Animal Care: A New

Era in Animal Welfare

Over the past several years, the Animal Care (AC)

program within the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s

(USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS) has undertaken numerous initiatives to

improve all facets of its operations. These initiatives

have enhanced the way the program conducts

Animal Welfare Act (AWA) inspections and pursues

AWA enforcement actions. The initiatives have also

affected the way the program enforces the Horse

Protection Act (HPA). Below are highlights of some

of the major initiatives.

New AWA Inspection Strategy: Quality

Over Quantity

In 1997, AC modified its inspection strategy.

After 30 years of focusing on conducting as many

inspections as possible, the program began performing more indepth inspections, especially of those

licensees and registrants with a history of compliance

problems.

The resulting reduction in the overall number of

inspections has been accompanied by a substantial

increase in the amount of time available for 

inspecting individual facilities. AC has used this 

additional time to inspect licensees’ and registrants’

animals, structures, and records more carefully—an

approach that makes better use of AC’s inspection

resources.

To support this focused inspection strategy, AC

implemented a formal risk-based inspection system

in February 1998. This system uses several objective

criteria, including compliance history, to determine

the appropriate inspection frequency for each

licensed and registered facility.

Under the system, facilities that meet all of the

criteria qualify for a low inspection frequency and are

subject to inspections as seldom as once every 2 to

3 years. Facilities that meet few or none of the 

criteria qualify for a high inspection frequency and

are subject to inspections at least every 6 months.

Those in the middle qualify for a medium inspection frequency and are inspected no less than once a

year. AC remains committed to inspecting research

facilities once a year, as required by the AWA.

New AWA Enforcement Strategy: A

Tailored Approach 

In 1995, AC launched a new enforcement strategy. Instead of handling all cases of alleged AWA violations the same way, AC now tailors its enforcement

approach to best ensure the welfare of the animals.

For licensees and registrants who show an interest in improving conditions for their animals, AC

actively pursues innovative penalties that allow the

individuals to invest part or all of their monetary sanctions in facility improvements. By doing so, AC

enables the individuals to improve the conditions for

their animals immediately while the program sends 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.

For those licensees and registrants who do not

show interest in improving the conditions for their animals, AC moves swiftly and pursues stringent

enforcement actions. Such actions typically include

substantial monetary penalties and/or license suspensions, revocations, or disqualifications. They may

also include confiscation of the animals and relocation to another location if the animals’ suffering is not

relieved.

Since launching this initiative, AC has directed

more than $1.5 million in penalties to improve conditions for animals. During the same time period, the

program has issued monetary penalties of more than

$2.5 million.

The initiative has also helped AC to reduce the

average time for resolving AWA cases from more

than 2 years to a little less than 1 year. In addition,

AC has avoided the expense of more than 150

administrative hearings, which would have cost

USDA an estimated $1.5 million.

New Approach to HPA Enforcement

In December 1997, AC unveiled its new strategic

plan for horse protection. This voluntary plan seeks

to increase industry’s role in enforcing the HPA.

Under the plan, USDA-certified horse industry organizations are given primary responsibility for imposing

HPA sanctions. APHIS evaluates the organizations to

ensure that they are correctly identifying violations

and issuing appropriate penalties. Under this new

approach, APHIS pursues substantially fewer formal

cases against alleged HPA violators. This allows AC

to use its limited resources effectively and enables

industry to take the lead in ensuring humane care for

its animals. AC continues to work with horse industry

organizations to implement this plan.

Factsheet

Animal Care February 2002

APHIS
Performance-Based Management 

AC has taken an active role in measuring its

effectiveness in meeting its mandate as required by

the Government Performance and Results Act. To

this end, AC has identified two specific performance

indicators: one for animal welfare, the percentage of

facilities in full compliance; and for horse protection,

the percentage of horses with abnormalities on the

front feet. AC has established baseline levels of performance for each of these indicators and goals for

improving future performance.

Increased Training for Employees

Since 1997, AC has identified critical enforcement

needs and provided training for employees to address

those needs. This training has included:

• Care and handling courses for AC employees 

to improve APHIS’ ability to protect elephants.

The courses are taught by recognized experts 

in the field of elephant care and handling and 

cover such areas as foot care and proper training 

techniques. The fourth session was held in June 

2000. About 80 inspectors and supervisors have 

completed the training.

• Courses and an inspector’s manual for AC 

inspectors and supervisors on the specific criteria 

that must be met by dog dealers covered under 

the AWA.

• Courses and an inspector’s manual for AC 

inspectors and supervisors on the specific criteria 

that must be met by research facilities covered 

under the AWA.

Class B Dealer Traceback

Class B animal dealers who supply animals to

research facilities typically obtain their animals from

pounds and shelters, dog owners who wish to 

relinquish ownership, and other legitimate sources.

Nevertheless, the public is concerned that some of

these dealers may be trafficking in stolen animals. AC

personnel conduct intensive traceback efforts to

ensure that dogs and cats sold by these dealers come

from legitimate sources.

Under the AWA, random-source dealers are

required to maintain accurate records of the acquisition and disposition of their animals. APHIS’ traceback efforts have focused on tracing animals back to

the point of origin to make sure records are accurate

and complete. APHIS has conducted quarterly

inspections of all random-source dealers since the

traceback project went into effect in 1993. During that

time, AC has issued fines totaling more than $500,000

and, when necessary, has suspended or revoked

licenses.

The results of this effort have been tremendous.

From 1993 through 1999, the percentage of randomsource animals traced back to their original source

increased from a little more than 40 percent to nearly

95 percent. At the same time, the number of 

class B dealers selling random-source animals has

decreased from more than 100 to fewer than 30.

Tethering Outlawed as Means of

Enclosure

To improve the well-being of dogs covered under

the AWA, AC published a final rule in 1997 that

removed from the AWA regulations the provisions for

the permanent tethering of dogs as a means of providing primary enclosure. Temporary tethering of

dogs as a means of primary enclosure for health or

other reasons is still permitted if licensees obtain

approval from their AC inspector or AC regional office.

But in most cases, licensees must now provide their

dogs with a primary enclosure that enables them to

move about freely without being tied down.

Wire Flooring in Dog and Cat Enclosures

As of January 1998, regulations began to require

that floors in primary enclosures for dogs and cats be

constructed of coated wire if the wire is one-eighth

inch in diameter or smaller. The coating must be

made of a material such as plastic or fiberglass.

Regulations also require that any wire floor be constructed so that the floor does not bend or sag. This

sturdier construction is less taxing on the animals’ feet

and joints.

AWA Temperature Requirements 

In March 1998, AC revised the AWA temperature

requirements to clarify the climatic conditions required

for dogs and cats in indoor, sheltered, and mobile

housing facilities; in primary conveyances used for

transportation; and in animal holding areas of airport

terminal facilities. The rules now state that animals

covered under the AWA are not to be exposed to

combinations of time, temperature, and humidity that

would adversely affect the animals’ health and wellbeing. The responsible party must take into account

each transported animal’s health status, breed, age,

and other pertinent factors in assessing the temperature of transport-related facilities.
Additional Information

For more information on the AC program and

improvements, please contact us at the address and

phone number below or visit our Website at

www.aphis.usda.gov/ac.

USDA–APHIS–AC

4700 River Road, Unit 84

Riverdale, MD 20737–1234

Phone: (301) 734–7833

Fax: (301) 734–4978

E-mail: ace@usda.gov

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination

in all its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national

origin, sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply to

all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative

means for communication of program information (Braille, large

print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at

(202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of

Civil Rights, Room 326–W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence

Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250–9410 or call (202) 720–5964

(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and

employer.

United States Department of Agriculture • Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service • Safeguarding American Agriculture