In May 2010 the Office of the Inspector General released a damning report confirming what animal welfare advocates have been saying for years: the USDA has NOT been doing its job of enforcing the bare minimum standards of care as outlined in the Animal Welfare Act which is a requirement for USDA licensed commercial breeders (aka puppy mills) and dealers.
The report is long (69 pages) and includes some graphic, disturbing pictures from the investigation. If you think that being USDA licensed is a magic stamp of approval that all is well, then this report should be a real eye opener.
As part of the investigation, auditors visited 81 "facilities" and reviewed records documenting 28,443 violations over a two-year period.
The report concludes that despite regular inspections, breeders were allowed to continue operating facilities where dogs lived in inhumane conditions — cages overflowing with pools of urine and feces, food laden with dead cockroaches, and dogs infested with ticks and unattended injuries including a mutilated leg and other atrocities — all without penalty.
MANY articles were written about this report, but this one from the Examiner.com does a good job Problems With USDA Inspections in Iowa
USDA-licensed commercial breeders are to be inspected by USDA APHIS officials. The concept sounds good enough, but based on the results of analysis of 1,354 pages of reports of Iowa inspections for the timeframe January 2007 through August 2009, USDA inspections just do not work.
The table below summarizes data found in the inspection reports:
Click on the chart (below) to enlarge, click on it again to shrink.
What does this information mean? Some unsettling facts come to light that support that the problems identified in the USDA investigation are indeed happening in Iowa.
- Inspector A cites violations far less frequently than the other inspectors. This should raise questions about this inspectors effectiveness.
- Note also the number of repeat inspections by this inspector are much higher than the other inspectors. This contradicts the USDA Risk-Assessment model which says low-risk kennels should only require inspection "every 2 or 3 years".
(For more information and details on USDA inspection models and rules, see the USDA Animal Care Annual Report of Activities for Fiscal Year 2007).
- Note also the number of repeat inspections by this inspector are much higher than the other inspectors. This contradicts the USDA Risk-Assessment model which says low-risk kennels should only require inspection "every 2 or 3 years".
- Averaging all kennels, excluding Inspector A data as an outlier, 59% of kennels were cited for violations to the Animal Welfare Act.
Featured Pictures from USDA Report
Dog with excessive ticks. The inspector required the breeder to take only eight of the numerous infested dogs to a veterinarian. However, since the inspector did not indentify the dogs in the inspection report, it is uncertain if this dog was treated.
Excessive accumulation of Feces and Urine. The inspector cited the breeder for failure to clean and sanitize the kennel, although this area was not included in the citation. Because the breeder was not cited for any direct violations, the inspector will not return for a re-inspection for a year.
Dog Covered with Feeding Ticks. The inspector required the breeder to take only eight of the infested dogs to a veterinarian. However, she did not identify the dogs in the inspection report or require documentation of the treatment. Therefore, we were not able to determine what happened to this dog.
Cockroach-infested Food. The inspector required the broker to correct the contaminated food within 5 days. However, by not designating this as a direct violation, the inspector will not know if the correction occurred since she will not return for a re-inspection for a year.