Dog breeding inspections have increased in Iowa, US

Federal inspectors say they have increased their dog breeding facility inspections after a scathing 2010 review that said the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service was not doing enough.

But the inspection service, known best by its initials APHIS, had only 120 inspectors to check some 7,300 licensed and registered animal breeding facilities, including 1,764 dog breeding facilities, in the United States as 2014 came to a close, an agricultural department official said. They inspect facilities once a year, on average, although more often at facilities cited for being out of compliance with the Animal Welfare Act, said Tanya Espinosa, an APHIS public affairs specialist.

They inspect facilities once a year, on average, although more often at facilities cited for being out of compliance with the Animal Welfare Act, said Tanya Espinosa, an APHIS public affairs specialist.

Espinosa declined to say whether APHIS has enough inspectors, leaving that judgment to those who set policy, or — as happens with matters blending emotional issues, animal welfare and government resources — those who have an opinion in general.

'We use what we have available, and that's what we have available to do our jobs and inspect our facilities,' she said. 'I think that, ultimately, our inspectors do a fantastic job ensuring that the licensees get inspected as needed, and as required.'

That would be an improvement over what internal USDA inspectors believed about APHIS in a May 2010 audit report that said APHIS's Animal Care unit was not pursuing enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act aggressively enough. The audit covered inspections of dealers with a history of violations in the previous three years and identified what its authors called major deficiencies with how APHIS administered the Animal Welfare Act.

USDA officials have responded to the criticisms, saying APHIS has shifted its focus from predominantly educational efforts to enforcement, for example.

APHIS also developed uniform requirements and guidance for confiscating suffering animals that all inspectors must follow and its inspectors collaborate more among themselves and with state regulators, an action plan states in response to chief criticisms in the audit.

Also, the action plan report stated, the agency re-emphasized for inspectors when to write citations for repeat violations and increased administrative oversight of inspections.

Annual inspections increased from 1,516 in fiscal 2010 to a peak of 2,606 the following year and 1,882 in fiscal 2013, according to data the non-profit news organization IowaWatch obtained with a Freedom of Information Act request.

'I believe that they did a decent job of bringing their inspectors in and educating them,' said Mary LaHay, president of Iowa Voters for Companion Animals. 'I believe that there are inspectors out there who really want to do a good job.'

Still, LaHay said she is concerned that inspectors do not have to cite breeders for indirect violations, one of two kinds of violations inspectors can find.

l Indirect violations are defined as not harming an animal's health.

l Direct violations are deemed to harm an animal's health and considered to be the most serious.

LaHay said some indirect violations that are not cited could affect an animal's health, especially if one of those violations is the failure to have veterinary records on site at the breeding facility.

Espinosa confirmed that inspectors in some instances may view not having veterinary records to be more of a 'teaching moment' than something that puts animal health in danger. So-called teaching moments — during which inspectors help a breeder facing a minor infraction get back into compliance without being cited — are allowed only for indirect violations, she said.

Inspectors are to cite breeders if failing to have records where animals are housed has had an effect on animals, Espinosa said. The same is true at facilities that have changed attending veterinarians, cannot find their written program of veterinary care or have a poor compliance history, she said.

Animal care advocates worry about matters such as having veterinary records on site because the ultimate goal, those IowaWatch interviewed over several months said, is to keep dog breeding facilities from becoming puppy mills. These are the notorious facilities where animal health is in danger and, worse, little to nothing is done about improving conditions putting that health in danger.

APHIS has managed to help shut down one large scale breeding operation in Iowa since 2010. It was owned by Debra Pratt near New Sharon, and cited for 51 non-compliance issues from Feb. 1, 2012, to Sept. 18, 2013. More than three-dozen dogs in her care had health conditions that demanded veterinary care, inspection reports show.

l This story was produced by Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism-IowaWatch.org, a non-profit, online news website that collaborates with Iowa news organizations to produce explanatory and investigative reporting.