it gives the impression that these cases were all referred to IES investigators in the field for formal investigation. Although all cases submitted to the Office of General Counsel must go through IES staff that does not mean that a formal investigation was conducted by IES field investigators. Of those reviewed by IES staff only 60 warranted or were documented sufficiently for formal prosecution. USDAÍs mindset is obviously protective of an industry and places more value on commercial vitality of the licensees rather than the welfare of animals in their care. Congressional intervention is imperative to reverse the heinous conditions in which animals are forced to endure since USDA established the AC program as an independent division within the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Unless and until Congress addresses this egregious situation conditions at federally licensed facilities throughout the country will continue on a downward spiral. Respectfully submitted,

æ æ Marshall G. Smith
Director of Investigations
cc: Deborah Howard, President „ Companion Animal Protection Society

Return to main