USDA Reports that they're not doing their jobs (& why better enforcement is more important than more laws)

Yesterday, the USDA launched a 69 page report that gave an pretty damning overview of the failures of the department to uphold the national Animal Welfare Act.  I highly recommend reading the entire report -- although, warning, it does contain several graphic and disturbing visuals.

The report focused on several major downfall of the department's enforcement:

1) The USDA enforcement of the law was inefficient at dealing with problematic dealers

According to the report, out of 8,289 inspections, 5,261 (63%) of the operations showed at least one violation of the AWA. Of those, 2,416 (47%) were repeat offender -- with 863 (36%) of them violating the same subsections of the law.

In their reports, inspectors were given the option of recommending no action be taken -- and in a limited check up, 71% of the time, "no action" was what the inspector chose -- even if there were major violations. 

There are several major examples of lack of enforcement and here is one of the worst:

Example 4: At the facility in Oklahoma with 219 dogs, Animal Care cited the breeder for 29 violations (including 9 repeats) during 3 inspections from February 2006 to January 2007. AC requested an IES investigation in May 2007.  However, before the investigation resulted in any enforcement action, the inspector conducted another inspection in November 2007 and found 5 dead dogs and other starving dogs that had resorted to cannibalism. Despite these conditions, AC did not immediately confiscate the surviving dogs and, as a result, 22 additional dogs died before the breeder's license was revoked.

2) Inpsectors did not cite or document violations properly to support enforcement actions

There seemed to be a lot of inconsistency in how AC handled documenting violations. In some cases, if there were 5 dead dogs found on the property it would only be written up as one violation (instead of 5) -- creating lower fines and less follow-up. They also didn't document many things (even though all inspectors are given digital cameras) that made prosecution more difficult.

3)  The new penalty worksheet makes it too easy for inspectors to give minimum penalties.

While Congress has repeatedly raised the maximum fines for violations over the years, the actual amount assessed in fines has gone been going down. The new worksheets allow for many reductions in fines -- allowing up to 145 percent of the maximum penalties. While they don't advocate that enforcement officers assess maximum penalties, the new worksheet has caused numberous reductions to make the actual penalties come out to a negative balance, causing just the minimum fines to be levied.

A report in 1995 noted that most breeding facilities just saw the low fines as a cost of doing business and not high enough to encourage change. This was reconfirmed in 2005, and the average fines were actually lower in 2008 -- meaning that in 13 years, this problem remains completely unaddressed.

4) Misusing Guidelines ot Lower Penalties for violators 

This is tied to #3, but the inspectors seemed to misuse the reductions to get fines lower for kennel operators by incosistently counting violations, applying the 'good faith' reductions without merit, allowed a "no history of violations" reduction when the violators had a prior history and arbitrarily changing the gravity of some of the violations.

In 32 of the 94 cases that were reviewed the guidelines were misused to lower penalties. In 22 of 94 cases, people were given reductions in penalties for having "no previous violations" -- even though they did have previous violations. Also, inspectors are given the ability to give "good faith" reductions on follow-up visits if it appears that breeders are making positive improvements on making changes -- however, the report noted that often these reductions were given unjustly. In 13 of the 94 cases it was found that the enforcement agency applied the good faith penalty reduction without merit.

5) A loophole allowing for internet sellers to not need a license.

Because the AWA was written in 1971, it allowed companies that "sold directly to the public" to be excluded from licensing with the intent to prevent inspectors from having to inspect pet stores. Obviously in 1971, the Internet wasn't on anyone's radar -- so now, many breeders are selling directly over the internet to allow themselves to not need to be licensed. The survey reports that 81% of the breeders they checked (they did include some really small breeders with as few as 3 breeding dogs) were not licensed.

********

If you read the report, it will be a natural reaction to become angry. Sometimes the natural reaction is to see a report like this and want to push for harsher laws against 'puppy mills'. However, I think it's extremelly important to note that everything here is ALREADY AGAINST THE LAW. The law, by the USDA's own admittence, just isn't being enforced, and fines are so minor that there is little incentive for facilities to improve their conditions.

This report very much echos the findings in the state of Missouri -- where the MVMA has noted that the problem is not the need for better laws -- but the need for better enforcement and similar findings in the 2008 state audit of the Missouri state department of agriculture.

I think too often we find ourselves torn between the need for more laws and the need to enforce the ones we have. I think this is true for dealing with irresponsible commercial breeders, in most cases for aggressive dogs, and for animal cruelty. More laws aren't going to solve anything if we don't have capable enforcement of the ones we have -- and likely will make the poor enforcement worse, not better.

If we want to solve a lot of these problems we must put pressure on these organizations to DO THEIR JOBS -- and do them well. Our tax dollars deserve better than this.

For more:

YesBiscuit! - USDA Inspections - Not.

Raised by Wolves - Falling Through when the whole damned thing is cracks

Comments

[YesBiscuit!]

I felt sick after reading the report for many reasons. One (of many) images seared into my brain is the OK breeder - not a Vet - cutting open a pregnant bitch w/out anesthesia and letting her bleed to death.

[John]

Is there any hope for true enforcement under the USDA? After all, their mission is far more about the promotion of agricultural interests than law enforcement.

[PetDocsOnCall09]

Thanks for this insightful glimpse into this horrifying, but not entirely unexpected results of the audit.

As you know, Brent, at the Veterinary News Network, our Message Points are similar. The answer to this problem is not new legislation, but consistent enforcement of the already good laws on the books.

If we spent the money currently being tossed away to lobbyists, signature gatherers and advertising for new laws on enforcement of existing laws, we could probably start making a dent in this issue.