|
Please CLICK HERE to see the inspection report for the USDA visit in 2007. The USDA only visited ONCE in 2007, but the inspector found 25 violations - including these:
3.81 (c) ENVIRONMENT ENHANCEMENT TO PROMOTE PSYCHOLOGICAL WELL-BEING
1. Primate Reserve Exhibit, indoor holding enclosure PR/HE2-HE3: One mongoose lemur was separated from its social group/individually housed in the room due to aggressive behavior/incompatibility issues. The individually housed animal was unable to see and hear other nonhuman primates but was not provided special attention for environmental enhancement.
2. Primate Reserve Exhibt, indoor holding enclosure PR/HA7: One golden lion tamarin was separated from its social group/individually housed in the room due to aggressive behavior/incompatibility issues. The individually housed animal was unable to see and hear other nonhuman primates but was not provided special attention for environmental enhancement.
Please click here to see inspection reports for the Philadelphia Zoo received in 2005.
From the reports: December 5, 2003 USDA INSPECTION REPORT of the PHILADELPHIA ZOO (obtained under the Freedom of Information Act)
During its 2003 annual inspection by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ("APHIS"), the Philadelphia Zoo was written up for non-compliance of ten different standards of the Animal Welfare Act ("AWA"). Even though the Zoo was not in compliance with the MINIMAL standards required by the AWA, it was allowed up to a month to "correct" the violation. It is the disturbing practice of the USDA to allow a facility in violation of the AWA standards a period of time to "correct" the violation, which allows the facility to proclaim it has never been cited for violations of the AWA, even though it was non-compliant at the time of inspection.
|
 |
 |
| About the Animal Welfare Act
Standards have been written specifying the minimum requirements for handling, care, housing, treatment, transportation, feeding, watering, sanitation, ventilation, lighting, shelter, veterinary care, and separation by species. In most cases though, the act does not clearly define "minimum requirements." For example, under "space requirements," it states: "sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement." It is often the case that the "minimum" required becomes the maximum provided.
The Animal Welfare Act has the potential to improve the living conditions for animals held captive in laboratories, exploited in exhibits, and warehoused in breeding facilities. The responsibility for enforcing the act lies with a division of the USDA known as APHIS, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. There are five APHIS sector offices with approximately 85 veterinary inspectors who are supposed to inspect, unannounced, the various types of facilities covered by the act.
However, budgetary constraints and strong opposition from animal breeders, pharmaceutical companies, exhibitors, and experimenters themselves, as well as an inadequate number of inspectors, have resulted in poor enforcement of the act. There are nearly 1,500 research facilities in the U.S., as well as more than 1,800 exhibitors and 4,400 dealers who are supposed to be inspected each year. This means that 85 inspectors have to cover nearly 8,000 facilities nationwide. In a March 1992 audit by the USDA's own Office of the Inspector General, it was determined that "APHIS cannot ensure the humane care and treatment of animals at all dealer facilities as required by the act. APHIS did not inspect facilities with reliable frequency, and it did not enforce timely corrections of violations found during inspections." Out of 284 facilities examined in the audit, 46 had received no annual inspection, and out of 156 that were in violation of the law, 126 of these had had no follow-up inspections.
(All quotations taken from the Animal Welfare Act as published by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.)
References
- Labaton, Stephanie, "Animal Advocates Win Court Ruling," New York Times, Feb. 26, 1993.
- "Washington Update," Chronicle of Higher Education, Dec. 8, 1993.
|
|
|
