I’m Pete Paxton, director of investigations for the nonprofit SEED (Strategies for Ethical and Environmental Development) and lead investigator for the nonprofit CAPS (Companion Animal Protection Society). I would like to propose specific changes to the Animal Welfare Act and methodology of USDA inspectors. Please allow me to explain the experiences from which I have drawn my conclusions.
Since 2001, I have done undercover investigations of commercial animal operations, with a focus on USDA-licensed facilities. I have worked as a confidential informant for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the request of ex-Special Agent Ed Newcomer and been given a Coin of Excellence by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of Arkansas. I have worked undercover for weeks or months at a time at USDA-licensed facilities, including Martin Creek Kennel in Williford, AR, The Hunte Corporation in Goodman, MO (formerly 43-B-0123), Pick of the Litter Kennels in New York Mills, MN (formerly 41-B-0159, Kathy Bauck), and Bushway Veal Packing in Grand Isle, VT. I’ve witnessed USDA inspectors giving advance notice of inspections to their licensees, allowing them to clean up violations beforehand. I have also seen licensees hide violations during inspections. A USDA inspector even instructed me not to inform him about violations at a facility so that he wouldn’t have to cite them.
In addition, I have spoken to numerous USDA-licensed dog breeders who have revealed their friendly relationships with their inspectors. Many of these inspectors often overlook violations they see at breeding facilities. Moreover, I have documented hundreds of USDA-licensed dog and cat breeders. But recently I also went undercover to bird-breeding facilities in Texas and Oklahoma.
I propose the following:
- Demanding that inspectors properly cite violations and requiring them to document violations with video and photographs.
- Ensuring that breeding dogs have access to outdoor play areas, except in times of inclement weather, and mandating that inspectors cite violators who do not have exercise areas as required under section 3.8.
- Requiring more space for animals’ primary enclosures at breeding and brokering facilities and implementing the use of toys.
- Mandating that inspectors go immediately to law enforcement if violations appear to violate state neglect and cruelty laws.
- Revoking the licenses of facilities with direct violations that result in death or maiming of animals.
- Updating section 2.40 to prohibit surgeries by licensees and requiring that only a licensed veterinarian euthanize animals.
- Doing re-inspections within a few days of correct-by dates.
- Compelling licensees to use their physical addresses on licenses and inspection reports.
Demanding that inspectors properly cite violations and requiring them to document violations with video and photographs
Dozens of dog breeders have told me that their inspectors are not worried about indirect violations, and that they are often given a chance to correct violations without being cited. A parrot breeder (Fancy Parrots, 74-A-1593, under Michael Powell) said that her USDA inspector told her she was required to have enrichment, such as toys for her 3,000 breeding parrots. She just laughed about it and of course had no enrichment for the birds’ barren cages as she showed me the facility.
This kind of problem is exacerbated by the fact that many breeders, including Fancy Parrots, sell to pet shops. Pet shops like to brag about buying puppies from USDA-licensed breeders that have no violations. Thus, if a breeder whose business relies on selling to pet shops is cited, the store will no longer buy from them, and they will lose their means of income. This, of course, creates pressure on USDA inspectors to not hinder the sales of family-run breeding facilities. But the animals are the ones who lose out. Over the many years I have been investigating USDA-licensed facilities, I’ve seen this be the case time and again.
I’ve documented conditions at USDA-licensed facilities, such as dogs with open wounds and pen floorings covered in manure. I’ve even documented dead and dying dogs. To have such serious violations occurring, it’s clear that the breeders are either aware of when inspections will happen or inspectors are not citing licensees for violations. If, however, inspectors were required to photograph and videotape all violations, it would be harder for them to ignore their duties. Instead of just telling a breeder to clean up better for their next inspection, inspectors would have the extra step of carrying out photographic and video documentation. This would also hold inspectors accountable to the public, who can FOIA records and see the kinds of violations breeders have had.
Ensuring that breeding dogs have access to outdoor play areas, except in times of inclement weather, and mandating that inspectors cite violators who do not have exercise areas as required under section 3.8
I routinely see USDA-licensed dog breeding facilities that have no exercise areas for dogs kept in cages, or that have little more than the bare minimum of space required for the dogs’ primary enclosures. These facilities often have no play areas of any kind, not even fenced-in yards that could conceivably allow dogs to play and exercise in them. A good example is AJ’s Angels (Angie McDuffee, 41-A-0484). The facility has many hundreds of dogs living in raised indoor/outdoor wire cages. McDuffee has had as many as 1300 plus dogs and puppies in recent years. Another example is Kathy Slobe’s facility (43-A-3549), which consists of buildings with indoor/outdoor cages stacked over each other, and clearly no exercise yards.
In addition, I’ve seen dogs let into play yards while USDA inspections are taking place or a dog rescue nonprofit is visiting, but I virtually never see dogs in play yards when I’m doing surveillance of USDA-licensed facilities. Often, I see that the play yards have lush, green grass, indicating they are rarely used, whereas if they were frequently used, they would have worn ground.
The USDA must require breeders to provide proper exercise and enrichment for dogs’ mental and physical well-being.
Requiring more space for animals’ primary enclosures at breeding and brokering facilities and implementing the use of toys
The minimum space for primary enclosures should be at least three times what is currently required. Quite often, inclement weather means that dogs cannot go to the outdoor portions of their enclosures for days at a time or longer. Given that it’s extraordinarily rare that I see dogs in outdoor play areas when I surveil licensees, if such play areas even exist, dogs spend much of their time in their primary enclosures. The psychological stress of this is not seen during inspections of dog facilities but rather once dogs are rescued from mills. Dogs bred for five to six years in USDA-licensed facilities have extreme separation anxiety and trauma. As I’ve personally seen, the dogs will either cling to a person and cannot stand to be away from them for a second or go stiff in the presence of a person and won’t respond even when picked up, petted, or when someone attempts to play with them. For breeding birds, the stress can be seen in the form of feather plucking.
Also, the reason inspectors often see chewed and worn surfaces in enclosures is because dogs and birds are bored, stressed, and anxious. They need enrichment, such as toys to chew on. Breeders refuse to provide toys because they don’t want to have to clean them, but the psychological well-being of animals should be more important than the convenience of those profiting off of them.
Mandating that inspectors go immediately to law enforcement if violations appear to violate state neglect and cruelty laws
When I go to law enforcement to explain that a USDA-licensed facility has violated the state cruelty code, the most common response from officers is that the USDA has jurisdiction over the matter. This is false, of course. The USDA does not have jurisdiction over state cruelty codes, and someone having a USDA license does not exempt them from the cruelty code. To compel law enforcement to enforce the law, the USDA should be required to report suspected violations of animal neglect and cruelty statutes. This should be the case either when an inspector sees such a violation personally or when such evidence is presented to the USDA by a third party.
Revoking the licenses of facilities with direct violations that result in death or maiming of animals
I recently documented a bird mill in Oklahoma owned by Ervin Plett (73-A-2875), in which I saw, amongst other violations, dead parakeets in a trash can. Platt explained that when birds pick at each other, due to their lack of enrichment and the tight quarters (the minimum required under the Animal Welfare Act) in which they live, he can’t sell them. So, he kills them by putting them in a bag and placing it “on a manifold.” The evidence was presented to the USDA, and I later learned an inspector questioned Platt about it. Platt admitted to the inspector that he uses carbon monoxide to kill his birds ,and that his vet had not approved this as a means of euthanasia. The inspector cited for Platt for a 2.40 Vet Care violation. The fact that an inspector followed up on evidence provided by a third party to the USDA surprised me. I highly commend this inspector.
However, the USDA still allows Ervin Plett to have a USDA license. The USDA allowed Kathy Bauck of Pick of the Litter Kennels to keep her license after she was convicted of doing surgeries, including C-sections without anesthesia, on her breeding dogs. She was also spaying and neutering dogs belonging to residents; some of these surgeries were not successful and animals became pregnant, or Bauck injured the animals or caused infections. Bauck ultimat6ely lost her USDA license because she was convicted of animal cruelty based on the evidence from my undercover employment investigation.
Violations like those committed by Platt and Bauck are acts of animal cruelty and are so egregious that they reveal the character of the licensees, who have no concern for animal welfare. This speaks to the USDA view of animals, including parakeets and dogs, as nothing more than resources to be utilized by people, even if those people are sadistic. While I do not expect a philosophical reckoning from the USDA, I expect that sadistic and callous abuse from licensees that result in the deaths of animals should prohibit them from having licenses.
Updating section 2.40 to prohibit surgeries by licensees and requiring that only a licensed veterinarian euthanize animals
In addition, 2.40 should clearly spell out that licensees are not allowed to do surgeries of any kind, including ear cropping and tail docking. It should also prohibit the use of gunshot as a form of euthanasia and mandate that only a licensed veterinarian be allowed to euthanize animals. On 11/1/23, Wiliam Janecke, VMO, cited Ed Van Doorn (42-B-0090; cancelled 2/16/24) for neutering puppies prior to shipping them to online customers, yet Dr. Janecke did not cite this as a critical violation. Dr. Janecke also cited Van Doorn for using xylazine and torbugesic when doing neuters, hernia repairs, and dentals at his facility but not having records of their use. This should have been a critical violation. Torbugesic is a Class IV controlled substance. Moreover, he failed to cite Van Door for doing hernia and dental surgeries.
When a CAPS investigator initially investigated Van Doorn in 1999, all of his dogs were debarked. With the knowledge we have now of his unauthorized surgeries, we suspect he was doing the debarking surgeries himself. I investigated Van Doorn in 2006 and documented myriad violations. The USDA should have revoked Van Doorn’s license years ago.
Doing re-inspections within a few days of the correct-by dates
On the rare instances when inspectors cite violations, they will note a correct-by date. However, it is very rare that the inspectors return by those dates to verify that licensees have remedied the non-compliances. Dr. Janecke gave Ed Van Doorn five days to correct his three very serious violations, although only his fraudulent use of CVIs was noted as critical. Surgical activities, such as neutering, should be corrected immediately, not in five days. In addition, Dr. Janecke didn’t return for an inspection for another 11 weeks and cited a violation for unsealed enclosure walls but did not note if the previous violations had been corrected.
Dennis and Donna Van Wyk (42-A-0331) have a long history of USDA violations, especially for housing, sanitation, and veterinary care, yet they still have a license. The same CAPS investigator who went to Van Doorn’s kennel in 1999 also went to the Van Wyk facility, where she uncovered many AWA violations. I investigated the Van Wyk kennel in 2006, 2007, and 2015. USDA inspection reports show that little has improved since CAPS first started investigating the Van Wyks. A 1/12/23 inspection by Kelly Maxwell, ACI, noted six violations, with correct-by dates ranging from immediate to 1/19/23, yet Ms. Maxwell did not return until 4/25/24, where she found no violations and did not note if the Van Wyks had corrected the previously cited non-compliant items.
Compelling licensees to use their physical addresses on licenses and inspection reports
While researching USDA inspection reports, CAPS has uncovered licensees who use PO boxes rather than a physical address on their license and inspection reports. Some of these PO boxes are at UPS stores, not a post office box in town, because of a rural physical location. For example, Four Corner Puppies (Malinda and James Hilty, 32-B-0257) was using a UPS store in Indianapolis on inspection reports from 2018 to 2022. This location was 121 miles from their actual facility in Ft. Wayne, IN. The Hiltys started using their physical address for Four Corners once they switched to an A license in 2022.
CAPS recently found out about Cae Cobb (Legacy & Liberty, 58-A-0331), a breeder in Paris, TX, who has been using the address of Corporate Creations at 801 US Hwy. 1, N. Palm Beach, FL, since 2022. Between 2015 and 2022, she was using the address of 11380 Prosperity Farms Rd, Suite 221, Palm Beach Gardens, FL, which is now a medical office. John Lies and Donavan Fox, longtime inspectors, have signed off on these reports even though Cobb’s facility, which has held as many as 463 dogs and puppies, is clearly not in Florida at a registered agent’s office. Her prior USDA license, 74-A-1441, was under the name of Cae McDowra and had her physical location in Paris, TX.
A search of the Florida Secretary of State site does not bring up Legacy & Liberty, even under a search of clients represented by Corporate Creations. Ms. Cobb has also operated under the name Partners in Providence, which also does not show up. While she may be registered under either of these names in Texas, she would still have to be registered as a foreign corporation in Florida. It appears that Ms. Cobb is engaging in misleading behavior, possibly to avoid having her facility checked out by investigators like me. The USDA is a party to this deception.
The USDA must require a licensee to use the physical address of their facility as the one listed on their license and inspection reports.
