Captive Animals

As we see it at the ASPCA there are two major problems that should be addressed, the need of a specific and comprehensive law to regulate the use, handling, care and disposition of animals used for exhibition purposes, and, second, the need for far, far better enforcement of existing laws to protect animals and those new laws which ultimately may be enacted to regulate the care of these animals.As long as existing laws do not specifically prohibit trainers of animals from beating the animals in their care, as long as animals are being injured and killed for making films, not necessarily on the set or location where things are sanitized for the press, but in the preparation of those animals for their hour of glory, as long as the existing laws do not prohibit exhibitors from selling animals they no longer want to be shot at and killed by so-called sportsmen, as long as existing laws do not serve to prohibit substandard zoos from keeping their animals incarcerated in prison-type structures and as long as the Animal Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture continues to fail to enforce the Animal Welfare Act, which it does fail, and it is clearly specified regulations are promptly and effectively, immediate additional action needs to be taken to remedy this situation.

The Animal Welfare Act in the hands of APHIS is simply not enough given the overall mandate of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, ladies and gentlemen, we have made the goat the gardener. One needs only to look at the Animal Welfare Act and the regulations as they pertain to the handling of exhibition animals to see why they are inadequate to prevent abuse.

APHIS has a record of not properly enforcing clear standards. When the regulations themselves are not specific, APHIS does even less. In fact, it does virtually nothing.

For example, the regulations promulgated under the Animal Welfare Act state that physical abuse shall not be used to train, work or otherwise handle animals. What does physical abuse mean? Does the elephant trainer who strikes the elephants in his care with hooks, clubs or axe handles think that he is not acting abusively? Does the bear trainer who hits a bear in his care on the nose, a particularly sensitive part of the bear’s body, or strike bears with pipes think that this type of manipulation is justifiable, appropriate and nonabusive?

I haven’t made these examples up. They have all happened in the circuses and zoos of this country regularly, routinely in many places. Probably the most notorious case recently come to light of abusive training was that of Dunda, an elephant in the highly renowned San Diego Zoo, the last place you would go to find cruelty. She apparently didn’t follow her keeper’s commands so in order to make her tractable, her legs were chained and pulled apart. She was brought down with block and tackle and then she was beaten on her head with axe handles by five keepers. All of this demonstrated — actually as incredulous as it may seem, the zoo purportedly claimed this could be a standard practice. The zoos’ chief elephant keeper has been quoted as saying, she needed to be disciplined for her own welfare.

Not at all surprisingly, the USDA, APHIS, did not take action against the zoo. The reasons for that fact are complex, bewildering, and if nothing else, disgraceful. The causing of pain and suffering of animals in order to train them to perform or be obedient has also occurred as you have heard in the making of films. Although the Motion Picture Association of America has been widely quoted as abhorring cruelty to animals in motion pictures, this attitude has not served to stop some directors from purposely having animals harmed for the making of a film.

It has been reported that at least five horses were killed during the filming of “Heaven’s Gate,” and about a dozen chickens were decapitated and their blood used in some of the scenes in the movie. The orangutan who performed in “Any Which Way You Can” was reportedly beaten with a pipe. For the making of “Killing Fields,” a live ox was reportedly bled at the neck, in “Apocalypse Now,” a water buffalo was allegedly hatcheted to death.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the existing prohibitions in the Animal Welfare Act regulations against physical abuse is not enough. There must also be specific language in the law to ban the striking, tripping and kicking of animals and any act which would tend to injure or cause pain or suffering to animals as part of their training or other handling at circuses, zoos, animal shows, rodeos, aquariums and for the makings of films, television shows or commercials and more and more for special interest VCR tapes.

For that latter large and still rapidly growing field, the how to hunting tapes, thousands of animals have been killed, specifically for the making of those types with rifle, pistol and bow. And since many American films are made in other countries it is important for legislation to limit or eliminate animal abuse for the making of American films regardless of where these films are actually produced. No more running away to Mexico.

Before going any further I want to emphasize that my intention here today is not to imply that zoos or movie directors are villains. Some are, as indicated, but I do not intend to paint a picture with a big wide brush. There are a great many zoos firmly dedicated to preserving endangered and threatened species and which provide a worthwhile educational experience for human beings.

At the same time they provide the animals in their care with the surroundings that truly are appropriate for the animal’s physical, social and psychological well-being. I feel, though, only a small percent of zoos will be accredited with the American Association for Zoological Parks and Aquariums. Movies have been produced using large numbers of animals where concerted efforts have been made so that the animals would not be harmed, for example, $250,000 was spent to construct 23 mechanical buffalos for “Dances with Wolves.’

It can be done, but unless there are clear and specific standards in the law, the zoos, menageries, circuses and movie directors that are not concerned about the animals in their care will continue to mistreat animals any time they think they can get away with it, anywhere they can. People without consideration or compassion should not have access to feeding and handling animals.

Clearly that is so. The mistreatment of animals at rodeos also cannot go unmentioned here today. The use of an electrical prod and bucking straps can and do cause pain and stress and for what purpose? Amusement. Well, we are not amused.

Surely activities designed for entertainment but which are likely to harm animals or cause fear should not be condoned. If animals used at rodeos are not given any protection at all under the Animal Welfare Act as you know APHIS doesn’t go near them. The rodeos have big bucks and that buys them big banks. The animals be hanged.

Thus far I have emphasized that aspect of animal mistreatment which is largely physical in nature, the striking, the beating, the shocking. Equally important to any discussion is the handling of animals in a circus, zoos, aquariums, rodeos and for the making of films as the environment in which the animals live. Some animals have indeed done remarkable things in order to replicate an animal’s natural habitat as well as they can.

Other zoos unfortunately, including Ms. Basinger’s roadside menageries and even some municipal zoos, continue to be nothing more than prisons with zero educational value. Yes, the Animal Welfare Act contains provisions regarding housing for animals but animals need more than just space to turn around in. There needs to be legislation to require exhibitors to provide the appropriate environment for their animals which is responsive to the animal’s physical and psychological needs.

The exhibitors that do not accomplish this within a particular time frame should have their licenses revoked permanently. Displaying animals in settings that do not foster the animal’s well-being is not only not educational, it is cruel and serves absolutely no beneficial purpose except to the exhibitor who is making money by the mishandling of his animals.

Also very important is the way that exhibitors handle animals they no longer need. Programs to limit over breeding of exhibition animals should be in effect, but this is not intended to interfere with breeding programs in legitimate ASPCA approved facilities.

An animal should receive protection under the law to prohibit them from ever ending up, ever, under any circumstances, as targets in a shooting gallery. A safari jacket and a big gun does not a sportsman make and neither does a check book. No law or regulation, however, will have any positive effect on the plight of animals for exhibition unless the agency empowered to enforce the law and regulations does its job.

The Animal Plant Health Inspection Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is totally inept and ineffective in this regard. It is, to almost everyone who deals with them in the field, a joke.

Just to give you an example, in the course of my 30-year career as a television correspondent I visited numerous commercial dog breeding facilities more commonly called puppy mills. The condition I observed in all of those 30 years never — never showed 1 inch of improvement. Animals were kept in filthy conditions. Sick and diseased animals were left unattended. Food and water was filthy. Yet these people continue to get their licenses from the USDA and continue their gross mistreatment of the animals in their care.

The inspectors were either blind or totally oblivious to the deplorable conditions they were supposed to be inspecting. I purposefully visited monstrous facilities with APHIS permits signed the day before. In at least one case an APHIS inspector ran her own patently substandard puppy mill in her own backyard. There in her front yard was a car with an emblem on the door that said, “Protecting American Agriculture, USDA.” And there in the backyard was this filthy pigpen filled with suffering dogs.

When I personally took that to the APHIS regional office we met in Houston, Texas, and spoke with Dale Swinderman and Mr. Christiansen, whose first name I forgot. They looked at me and said, “We didn’t know about her.” I said, “Gentlemen, here is a complaint that was put on your desk 9 months ago and coincidentally here is another one put on your desk 9 years ago. You have known about her for nearly a decade. She still runs a puppy mill and still has a USDA car in the front yard, paid for by the taxpayers.”

A new bureau dedicated solely to enforcing standards for the care of animals used for exhibition and other purposes as well needs to be established, not APHIS. A bureau with knowledgeable, people who will see what is in front of them for what it is and take the necessary action to improve conditions. APHIS enforcement efforts have been so abysmal over such a long period of time that it is clear that drastic change is needed. They had their chance. You can’t make a dead man well, nor can a total failure improve by fiat or edict.

The ASPCA is hopeful that after today’s hearing you will recognize that the care, handling, use and disposition of animals used to entertain us must be addressed by legislation. We pride ourselves, after all, on being a civilized society. We need to see an end to the beating of animals; we need to take animals out of prison-like containments and give them some quality of life. That will only happen if you act.

The ASPCA and the millions of animals for whom it speaks pray that you will. Only then can we boast a higher status for our own species. We are, after all, only one among many — and at times we behave worse than most.

I don’t think any one can argue with the fact that we arrived at our present station of life on the back of animals. Horses, as well as ships, proved that the Earth was round, not flat. This country was unexplorable without horses. In other countries they use reindeer, camels and yaks, but we got here on the backs of animals. The manipulation of livestock would have been totally impossible without dogs. Ask them in Australia. They are still absolutely essential down there. We eat them. We wear them. They entertain us they keep our blood pressure down as pets. They are our hobbies. They are our passions. For goodness sakes, let’s pay some of the debt back. Let’s get APHIS out of it. Thank you very much, sir….

Thank you for the opportunity to share with you today the serious concerns we have regarding the treatment of animals used in exhibitions and the manner in which USDA handles its responsibilities in relation to these animals. Many Americans, among them PETA’s 350,000 members, look forward to a day when pleasure will no longer be taken in the infliction of indignity on animals who never chose to become performers or living specimens.For the present, however, Americans who hold this vision, and others who simply prize compassion, share a commitment to ensuring that while animals continue to be exhibited as curiosities, and to be worked in entertainment settings, they be handled humanely and be afforded environments in which the punishment of their unnatural daily lives is minimized.

In October 1989, APHIS-REAC extended implementation of the Animal Welfare Act’s minimum requirements for the humane handling of exhibited animals to all species of animals covered by the act. It also amplified the protections intended by the act for exhibited animals. REAC did so, however, in theory, only.

Since the new handling standard was implemented, REAC’s record has reflected an almost cynical disregard for its duties to the public, to Congress, and to the animals. In the course of referring dozens of reports of mistreated exhibited animals annually to REAC for action, PETA has steadily encountered entrenched resistance, taking the form of blunt refusals to act in some cases, and indirect circumventions of duty, in others.

When REAC has opted to circumvent, rather than stonewall, its devices of choice have been reliance on truly implausible interpretations of Animal Welfare Act regulations, and the refusal to credit probative circumstantial evidence of violations. The case studies presented in our written testimony illustrate this state of affairs painfully.

Take the case of Mr. Jiggs, a female chimpanzee taken 27 years ago from the Congo. Trained by electric shock, she is now used in an act in which she is dressed in a tuxedo and made to serve cocktails while on roller skates. When National Geographic Magazine featured her plight, and observed that she wore an electric shock device on her back and had her jaws clamped shut during performances, troubled members of the public contacted PETA. We asked REAC to investigate.

REAC confirmed that Mr. Jiggs’ exhibitor maintains two working electric shock devices, one of which he triggered during REAC’s inspection. In its closing letter on the case, REAC also acknowledged that it has a directive banning the use of electric shock as a method of controlling primates. REAC refused, nonetheless, to take enforcement action in relation to Mr. Jiggs’ electric shock device. Why? Because the device had not actually been discharged on Mr. Jiggs during REAC’s inspection. Believe it or not, Mr. Chairman, REAC’s closing letter stated, for good measure, that since, “Agency policy currently prohibits the use of electrical shock to train or handle primates… [if the exhibitor] wishes to use this device, [he] will have to request permission to do so.”

As for Mr. Jiggs’ jaw clamp, REAC confirmed its use, but made no recommendation whatsoever regarding it.

In early 1990, REAC became aware of 15 Japanese snow monkeys who had escaped the confines of a small, private zoo in Missouri. Between February 14, 1990 and March 18 of this year, REAC inspectors visited the zoo at least five times. On almost all of these occasions, violations signified by the zoo operator’s continued failure to contain and shelter the monkeys were noted, as were a large assortment of other violations.

Throughout this period, no enforcement action was taken and no attempt was made by REAC to suspend the exhibitor’s license. Ultimately, the Missouri Health Department was compelled to shut the zoo down, simply in order to force the exhibitor to recapture the monkeys. One of the first monkeys caught and killed tested positive for simian herpes, a disease communicable to humans, and considered to be potentially fatal. Mr. Chairman, we will never know how many children and companion animals may have been put at risk as a result of REAC’s prolonged inaction in this case.

Another prime example of the lengths to which REAC seems willing to go in order to avoid enforcing standards is the sad case of Terrible Ted, a wrestling bear. In 1988, Ted’s exhibitor was charged with animal cruelty and animal baiting during a stint in a Greensboro, North Carolina bar. In late 1990, newspapers reported severe injuries suffered by drunken Missouri bar patrons who had engaged Terrible Ted in combat. At that point, REAC began an investigation.

In July 1991, REAC Sector Supervisor Dr. Joseph Walker recommended aggressive enforcement action and the assessment of dollar penalties against Ted’s exhibitor. In August, 1991, however, with an urgency seldom exerted on behalf of animals, REAC headquarters summarily overrode this recommendation. It asserted that while the applicable handling regulation requires distance or barriers between performing animals and the general viewing public, it does not apply to exhibitions in which members of the public actually participate in the exhibition.

The result of this nonsensical ruling? Humans and animals have less protection in situations involving direct physical contact than in situations involving no physical contact.

Another result of this ruling? The trashing of the handling regulation that specifically requires that publicly exhibited bears and other dangerous animals always be maintained under the direct control of a handler.

In the meantime, Terrible Ted’s exhibitor has been charged with cruelty once again, this time in Illinois, in February of this year.

REAC’s failure to enforce in cases like these cannot be defended on grounds of budgetary constraint, because in these cases, substantial REAC resources were not only spent, but wasted.

Keeping noncompliant exhibitors on the rolls is a costly proposition. How much might taxpayers be spared if REAC ceased engaging in needless license renewal reviews, needless and ineffectual repeat inspections of noncompliance sites, needless intra-agency disputes between enforcement-oriented sector staff and headquarter officials committed to inaction, and needless public relations mop-ups designed to defuse criticism from citizens and charitable organizations.

The impetus for change in REAC is clearly not going to come from within REAC or APHIS. If REAC is to do the job it was directed to do by Congress, and if REAC is to uphold the public trust, Congress will have to strengthen existing legislation and maintain ongoing oversight.

With regard to animals in exhibitions, specifically overdue are legislative provisions that would impose a time limit on the operation of noncompliant exhibitions after which enforcement action will be commenced, direct REAC that it is not free to ignore probative circumstantial evidence of violations, ban exhibitions, such as bear wrestling and mule diving, that are so inherently harmful to animals and/or the public that they are incapable of being conducted in accordance with human handling requirements, and on this point I would beg to differ very strenuously with REAC’s interpretation, this morning, of the definition of animals as not including mules engaged in mule diving exhibitions, and, finally, provisions that would bring within the scope of the Animal Welfare Act exhibition forms, such as rodeos, previously exempted for reasons that fail to reflect the harm to animals that they inherently entail.

In addition, PETA will support any efforts aimed at the development of housing, husbandry and transportation standards that, for the first time, would take into account the unique needs of animals, who, as performers, travel and experience venue changes constantly, or as specimens, spend the majority of their lives in confined and unchanging settings. I thank the Chair and every member of this subcommittee for your courtesy today, and look forward to your action….

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to testify before you today regarding the use of animals in entertainment. I feel eminently well qualified to do this, as I spent 22 years as a Hollywood animal trainer.

I would quickly add that I am categorized as a “failed animal trainer” to quote those who oppose my efforts to protect performing animals. However, I will say that I worked with Dr. Sedgwick at the San Diego Zoo in 1972.

I was the spokesperson for Lincoln-Mercury for over 15 years, and the official Lincoln-Mercury cougar, Christopher, is now 19 and retired, but he still shares my life, along with elephants, bears, tigers and various other abused and abandoned animals.

In 1985, I formed PAWS and established a sanctuary for these animals who were abandoned after they were used by trainers. My experiences as a trainer led me to the realization that more must be done to protect performing animals, and I became very active in policymaking in the California Legislature. And again, I must apologize to Mr. Bilbray: I helped write the regulations in California, and most of the problems you have in Nevada moved from California to Nevada. Since the animal protection community is regularly accused of caring more for animals than people, I note I am a proud member of Rotary International, a service organization that has helped eradicate polio in three-quarters of the world, and this year I am the first female president of the Galt Rotary Club. And it sometimes is a rodeo. And I am often called Mr. Pat Derby.

When the father of affection training, Ralph Helfer, was charged by the USDA with countless violations of the Animal Welfare Act, Joe Camp, one of his former trainers, testified regarding the treatment of Clyde, a orangutan who starred in a Clint Eastwood movie. Joe said Clyde had undergone years of neglect: “I believe that his whole life is what killed him. His diet, his terrible environment, and the neglect.” Clyde’s owner made millions as the largest supplier of animals to movies and television, yet his star orangutan died in squalor, and this is not the exception.

I can tell you most performing animals live in cramped quarters, with no mental or physical stimulation. They are robots trained to amuse and entertain, and they are inspected by the USDA frequently.

I will not belabor the issue. We have heard a lot of horror stories about training. My case files in your records have documentation of abusive treatment of animals, animals that have been choked, strangled, beaten, every kind of abuse there is. It is well document-ed in there.

We frequently file charges with the USDA and APHIS and complain, and many of these people are doing business as usual, ad infinitum. So I won’t continue with that.

I would like to address the issue that APHIS certainly can do something about and that is the care and the housing of these animals and what happens to them when they are no longer useful to their trainers.

The training is bad enough, but the way they live is terrible. And when they are no longer useful — I will give you an example: 14 mountain lions appeared in a movie called “Benji the Hunted.” When the movie was over, their trainer, Steve Martin, inserted an ad in a magazine for surplus animals. The ad read, “14 cougar cubs. Will accept any reasonable offer, Steve Martin” and his phone number.

Another orangutan from a Clint Eastwood movie was rescued just recently, taken to the Dallas Zoo in terrible condition. After extensive veterinary treatment, the animal was placed in Primarily Primates, a primate sanctuary in Texas.

Also the circus, circus animals, traveling animal shows create another nightmare of animals living in limited space. They are packed in trucks or railroad cars. They travel long hours in extreme of heat or cold. An example: When the Ringling Brothers Circus arrived in Sacramento, California, in 95 degree heat, with 10 elephants chained to the walls of an overcrowded railroad car, representatives from five humane societies asked the USDA inspector to check the temperature in the car after the elephants were off loaded.

The inspector, who wanted Gunther Gebel-Williams’ autograph, responded, “They look fine to me.” The elephants were videotaped by my staff standing in urine and feces, rocking and swaying in stereotypic fashion.

I would also like to respond to Dr. Crawford’s answer earlier. There was an animal trainer named Helen Carpenter who was stranded in Micronesia with elephants, bears, lions, tigers, every kind of wild animal. She came back. We helped get her back to the United States.

She landed on the docks in Oakland. USDA said, “She is fine, let her go.” She was supposed to go back to her, “winter quarters.”

One of our staff went there. There were no winter quarters. Those animals lived in those tiny little boxes all the time. That was where they lived.

I would also like to say that one of our investigators had to lead the Department of Agriculture veterinarians to a facility owned by Ringling Brothers in Florida, which they were not even aware existed and which had been there for some time, and had never been inspected, so obviously there are flaws in the system.

We also, for several years, have conducted an ongoing investigation of performing and exhibit elephants, and much as I like Dr. Sedgwick, I will tell you that elephants don’t need to be trained to give blood and do other medical treatment.

I have two elephants in California. They are not trained and they do give blood, and they do very nicely. We found most elephants are kept under extremely stressful conditions. Many are confined to small facilities.

Circus and other traveling elephants are either kept in the boxcars in which they are transported, or they are staked out on a picket line. A picket line is a long length of chain where they stand rocking and swaying. And the Animal Welfare Act says that abnormal behavioral patterns are one indication of inadequate space, a clear violation of the law.

An even bigger surprise to most is learning that the good zoos are not always immune to mismanaging elephants. We have heard about the Dunda incident. Just recently the LA Zoo botched a moving job and killed an elephant in a very inept way of moving him, and the litany goes on and on and on.

I am not going to take up your time with more stories, but I would like to say that we support legislation that would help these animals. I sort of support Roger Caras’ idea that perhaps we do need another agency.

We would also like to recommend the following: (1) There must be a limit on the violations. (2) There must be language to clarify USDA’s authority to deny or revoke licenses and to deny renewals if an exhibitor is out of compliance.

(3) The act must specify that traveling cages may not be used as permanent housing and must define permanent housing as any enclosure to which an animal is confined for extended periods of time. (4) And given our experience in California, I am convinced that it is necessary to specify minimum cage sizes. I will give you an example.

Currently under USDA, given what they accept as OK in housing, 70 full-grown tigers could live in your living room, a 2,500- square-foot home could hold 200 tigers, 86 orangutans or 10 elephants. Obviously, that is not enough space.

We feel that minimum caging requirements, while not ideal, will also help the USDA, because if they can say, “This size and no smaller,” it is easier to say what is and what is not in compliance.

(5) It must be made clear that the requirement that sufficient distance or barriers between the animals and the viewing public outlaws such inherently dangerous public contact with wild animals as elephant rides, boxing kangaroos, wrestling bears, photo- ops with lions and the like.

(6) The standards must explicitly provide for environmental and behavioral enrichment for exhibit animals, and (7) USDA must regulate the disposition of exhibit animals after they are no longer useful.

We recognize that changes in the act will have to be carefully considered and will not happen overnight. In the meantime, then, it is crucial that Congress insist upon USDA’s enforcing this law vigorously and effectively, remembering that the idea is to protect the animals, not to facilitate their abuse….

STATEMENT OF JOHN W. GRANDY, VICE PRESIDENT, WILDLIFE AND HABITAT PROTECTION, HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Grandy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is John Grandy. I am vice president for wildlife and habitat protection of the Humane Society of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear today on behalf of more than 1.5 million members and constituents to present our concerns about animals used in exhibition and the Federal Government’s failure to protect them under the Animal Welfare Act.

The HSUS is this Nation’s largest animal protection organization with more than 1.5 million members, 10 regional offices, an educational division, a team of investigators, legislative experts, animal control academy and programs focusing on the humane stewardship of all animals, including those we are considering today.

Initially, I would like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and this subcommittee for your leadership on and continued sensitivity on issues relevant to animal protection. This is a historic hearing and you deserve praise for having called it.

The HSUS firmly believes that under most circumstances wild animals should exist undisturbed in their natural environments and that the exhibition of wild animals frequently results in animal abuse, neglect, suffering and death. However, despite our ethical concerns about animals in exhibitions, exhibitions do exist and continue. The animals incarcerated in them deserve proper care.

This paradox is the ultimate dilemma for the HSUS. While we believe the great majority of these animal exhibitions should be closed, as does Mr. Caras and others who you have heard from today, we are committed to doing everything we can to insure the humane treatment of animals maintained in them.

The Animal Welfare Act is the Nation’s most comprehensive Federal legislation protecting animals. And its spirit and intent were presumably designed to safeguard many species used in potentially abusive situations. The Congress made a firm commitment when the Animal Welfare Act was amended in 1970 to protect these animals. And although the regulations have been subject to further amendments, we are called here today to address the continued suffering and egregious exploitation of animals in exhibition.

The HSUS believes strongly that this ongoing tragedy is significantly due to the Animal Welfare Acts nebulous regulations and APHIS’ lax approach to enforcement and implementation.

Indeed, the spirit and intent of the Animal Welfare Act provides a sound basis for humane treatment and ethical care of exhibition animals. However, it has not been effective because it has not been enforced. This lack of effective enforcement is due in large, if not total part, to APHIS’ remiss attitude toward protecting animals.

In a recently released report that you mentioned in your opening statement, the USDA’s Office of Inspector General discussed its audit of APHIS’ enforcement and confirmed our long-standing suspicions. The act is simply not being enforced, and violators who are uncovered are treated with kid gloves. We attach to our testimony, which I am summarizing for you, a detailed copy of the OIG report.

Mr. Chairman, I will not repeat the egregious conclusions of that report which you repeated in your opening statement. Suffice it to say, however, that those factors and those findings which you mentioned so well prove conclusively that APHIS simply does not have the desire or the will to enforce this law.

It is one thing to come before this subcommittee and talk about money and lack of personnel and those are important things that should be addressed.

However, at the core of the agency’s failure, as emphasized by Roger Caras and by others, is the lack of the will of this agency and this administration to enforce this.

There are problems with regulations and standards. These problems actually compound the negative attitude of the agency toward enforcements. I provided a great deal of detail in my statement on these matters; licensing regulations are faulty, handling, veterinarian care, employee training, space requirements and transportation.

For the sake of brevity I will discuss two specific Animal Welfare Act regulations, that is licensing and handling, which have proven to be grossly ineffective in protecting animals.

Licensing: The regulations governing the licensing of exhibitors state that the applicant, “Must demonstrate compliance with the regulations and standards and be available for inspection.”

However, this regulation is poorly worded. It does not implicitly require an applicant to fully comply with all regulations. In fact, the exotic animal exhibitor, TIGERS, actually received numerous licenses despite a long history of violations and an APHIS inspector’s strong recommendations against licensing.

Equally startling, the USDA Office of General Counsel actually had pending actions against this exhibitor when the licenses were issued. Handling regulations: These regulations require exhibitors to handle animals,”. . . expeditiously and carefully so as not to cause trauma, overheating, excessive cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm or unnecessary discomfort,” and state that, “Physical abuse shall not be used to train, work, or otherwise handle.”

We believe it is incomprehensible APHIS considers training techniques such as the use of whips, electric prods and hooks as standard animal handling and training procedures.

We are distressed that this has contributed to the number of instances involved in physical abuse in exhibition animals….

At that point I was talking about the problems with handling animals and training them and the use of whips and electric prods and so forth. The point I wanted to make there is first of all APHIS routinely allows those things. Either their regs are so lax those things aren’t considered the cruel and inhumane treatment that we all know them to be, or the agency is so lax about enforcement that it simply ignores them.

Roger Caras brought up the problem with Dunda, the elephant. There are dozens of other elephants around this country. Lota, an elephant formerly of the Milwaukee Zoo, a case that we are in court on, was subject to terribly abusive equipment. APHIS was given films of that. They found no problems at all, even though the animal took 3 hours to be loaded into a van and was very seriously injured.

Mr. Rose.

Let me interrupt you and ask you a question. Do you think what is defective is the Animal Welfare Act itself or the enforcement of it? Have you studied the act to have an opinion as to whether or not the Department could be more aggressive in its enforcement based upon the legislation?

Mr. Grandy. The Department certainly could be more aggressive than it is. That is without question. The Department’s attitude, I think, is best summarized by an event most people in this room know about very well, which is the Department’s continued opposition to covering birds and other animals under the Animal Welfare Act. That speaks of an absolute attitude on the part of the administration to let the status quo remain and do as little as possible. You can fix some things in the act — and I have a series of suggestions which I will get to in a minute. The problem Roger Caras brought up about this agency and the people in it is the key to this.

The HSUS is also concerned that APHIS only seriously responds to violations when situations reach a crisis such as the injury or death of an animal or a person. For example, in response to a complaint filed by the HSUS regarding bear wrestling APHIS stated, “Unless we can prove that the animal was actually harmed, we can take no legal actions against the licensee. Unfortunately, this means taking action after the fact has happened.” Moreover, when penalties are assessed they are often so minimal there is no assurance of compliance.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we have the following specific suggestions based on our long 25-year investigatory history of this issue and our lengthy history with the Animal Welfare Act in APHIS.

First of all, we want to begin by commending the start that has been made with H.R. 3252. This bill is a good step forward. It needs to be refined. It needs to be strengthened, but the people who introduced it deserve all of our commendations and support.

Second, I want to endorse the suggestion made by Roger Caras earlier. As a practical matter I normally take the position, as does the HSUS, that it is not our job to tell Government which agency to rest responsibility in, but it is our job and the Congress’ job to tell Government what should be done.

In this case APHIS, as I said a moment ago, has such an awful history of enforcement, I think strong consideration should be given to removing this particular responsibility from APHIS and putting it into another agency within or without USDA. What these animals need is an advocate. They do not need an apologist.

We recommend the establishment of a permanent blue ribbon advisory committee which contains substantial representation from the animal protection community. This committee can serve as the mechanism to review and develop improvements in regulation.

The standards for licensing must be made far more stringent. After being cited for a violation, the permittee should have no more than 60 days to comply and be subject to a mandatory reinspection. A second violation would carry a 2-year minimum revocation of a permit. A third violation, the revocation would be permanent.

These measures sound Draconian, Mr. Chairman, but case, after case, after case has shown that what happens is time after time, after time and these things are attached to my testimony — the agency does nothing more than go back and find new violations. They tell the zoo or whatever it is to clean them up. The zoo cleans them up, they come back a month later and there are four new violations. Each of those violations represents animal brutality, animal cruelty and animal suffering, and this act should prohibit it.

Specific definitions must be developed for critical sections of the standards such as veterinary care and employee training. Criteria establishing minimal standards should be developed and implemented.

We have cases cited in my testimony where what goes on. People who know nothing about elephants are put in charge of elephant management. As the Dunda case proves all too well, all to often that means clubbing with a 2 by 4 or a baseball bat.

There are three other specific suggestions which I will allude to.

In total, Mr. Chairman, I simply want to summarize by saying this situation, the situation that we have heard so much about today and you will hear about more, is appalling. Historically the USDA has fought against greater animal protection. This is best exemplified, as I said earlier, by the administration and USDA’s continued opposition to adding birds and other animals to protection under the Animal Welfare Act. Animals are brutalized and they are dying.

The safety of visitors is compromised. Enforcement is poor or nonexistent and regulations are no more than ambiguous loopholes. The agency does little more than apologize and blame Congress. Congressman Rose, this situation cries out for your leadership. You must insist that regulations and policies which are created to protect exhibition animals no longer be permissive of animal suffering and insure the recommendations we have made are implemented into an effective animal protection system. In doing so, Mr. Chairman, we believe that you can put real meaning into the promise of the Animal Welfare Act.

Thank you…