|
|
|
|
 |
Overview | Background | Resources | |
|
 |
||
|
|
||
|
Inspection Report Evaluations February 16, 2000 This report provides evaluations of official inspection reports that supposedly document all violations or "non-compliant" items at federally licensed facilities. The USDA’s, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), Animal Care (AC) regulates facilities that are engaged in commercial pet production and/or distribution. The inspectors are supposed to document "non-compliant items" or violations and give a specific time frame for corrective measures to be implemented by the licensee. If upon re-inspection the "non-compliant item" has not been corrected some form of enforcement should be implemented by USDA officials. In the past AC has issued "Official Warning Notices" as well as "Stipulation Agreements" to resolve infractions without any formal administrative or criminal proceedings. Cases that could not or were not resolved in this manner could then be forwarded to USDA’s Office of General Counsel for an Administrative Hearing or referral to federal court. Significant monetary penalties, license revocation and prison terms are permitted in these proceedings. During the review of the inspection reports it was apparent that documentation of violations by USDA inspections had been corrupted to such a degree that a licensee could "legally" operate indefinitely with frequently reported "non-compliant" items. The reporting procedures implemented by AC officials have dramatically impaired enforcement of provisions of the Animal Welfare Act and corresponding regulations and standards leaving animals protected by the Act in constant peril. The inspection reports should document specific violations, cite the corresponding section number of the regulation or standard and give a reasonable correction deadline. If upon re-inspection the specific item is corrected it is so noted. If the item has not been corrected by the deadline enforcement measures should be implemented. Unfortunately for the animals however, the inspection process has been so drastically altered that ongoing violations are not being reported as such and licensees are not held accountable for ongoing and habitual violations. For example one inspection reviewed noted under Category I, Non-compliant item(s) previously identified that have been corrected: "The 3 Labs were seen by the Attending Veterinarian, The 2 Bassets were seen by the Attending Veterinarian, The 5 cats were seen by the Attending Veterinarian." On the same inspection report under Category III, Non-compliant item(s) identified this inspection, "Beagle #275 must be examined by the attending veterinarian to diagnose weight loss, poor hair coat and general unthriftiness." Rather than consider this an ongoing problem with lack of appropriate veterinary care the inspector documents it as a newly identified non-compliant item since the animals affected are different and another correction deadline was given. It is also apparent in the inspection reports reviewed that excessive time frames are routinely allowed for violations that directly affect the health and well being of the animals. In an effort to more clearly illustrate this pattern I will list facilities whose inspection reports were a part of this review. In some instances I have personally visited some of the facilities and I will address any discrepancies as they relate to the official inspection. One complication to this review process was the implementation of a new inspection form that further minimizes the inspection process by elimination of crucial information previously available on the first page of the old reports. The old inspection form had a listing of appropriate section numbers that corresponded to a specific category such as "Cleaning and sanitation". The old form also had areas that indicated the type of facilities being inspected such as "Indoor", "Sheltered" or "Outdoor". The new inspection report is strictly a narrative form and I suspect was specifically designed to be vague to protect inspectors from the threat of a felony for falsification of an official document. |
|
43-A-1790 - Carolyn and Donald Surrite
43-A-2019 - Veronica and Harry Shaw, Jr. 43-B-0304 - Danny Bailey & Brent Cotton 41-A-0338 - Larry and Patty Urbach 41-A-0248 - Wilma and John Renner 41-A-0035 - Brian and Becky Haberman 42-A-0284 - Jim and Nancy Smith 43-B-0312 - Hulda Trader d.b.a. Trade-Wins Family Pets. LLC |