Effective enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) is critical to the health and welfare of animals used in research and exhibition, transported in commerce, and sold as pets at the wholesale level. APHIS takes its responsibility to uphold and enforce this law very seriously.
Over the past 3 years, APHIS has used a new and innovative strategy to improve enforcement of the AWA. This strategy has not only improved conditions for animals protected under the law. It has also resulted in a reduction in the time it takes to bring cases to resolution and extensive savings for U.S. taxpayers by avoiding excessive litigation. This report details the new strategy and its successes.
To: Introduction | APHIS’ New Enforcement Strategy: Innovative Settlements and Stringent Sanctions | Innovative Penalty Highlights | Stringent Sanction Highlights | Ensuring Collection of Penalties | The Bottom Line: The Numbers on APHIS’ AWA Enforcement Efforts | The Bottom Line 2: Reduction in the Time It Takes To Resolve Cases | The Bottom Line 3: Savings for U.S. Taxpayers | Conclusion
The philosophy behind APHIS’ new enforcement strategy is simple: Work with those individuals who show an interest in improving the conditions for their animals and get tough on those (a.k.a. “the bad actors”) that continue to show disregard for the law and the well-being of their animals.
For the former, APHIS’ Animal Care (AC) and Investigative and Enforcement Services (IES) staffs and USDA’s Office of the General Counsel (OGC) actively pursue innovative penalties that allow the individuals to invest part or all of their fines in facility improvements, employee training, and other initiatives aimed at improving the conditions for animals. In doing so, USDA enables the individuals to immediately provide better care for their animals while sending a clear message that future violations will not be tolerated. In the past, most such fines were either suspended or paid directly to the U.S. Treasury, but neither of those results directly improved the plight of the violators’ animals.
On the other hand, for licensees and registrants who do not improve the conditions for their animals or whose animals suffer or die due to neglect, AC, IES, and OGC move swiftly and pursue stringent enforcement action. Such action typically includes significant monetary penalties and/or license suspensions or revocations. It may also include confiscation of their animals and relocation to another facility if the animals are found to be suffering.
APHIS’ strategy focuses on making the welfare of the animals the top priority in all enforcement actions. The examples below highlight cases that illustrate both components of APHIS’ new enforcement strategy.
To: Introduction | APHIS’ New Enforcement Strategy: Innovative Settlements and Stringent Sanctions | Innovative Penalty Highlights | Stringent Sanction Highlights | Ensuring Collection of Penalties | The Bottom Line: The Numbers on APHIS’ AWA Enforcement Efforts | The Bottom Line 2: Reduction in the Time It Takes To Resolve Cases | The Bottom Line 3: Savings for U.S. Taxpayers | Conclusion
In February 1997, APHIS settled a case with a large research facility for $30,000. Of this, $20,000 was required to be used for facility improvements and employee training. AC had cited these areas as being in need of improvement to achieve AWA compliance.
In March 1998, APHIS settled a case with a licensee whose circus elephants contracted tuberculosis for a $60,000 settlement and a 45-day license suspension. Of the $60,000, $30,000 went towards testing and treating the infected elephants, and $30,000 was donated to a foundation to conduct research in the diagnosis and treatment of elephant tuberculosis.
In April 1998, APHIS settled a case against a research facility charged with violations pertaining to the handling of animals and protocol review procedures for $50,000. Of that amount, $20,000 must be donated to an APHIS-approved nonprofit organization that promotes or develops alternatives to animal testing, $20,000 must be spent on improving housing facilities, and $10,000 is payable to the Treasurer of the United States. The lab must also contract with an outside consultant to review its animal care program.
In April and September 1998, two airlines settled charges involving several cases of animal death and illness aboard flights around the country. In both settlements, each airline agreed to donate $25,000 to an APHIS-approved organization to study methods to promote the safe and humane handling of animals during transportation. The results of this research will be disseminated to all carriers registered under the AWA.
In July 1998, AC settled a case against a circus pertaining to the death of a baby elephant. Under the settlement, the circus agreed to donate $10,000 to a nonprofit elephant sanctuary and $10,000 to an outside organization for research relating to gastrointestinal or infectious diseases of elephants. Both the sanctuary and the research organization must be approved by APHIS. The circus also agreed to enhance its training programs for animal handlers.
In November 1998, AC settled a case with a zoo involving several charges related to the care and handling of its animals. Under the settlement, the zoo agreed to hire one or more APHIS-approved consultants with recognized expertise in zoo management. These consultants, working with APHIS and zoo officials, will develop and implement a quality and compliance assurance program to ensure the safety and well-being of the zoo’s animals. Under the agreement, the zoo must spend at least $25,000 on development of this program.
To: Introduction | APHIS’ New Enforcement Strategy: Innovative Settlements and Stringent Sanctions | Innovative Penalty Highlights | Stringent Sanction Highlights | Ensuring Collection of Penalties | The Bottom Line: The Numbers on APHIS’ AWA Enforcement Efforts | The Bottom Line 2: Reduction in the Time It Takes To Resolve Cases | The Bottom Line 3: Savings for U.S. Taxpayers | Conclusion
In September 1997, APHIS’ case against a class B animal dealer for more than 1,500 AWA recordkeeping violations came to an end with a permanent revocation of the dealer’s license and a $175,000 fine to be paid in full. The dealer had been charged with, among other things, selling dogs and cats to research facilities under falsified documents and maintaining false acquisition records for dogs.
In a case still pending, APHIS has obtained a permanent revocation of an exhibitor’s license and a $200,000 civil penalty for alleged AWA violations pertaining to the movement of elephants and llamas across the southwestern United States in the summer of 1997. The movement of the animals resulted in several animals suffering and the death of one of the elephants.
The case is significant not only in terms of penalties sought but also in the manner in which it was handled. By making this case a top priority, APHIS was able to complete its investigation and file formal charges within 3 weeks, whereas this process typically takes several months. APHIS was also able to obtain an administrative hearing within 2 months, a process that normally takes more than a year. At this time, the case is under appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals. However, the circus, in effect, closed down following the decision against it in October 1997.
To: Introduction | APHIS’ New Enforcement Strategy: Innovative Settlements and Stringent Sanctions | Innovative Penalty Highlights | Stringent Sanction Highlights | Ensuring Collection of Penalties | The Bottom Line: The Numbers on APHIS’ AWA Enforcement Efforts | The Bottom Line 2: Reduction in the Time It Takes To Resolve Cases | The Bottom Line 3: Savings for U.S. Taxpayers | Conclusion
Regardless of whether innovative settlements or stringent sanctions are pursued, APHIS has committed itself to improving its system for collecting civil penalties. Toward this end, APHIS has used programs in other federal departments and worked with the Internal Revenue Service to collect fines from individuals who refuse to pay. APHIS’ specific collection measures include using private collection agencies, offsets of tax returns through the IRS, civil suits through the Department of Justice, and specific collection programs through the Department of Treasury.
The examples below highlight APHIS’ efforts to ensure payment of civil penalties.
For several cases that required civil penalties of $5,000 to $10,000, APHIS referred the unpaid debt to the IRS for collection. In 1997, the IRS withheld up to 100 percent of the 1997 tax return for those individuals. APHIS also requested that two of the individuals who were retired military personnel have their retirement pension offset to cover the debt. In turn, these individuals’ pensions were offset by the amount of the debt.
APHIS referred several cases to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to collect debts. One notable case concerned one of the worst violators in the history of the AWA whose case was sent to DOJ in 1996 after the individual’s debt of $26,500 went unpaid for 4 years. In turn, DOJ issued a complaint. When the man refused to answer, he was arrested for failing to appear at his hearing and was assessed the entire amount as a lien against his property, with USDA as a secured creditor. Justice is following up with another hearing to examine his financial status (a debtor examination).
To: Introduction | APHIS’ New Enforcement Strategy: Innovative Settlements and Stringent Sanctions | Innovative Penalty Highlights | Stringent Sanction Highlights | Ensuring Collection of Penalties | The Bottom Line: The Numbers on APHIS’ AWA Enforcement Efforts | The Bottom Line 2: Reduction in the Time It Takes To Resolve Cases | The Bottom Line 3: Savings for U.S. Taxpayers | Conclusion
From 1995 to the present, APHIS has assessed almost $2.3 million in AWA sanctions. [Ed. Note: Due to its size, detailed data on APHIS’ innovative enforcement efforts over the past 3 years, while available, is not included with this report. AC will mail you a copy on request. Requests can be placed via e-mail () or telephone (301-734-7833).] These penalties have been assessed as direct cash payments to the U.S. Treasury, renovations to facilities and improvements in conditions for animals, mandatory training for employees who handle animals, funding for sanctuaries and research to improve animal health and welfare, and suspended fines to prevent future violations of the AWA. In specific, the following amounts have been imposed:
APHIS’ has also focused on closing facilities that neglect the condition of their animals. As part of this effort, APHIS has adopted a policy that allows individuals to voluntarily give up their licenses in lieu of paying the entire amount of an assessed fine. This enforcement tool has eliminated many facilities with substandard conditions and/or those who are reluctant to comply with the regulations. In specific, APHIS has taken the following enforcement actions over the past 3 years:
As noted, APHIS has progressively sought over the past 3 years to allow monetary penalties to be used for innovative purposes, with increased emphasis placed on such penalties in fiscal year 1998. These purposes include facility improvements, employee training, and research that promotes better overall animal health and welfare. As part of APHIS’ overall enforcement efforts, the agency pursued innovative penalties as follows:
To: Introduction | APHIS’ New Enforcement Strategy: Innovative Settlements and Stringent Sanctions | Innovative Penalty Highlights | Stringent Sanction Highlights | Ensuring Collection of Penalties | The Bottom Line: The Numbers on APHIS’ AWA Enforcement Efforts | The Bottom Line 2: Reduction in the Time It Takes To Resolve Cases | The Bottom Line 3: Savings for U.S. Taxpayers | Conclusion
A key component in ensuring adequate protection for animals covered under the AWA is bringing cases to resolution in a timely manner. Swift resolution ensures that either the conditions are improved for the animals or the violators are duly punished for not providing proper care. In either case, the welfare of the animals is addressed through timely enforcement action.
The figures below show that, during the past 3 years, APHIS has significantly reduced the time it takes to complete various parts of the enforcement process, particularly the time it takes to bring cases to resolution. (In 1996, the times increased because of a backlog of cases that had amassed prior to 1995. Once these cases were resolved, the numbers dropped significantly in 1997 and 1998.)
| Number of days from request for formal prosecution to issuing complaint | Number of days from issuing complaint to final action | Number of days from formal prosecution to taking final action (resolving cases) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1995 | 502 | 1995 | 118 | 1995 | 620 |
| 1996 | 337 | 1996 | 318 | 1996 | 655 |
| 1997 | 220 | 1997 | 247 | 1997 | 467 |
| 1998 | 175 | 1998 | 107 | 1998 | 282 |
To: Introduction | APHIS’ New Enforcement Strategy: Innovative Settlements and Stringent Sanctions | Innovative Penalty Highlights | Stringent Sanction Highlights | Ensuring Collection of Penalties | The Bottom Line: The Numbers on APHIS’ AWA Enforcement Efforts | The Bottom Line 2: Reduction in the Time It Takes To Resolve Cases | The Bottom Line 3: Savings for U.S. Taxpayers | Conclusion
An important benefit to APHIS’ new AWA enforcement strategy has been increased savings for U.S. taxpayers. In line with the Reinventing Government mantra of doing more with less and focusing on results, APHIS’ strategy has significantly improved the plight of animals protected under the law while reducing the costs of enforcement. This was accomplished through settling certain cases (those where individuals expressed an interest in improving the health and welfare of their animals) prior to a formal hearing before an administrative law judge.
The figures on the next page estimate these cost savings. It is worth noting that the figures are actually very conservative. They assume that all of the settled cases would have been resolved at the hearing before the administrative law judge when, in fact, many law judge decisions are appealed. If the litigation costs associated with appeals were included, the estimates would increase significantly.
To: Introduction | APHIS’ New Enforcement Strategy: Innovative Settlements and Stringent Sanctions | Innovative Penalty Highlights | Stringent Sanction Highlights | Ensuring Collection of Penalties | The Bottom Line: The Numbers on APHIS’ AWA Enforcement Efforts | The Bottom Line 2: Reduction in the Time It Takes To Resolve Cases | The Bottom Line 3: Savings for U.S. Taxpayers | Conclusion
Effective enforcement of the AWA is critical to the health and welfare of animals used in research and exhibition, transported in commerce, and sold as pets at the wholesale level. APHIS takes its responsibility to uphold and enforce this law very seriously. Over the past three years, APHIS has been committed to a new enforcement strategy that has improved the welfare for animals covered under the law while saving money for U.S. taxpayers.
To: Introduction | APHIS’ New Enforcement Strategy: Innovative Settlements and Stringent Sanctions | Innovative Penalty Highlights | Stringent Sanction Highlights | Ensuring Collection of Penalties | The Bottom Line: The Numbers on APHIS’ AWA Enforcement Efforts | The Bottom Line 2: Reduction in the Time It Takes To Resolve Cases | The Bottom Line 3: Savings for U.S. Taxpayers | Conclusion
Go to:
Contents, Animal Welfare Information Center Bulletin
Top of Document
The Animal Welfare Information Center
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Agricultural Research Service
National Agricultural Library
10301 Baltimore Ave.
Beltsville, MD 20705-2351
Phone: (301) 504-6212
FAX: (301) 504-7125
Contact us: http://www.nal.usda.gov/awic/contact.php
