All of the examples below involve dealers that had a history of violations over at least three inspections before our visit. However, the agency took little or no enforcement actions against them. During our visit, we found 12 dealers (18 percent) with violations that had escalated to the serious or grave levels, which directly affected the animals’ health. If AC had taken action earlier, it may have prevented the situation from worsening.

• Exmple 1: At a facility in Oklahoma with 83 adult dogs, AC cited the breeder for a total of 20 violations (including 1 repeat and 1 direct) during 5 inspections from April 2006 to December 2007. The direct violation concerned the lack of adequate veterinary care for three dogs, one of which involved a dog that had been bitten by another dog.
  
  The dog’s leg wound was left untreated for at least 7 days, which resulted in the flesh around the wound rotting away to the bone (ed note: see photo on p. 11 of the report / p. 15 in acrobat reader).
  
  Animal Care did not notify any Oklahoma officials (which has first-offense felony laws for animal cruelty) of the inhumane treatment the dog received (ed note: Take a look at the photo evidence and you will have a better appreciation of just how incomprehensible this is).
  
  
• Example 2: At another facility in Oklahoma with 96 adult dogs, Animal Care cited the breeder for 23 violations (including 12 repeats) during 4 inspections from August 2005 to September 2007. Although national office instructions state, “if compliance [is] not attained quickly, proceed to other enforcement steps,” Animal Care could not explain why it took no enforcement action.
  
  During our visit to the facility in July 2008, AC cited the breeder for another 11 violations (including 1 repeat). We found numerous dogs infested with ticks.
  
  In one case, the ticks completely covered the dog’s body yet the inspector cited the ticks as an indirect violation (i.e., not affecting the animal’s health). As of early June 2009—11 months after our visit—the case was still under investigation (ed note: see the photo in the report to fully appreciate what this dog was subjected to for over 11 months - p. 11 of report / p. 16 in acrobat reader).
  
  
  
  
• Example 3: At a breeder facility in Arkansas with about 100 adult dogs, we observed an excessive accumulation of fecal or other waste material in the drainage between two animal enclosures with overpowering odor. The inspector did not cite this as a violation—either direct or indirect. Because the breeder was not cited for any direct violations, the inspector will not return for a re-inspection for a year.
  
  
• Example 4: At a facility in Oklahoma with 219 adult 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 five 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.
  
  “We asked why the dogs were not confiscated when the inspector first found the dead and starving dogs. AC responded that its regulations require that the violator be given an opportunity to correct the condition before any confiscation can occur.”
  
  
• Example 5: One licensed breeder in Ohio, with no veterinary qualifications, operated on a pregnant dog without anesthesia; the breeder delayed calling a veterinarian and the dog bled to death. The inspector also found that 40 percent of the dogs in the kennel were blind due to an outbreak of Leptospirosis. The inspector determined that the facility’s water was contaminated and had caused the outbreak.
  
  Not only did this person retain their license, they were given a 25-percent good faith penalty reduction.
  

I hope you are so outraged by this information that you will forward the OIG report to your representative in Congress and demand change. There must be a complete overhaul of the current system that allows breeders and dealers to operate without oversight or repercussions for inhumane treatment of animals. Putting more band-aids on APHIS is not sufficient.

The full report is available here: http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-4-SF.pdf
Title: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service: Animal Care Program Inspections of Problematic Dealers