View Single Post
Old 06-27-2010, 11:45 AM   #118
Nancy1999
I ♥ Joey & Ralphie!
Donating Member
 
Nancy1999's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 25,396
Blog Entries: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by red98vett View Post
Isn't that just sickening that live animals are sold all over the net ? The thing with enforcement of the USDS is they just dont have the manpower and we all know that's a bunch of BS and could easily be changed.

I've read that the number of inspectors vs mills are so far off balance it isn't funny - plus the inspectors let so much slide. I'll never ever understand how someone can see neglect and the massive amounts of miserable dogs sitting in horrible conditions and not try to do something - sure they may write a report - but in reality - the mills are winning.

I really do hope what you said is true and will happen. Baby steps that's for sure but anything is better than nothing
Yes that's true, but thanks to all the attention, the USDA has written in their new report:

Quote:
Executive Summary
In the last 2 years, there has been significant media coverage concerning large-scale dog dealers (i.e., breeders and brokers)1 that failed to provide humane treatment for the animals under their care. The breeders, negatively referred to as “puppy mills,” have stirred the interest of the public, Congress, animal rights groups, and others. Accordingly, we conducted an audit of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) Animal Care (AC) unit, which is responsible for enforcing the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The audit focused on AC’s inspections of problematic dealers. It is the latest in a series of audits related to AWA.2
In our last audit on animals in research facilities,3 we found that the agency was not aggressively pursuing enforcement actions against violators of AWA and that it assessed minimal monetary penalties against them.4 APHIS agreed to take corrective action by incorporating more specific guidance in its operating manual to address deficiencies in enforcement actions. It also agreed to revise its penalty worksheet to generate higher and more appropriate penalties.In this audit, one objective was to review AC’s enforcement process against dealers that violated AWA. Accordingly, we focused on dealers with a history of violations in the past 3 years.5 Another objective was to review the impact of recent changes the agency made to the penalty assessment process. We identified the following major deficiencies with APHIS’ administration of AWA:

AC’s Enforcement Process Was Ineffective Against Problematic Dealers. AC’s enforcement process was ineffective in achieving dealer compliance with AWA and regulations, which are intended to ensure the humane care and treatment of animals. The agency believed that compliance achieved through education6 and cooperation would result in long-term dealer compliance and, accordingly, it chose to take little or no enforcement action against most violators.
However, the agency’s education efforts have not always been successful in deterring problematic dealers from violating AWA. During FYs 2006-2008, at the re-inspection of 4,250 violators, inspectors found that 2,416 repeatedly violated AWA, including some that ignored minimum care standards. Therefore, relying heavily on education for serious or repeat violators—without an appropriate level of enforcement—weakened the agency’s ability to protect the animals.

AC Inspectors Did Not Cite or Document Violations Properly To Support Enforcement Actions. Many inspectors were highly committed, conducting timely and thorough inspections and making significant efforts to improve the humane treatment of covered animals. However, we noted that 6 of 19 inspectors7 did not correctly report all repeat or direct violations (those that are generally more serious and affect the animals’ health). Consequently, some problematic dealers were inspected less frequently.
In addition, some inspectors did not always adequately describe violations in their inspection reports or support violations with photos. Between 2000 and 2009, this lack of documentary evidence weakened AC’s case in 7 of the 16 administrative hearings involving dealers.8 In discussing these problems with regional management, they explained that some inspectors appeared to need additional training in identifying violations and collecting evidence.


http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-4-SF.pdf
__________________
Nancy1999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Welcome Guest!
Not Registered?

Join today and remove this ad!