TRICKS OF THE TRADE:
USDA Inspection Reports
Inspection reports were instituted by the USDA in order to keep watch over facilities employing the use of animals which could result in neglect or abuse. Hence, the program ensured better quality of care and quality of life for the animals.
However, many licensees who have had inspection reports produced regarding their facilities or activities understand the process to be merely another "token" program of the USDA which gives the appearance of valuable institution but falls far short of achieving the goals of the program. In fact, many licensees have undergone reprehensible treatment which often centers around the use of the inspection reports by the USDA as ways to destroy animal-centered enterprises, especially those which are small businesses.
It is important to understand that there are an abnormally large percentage of federal employees working in APHIS which either have worked for special interest groups with similar agendas or are associated with such opinionated groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States. The problem here is that there isn't enough people employed in the same departments from the opposite end of hte spectrum to balance out the efforts put forth by liberal animal rights staff members in imposing their agendas in the USDA as well as doing so in a way which detrimentally affects the businesses partaking in animal-centered enterrpises and activities.
As a result, the USDA-APHIS is gradually becoming more of a special interest group forcing an agenda, often through unlawful methods which violate the constitutional rights of the licensees and/or worsens conditions of the animals involved in particular cases. Such a phenomenon cannot be any more egregious than what has been recognized in the drafting of inspection reports and how the licensees are treated by their animal care inspectors from APHIS. The following details reveal inconsistencies and abuses associated with the inspection reports of animal-related enterprises and activities.
- Inconsistent citations. For an example, if a licensee uses a certain method in feeding its animals for two years with no complaint from the inspector then one gets cited for the method during an inspection, this is an arbitrary and capricious use of the expectations and standards promulgated by the Department. Another example is citing a licensee for a small enclosure or cage but allowing it for another animal of similar size and living conditions.
- Misrepresentation of alleged violations. It isn't uncommon to have some inspectors literally cite a licensee for actions or conditions which did not happen. An example of this is an inspector citing a person for a dirty enclosure when it is as clean as it can get and even had fresh foundation laid down the night before the inspection. Basically, many of these violations are outright lies. Other times, the citations twist the reality of the situation or the inspector catches the licensee in the middle of cleaning an enclosure when he or she arrives for an inspection and the licensee gets cited for such, which, again, is an example of arbitrary and capricious use of the regulations.
- Verbal Abuse. Federal rules and regulations address how the inspectors are treated by licensees are other people in the field while performing their inspections. However, it does not address the abuse and outright harrassment the licensees experience as a result of the poor and unprofessional behavior of the inspectors. If the licensee then tells the inspector to leave the facility, the licensee actually gets cited for exercising her right to operating her or his business in peace and being treated respectfully by the USDA staff on site. It also isn't uncommon for the inspectors to refuse to leave the premises when told to after behaving aggressively, thereby committing, not only harrassment, but criminal tresspass; both actions are citable. However, a licensee would be lucky if the local police department would cite the inspector for such.
- Including implications and associations between the actions of a licensee or a description of an aspect of the licensee's facility with a negative event occurring with the animals involved. This type of citation is appropriate if it is clear that the actions of the licensee or someone under his or her direction caused a detrimental environment for the animals involved which resulted in injury or illness. However, when the inspector has to use conjecture or speculation in order to link the licensee's actions with the injury of an animal (or person on the premises), it is clear that citing the licensee in such a way is falsifying the report and should be considered an inaccurate assessment of the licensee's facility.
- Licensees being cited for minor mistakes which were unpredictable. Citing a licensee should be an act done by an animal care inspector from the USDA-APHIS when it is clear that there is a willful violation of rules and regulations which directly involve a possibility or actual injury to an animal or person on the premises. It isn't that a mistake the inspector sees in the facility shouldn't be mentioned to the licensee with the expectation that it be fixed as soon as possible by the licensee. It is expecting the licensee to be inhumane in the sense that he or she never should make mistakes. Of course, the severity of the situation should be considered as well. For instance, throwing a prey species in the same enclosure as a predator which leads to death is clearly an abuse of the prey animal while an animal which grabs a hose through the chain link of its enclosure in order to play with it, are really two different situations, especially in intensity. So long as the licensee quickly corrects the hose play time and no harm incurred, there should be some tolerance for mistakes. Otherwise, if the more serious situation of the prey animal being put in to an enclosure with a predator, didn't result in harm, it still should be cited as it shows a willful vioation of the regulations, is intense and egregious in nature and was very likely to result in the injury or death of the prey animal. Thus the two situations in the example should be treated differently by way of whether or not the person should be cited.
- Threats. Threatening licensees is clearly inappropriate and unlawful. However, this does not stop some inspectors of abusing their position and doing so with licensees. More common than not, the threats incorporate revoking the licensee's licensing and/or seizing the animals from the facilty which the licensee privately owns. At this time, the trend is more likely to occur with small businesses than larger ones. In fact, there are facilities with hundreds of animals in which animals have been beaten to death but are still in operation due to the USDA compromising standards of animal cruelty. The theory is the larger facilities are much more difficult to dismantle in terms of placing the hundreds of animals than the smaller facilities. However, this is what must be done in order to enforce the regulations and provisions of the licenses involved in such cases.
- Irrational expectations and standards in animal care. As an example, if a licensee chooses to keep an animal with recurrant bacterial infections in a sizeable cage in a barn instead of keeping the animal outside during the winter season, the reason for such should be considered by the inspector. If the licensee states that he or she has had a member of the same species which was in the same condition as the ones the inspector sees during the visit which incurred the citation, pass alway from hypothermia from the cold weather the year before, this should be a big factor and should not result in a derogatory remark being included in the inspection report. Additionally, if the inspector cannot come up with a better way (given the means and resources of the facility at that time) to treat the animal the way the inspector thinks it should be treated, then that should be a good reason to leave the situation as it is but expect the situation to change if the winter habitats are too small and the animal overcomes it's infections and, due to warmer weather outside, would not be subject to hypothermia.
- Unnecessary Requirements not specified in the "Blue Book". It's arbitrary to require one licensee to follow an artifically heightened requirement (e.g. imposing a requirement for a 8' high perimeter fence when it clearly states in the "Blue Book" that it is a 6' high perimeter which is needed for the species involved in the situation).
- Overreaching. Jurisdictoinal issues are always a problem especially when an inspector sees an animal from a distance which the licensee chooses not to be licensed and the inspector considers that animal under the purview of the inspection at that time. Again, there is a difference in the situations if an unlicensed animal is sharing an enclosure with a regulated animal versus an animal in its own enclosure off in the distance. Furthermore, the inspector should not be expecting to enter the household of the licensee unless the licensee offers and therefore, the family pets should not be in the purview of the inspection and authority of the inspector as well.
- Retaliation. If a licensee shields him or herself from abusive or unethical conduct of the licensee's animal care inspector, the licensee should expect to be experience reprisal. Often times, the reprisal is in terms of actions by the complained-about inspector invested in revoking the person's licensure. This results in the increase in citations on the inspection reports of the licensee, various attempts at destroying the business which the licensee worked so hard to establish and colluding with other licensees in the theft of the licensee's valuable exotic animals which are under private ownership.
- Favoritism is rampant throughout state and federal exotic animal licensing programs. In fact, it is so obvious and common that such programs should cease to exist due to the lack of consistent enforcement thus failing to make captive environmental conditions better as a whole. Favoritism also leads to additional abuses such as the collusion with favorited licensees in breaking the law; especially if it involved retaliating against another much less-liked licensee.
- Aiding & Abetting Unlawful Activity Against Licensee. For an example, offering "advice" to another licensee who intends on fraudently taking another licensee's animals is a tort in the state of New York and probably many other states as well (and federally too). In fact, depending on the circumstances of the case, it may very well be a crime or violation of state and federal law as well, unless the advice is to tell the licensee about to commit fraud to refrain from committing such acts and making the victim aware of the intentions of the licensee about to commit fraud. There is no way of trusting a person charged with enforcing the Animal Welfare Act as well as looking for violations of other federal and state laws (e.g. Lacey Act) in the field when the same inspector is violating other laws and assisting other licensees in doing the same.
- An Animal Care Inspector Allowing Herself to be Manipulated by other authority figures with agendas.
- Having one's own political agenda.
- R
However, many licensees who have had inspection reports produced regarding their facilities or activities understand the process to be merely another "token" program of the USDA which gives the appearance of valuable institution but falls far short of achieving the goals of the program. In fact, many licensees have undergone reprehensible treatment which often centers around the use of the inspection reports by the USDA as ways to destroy animal-centered enterprises, especially those which are small businesses.
It is important to understand that there are an abnormally large percentage of federal employees working in APHIS which either have worked for special interest groups with similar agendas or are associated with such opinionated groups, such as the Humane Society of the United States. The problem here is that there isn't enough people employed in the same departments from the opposite end of hte spectrum to balance out the efforts put forth by liberal animal rights staff members in imposing their agendas in the USDA as well as doing so in a way which detrimentally affects the businesses partaking in animal-centered enterrpises and activities.
As a result, the USDA-APHIS is gradually becoming more of a special interest group forcing an agenda, often through unlawful methods which violate the constitutional rights of the licensees and/or worsens conditions of the animals involved in particular cases. Such a phenomenon cannot be any more egregious than what has been recognized in the drafting of inspection reports and how the licensees are treated by their animal care inspectors from APHIS. The following details reveal inconsistencies and abuses associated with the inspection reports of animal-related enterprises and activities.
- Inconsistent citations. For an example, if a licensee uses a certain method in feeding its animals for two years with no complaint from the inspector then one gets cited for the method during an inspection, this is an arbitrary and capricious use of the expectations and standards promulgated by the Department. Another example is citing a licensee for a small enclosure or cage but allowing it for another animal of similar size and living conditions.
- Misrepresentation of alleged violations. It isn't uncommon to have some inspectors literally cite a licensee for actions or conditions which did not happen. An example of this is an inspector citing a person for a dirty enclosure when it is as clean as it can get and even had fresh foundation laid down the night before the inspection. Basically, many of these violations are outright lies. Other times, the citations twist the reality of the situation or the inspector catches the licensee in the middle of cleaning an enclosure when he or she arrives for an inspection and the licensee gets cited for such, which, again, is an example of arbitrary and capricious use of the regulations.
- Verbal Abuse. Federal rules and regulations address how the inspectors are treated by licensees are other people in the field while performing their inspections. However, it does not address the abuse and outright harrassment the licensees experience as a result of the poor and unprofessional behavior of the inspectors. If the licensee then tells the inspector to leave the facility, the licensee actually gets cited for exercising her right to operating her or his business in peace and being treated respectfully by the USDA staff on site. It also isn't uncommon for the inspectors to refuse to leave the premises when told to after behaving aggressively, thereby committing, not only harrassment, but criminal tresspass; both actions are citable. However, a licensee would be lucky if the local police department would cite the inspector for such.
- Including implications and associations between the actions of a licensee or a description of an aspect of the licensee's facility with a negative event occurring with the animals involved. This type of citation is appropriate if it is clear that the actions of the licensee or someone under his or her direction caused a detrimental environment for the animals involved which resulted in injury or illness. However, when the inspector has to use conjecture or speculation in order to link the licensee's actions with the injury of an animal (or person on the premises), it is clear that citing the licensee in such a way is falsifying the report and should be considered an inaccurate assessment of the licensee's facility.
- Licensees being cited for minor mistakes which were unpredictable. Citing a licensee should be an act done by an animal care inspector from the USDA-APHIS when it is clear that there is a willful violation of rules and regulations which directly involve a possibility or actual injury to an animal or person on the premises. It isn't that a mistake the inspector sees in the facility shouldn't be mentioned to the licensee with the expectation that it be fixed as soon as possible by the licensee. It is expecting the licensee to be inhumane in the sense that he or she never should make mistakes. Of course, the severity of the situation should be considered as well. For instance, throwing a prey species in the same enclosure as a predator which leads to death is clearly an abuse of the prey animal while an animal which grabs a hose through the chain link of its enclosure in order to play with it, are really two different situations, especially in intensity. So long as the licensee quickly corrects the hose play time and no harm incurred, there should be some tolerance for mistakes. Otherwise, if the more serious situation of the prey animal being put in to an enclosure with a predator, didn't result in harm, it still should be cited as it shows a willful vioation of the regulations, is intense and egregious in nature and was very likely to result in the injury or death of the prey animal. Thus the two situations in the example should be treated differently by way of whether or not the person should be cited.
- Threats. Threatening licensees is clearly inappropriate and unlawful. However, this does not stop some inspectors of abusing their position and doing so with licensees. More common than not, the threats incorporate revoking the licensee's licensing and/or seizing the animals from the facilty which the licensee privately owns. At this time, the trend is more likely to occur with small businesses than larger ones. In fact, there are facilities with hundreds of animals in which animals have been beaten to death but are still in operation due to the USDA compromising standards of animal cruelty. The theory is the larger facilities are much more difficult to dismantle in terms of placing the hundreds of animals than the smaller facilities. However, this is what must be done in order to enforce the regulations and provisions of the licenses involved in such cases.
- Irrational expectations and standards in animal care. As an example, if a licensee chooses to keep an animal with recurrant bacterial infections in a sizeable cage in a barn instead of keeping the animal outside during the winter season, the reason for such should be considered by the inspector. If the licensee states that he or she has had a member of the same species which was in the same condition as the ones the inspector sees during the visit which incurred the citation, pass alway from hypothermia from the cold weather the year before, this should be a big factor and should not result in a derogatory remark being included in the inspection report. Additionally, if the inspector cannot come up with a better way (given the means and resources of the facility at that time) to treat the animal the way the inspector thinks it should be treated, then that should be a good reason to leave the situation as it is but expect the situation to change if the winter habitats are too small and the animal overcomes it's infections and, due to warmer weather outside, would not be subject to hypothermia.
- Unnecessary Requirements not specified in the "Blue Book". It's arbitrary to require one licensee to follow an artifically heightened requirement (e.g. imposing a requirement for a 8' high perimeter fence when it clearly states in the "Blue Book" that it is a 6' high perimeter which is needed for the species involved in the situation).
- Overreaching. Jurisdictoinal issues are always a problem especially when an inspector sees an animal from a distance which the licensee chooses not to be licensed and the inspector considers that animal under the purview of the inspection at that time. Again, there is a difference in the situations if an unlicensed animal is sharing an enclosure with a regulated animal versus an animal in its own enclosure off in the distance. Furthermore, the inspector should not be expecting to enter the household of the licensee unless the licensee offers and therefore, the family pets should not be in the purview of the inspection and authority of the inspector as well.
- Retaliation. If a licensee shields him or herself from abusive or unethical conduct of the licensee's animal care inspector, the licensee should expect to be experience reprisal. Often times, the reprisal is in terms of actions by the complained-about inspector invested in revoking the person's licensure. This results in the increase in citations on the inspection reports of the licensee, various attempts at destroying the business which the licensee worked so hard to establish and colluding with other licensees in the theft of the licensee's valuable exotic animals which are under private ownership.
- Favoritism is rampant throughout state and federal exotic animal licensing programs. In fact, it is so obvious and common that such programs should cease to exist due to the lack of consistent enforcement thus failing to make captive environmental conditions better as a whole. Favoritism also leads to additional abuses such as the collusion with favorited licensees in breaking the law; especially if it involved retaliating against another much less-liked licensee.
- Aiding & Abetting Unlawful Activity Against Licensee. For an example, offering "advice" to another licensee who intends on fraudently taking another licensee's animals is a tort in the state of New York and probably many other states as well (and federally too). In fact, depending on the circumstances of the case, it may very well be a crime or violation of state and federal law as well, unless the advice is to tell the licensee about to commit fraud to refrain from committing such acts and making the victim aware of the intentions of the licensee about to commit fraud. There is no way of trusting a person charged with enforcing the Animal Welfare Act as well as looking for violations of other federal and state laws (e.g. Lacey Act) in the field when the same inspector is violating other laws and assisting other licensees in doing the same.
- An Animal Care Inspector Allowing Herself to be Manipulated by other authority figures with agendas.
- Having one's own political agenda.
- R
