Wednesday, June 23, 2010

AVMA, You Think They Give a Shit????

The new head of the AVMA, Ron DeHaven, is a rascal. He just jumped over from the feds, the USDA. As we all know, the pit nutters love to say that the AVMA doesn't support BSL. There's a reason, because they support puppy mills and agribusiness. Very poor reference I would say. Here is an excerpt from the latest USDA report that states that Ron DeHaven overlooked much suffering. I guess I would be getting outta town too. So when these pit nutters and "No Kill'ers" want to throw the AVMA out, hit them between the eyes with this one. It's in red to represent the blood of all those animals Ron DeHaven failed to help. Fuck the AVMA.

May 2010
In the last 2 years, there has been significant media coverage concerning large-scale dog dealers (i.e., breeders and brokers)1 that failed to provide humane treatment for the animals under their care. The breeders, negatively referred to as “puppy mills,” have stirred the interest of the public, Congress, animal rights groups, and others. Accordingly, we conducted an audit of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service’s (APHIS) Animal Care (AC) unit, which is responsible for enforcing the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). The audit focused on AC’s inspections of problematic dealers. It is the latest in a series of audits related to AWA.2
In our last audit on animals in research facilities,3 we found that the agency was not aggressively pursuing enforcement actions against violators of AWA and that it assessed minimal monetary penalties against them.4 APHIS agreed to take corrective action by incorporating more specific guidance in its operating manual to address deficiencies in enforcement actions. It also agreed to revise its penalty worksheet to generate higher and more appropriate penalties.
In this audit, one objective was to review AC’s enforcement process against dealers that violated AWA. Accordingly, we focused on dealers with a history of violations in the past 3 years.5 Another objective was to review the impact of recent changes the agency made to the penalty assessment process. We identified the following major deficiencies with APHIS’ administration of AWA:

AC’s Enforcement Process Was Ineffective Against Problematic Dealers. AC’s enforcement process was ineffective in achieving dealer compliance with AWA and regulations, which are intended to ensure the humane care and treatment of animals. The agency believed that compliance achieved through education6 and cooperation would result in long-term dealer compliance and, accordingly, it chose to take little or no enforcement action against most violators.
However, the agency’s education efforts have not always been successful in deterring problematic dealers from violating AWA. During FYs 2006-2008, at the re-inspection of 4,250 violators, inspectors found that 2,416 repeatedly violated AWA, including some that ignored minimum care standards. Therefore, relying heavily on education for serious or repeat violators—without an appropriate level of enforcement—weakened the agency’s ability to protect the animals.

AC Inspectors Did Not Cite or Document Violations Properly To Support Enforcement Actions. Many inspectors were highly committed, conducting timely and thorough inspections and making significant efforts to improve the humane treatment of covered animals. However, we noted that 6 of 19 inspectors7 did not correctly report all repeat or direct violations (those that are generally more serious and affect the animals’ health). Consequently, some problematic dealers were inspected less frequently.
In addition, some inspectors did not always adequately describe violations in their inspection reports or support violations with photos. Between 2000 and 2009, this lack of documentary evidence weakened AC’s case in 7 of the 16 administrative hearings involving dealers.8 In discussing these problems with regional management, they explained that some inspectors appeared to need additional training in identifying violations and collecting evidence.

APHIS’ New Penalty Worksheet Calculated Minimal Penalties. Although APHIS previously agreed to revise its penalty worksheet to produce “significantly higher” penalties for violators of AWA, the agency continued to assess minimal penalties that did not deter violators. This occurred because the new worksheet allowed reductions up to 145 percent of the maximum penalty. While we are not advocating that APHIS assess the maximum penalty, we found that at a time when Congress tripled the authorized maximum penalty to “strengthen fines for violations,” the actual penalties were 20 percent less using the new worksheet as compared to the worksheet APHIS previously used.

APHIS Misused Guidelines to Lower Penalties for AWA Violators. In completing penalty worksheets, APHIS misused its guidelines in 32 of the 94 cases we reviewed to lower the penalties for AWA violators. Specifically, it (1) inconsistently counted violations; (2) applied “good faith” reductions without merit; (3) allowed a “no history of violations” reduction when the violators had a prior history; and (4) arbitrarily changed the gravity of some violations and the business size. AC told us that it assessed lower penalties as an incentive to encourage violators to pay a stipulated amount rather than exercise their right to a hearing.

Some Large Breeders Circumvented AWA by Selling Animals Over the Internet. Large breeders that sell AWA-covered animals over the Internet are exempt from AC’s inspection and licensing requirements due to a loophole in AWA. As a result, an increasing number of these unlicensed breeders are not monitored for their animals’ overall health and humane treatment.

7 comments:

cravendesires said...

what a fucktard.

it is not at all surprising that the AVMA does not support BSL, pit maulings are good for business.

HonestyHelps said...

I couldn't tell you how many vets I have known in my lifetime. I have only a handful that I respected and felt they truly were in it for the animals. The rest I wouldn't let them work on a roast much less my kids.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the info. The pit nutters are always throwing this up as an organization against BSL. Of course people fall for it, after all it is vets, they care about animals, right? WRONG! And this goes to show how little they care. Great post!!

cravendesires said...

i agree with you. i too have met very very few vets that i respect. one wrong word or one wrong look and i am out of there. took me a long time to find a vet that i like and trust.

Anonymous said...

Honesty, you might be interested in this from the site that reports on front groups.

http://www.
sourcewatch.
org/index.php?title=
American_
Veterinary_
Medical_
Association

The AVMA is nothing but a front group, for PROFITS PROFITS PROFITS.

There are many vets who run puppy mills themselves, broker puppy mill dogs, work for the pet store puppy mill trade, and are connected to the AKC and their puppy mill interests.

There are also vets who work for the dog fighters, like the one exposed in PA.

AS for the USDA, this is one of those bums that has been enabling the millers and protecting them.

The USDA is dirty to the heart when it comes to puppy mills.

A reporter did a great expose on the USDA puppy mill issue a few years ago. It can be found on this page, scroll down to comments near the end, the comment with article Agency Faulted for Not Cracking down on Violators

http://
hollywooddog.
blogspot.
com/2007/12
/posh-puppy
-of-tarzana
-and-beverly
-hills.html

And a video on the USDA

http://
www.
youtube.
com/watch
?v=-TU0c
-9l1bI

Anonymous said...

First hand knowledge. Wide range of it too.

Most veterinarians are stealing, from small amounts to large scale fraud,.

Everything from unnecessary tests (or charging for things they never did) to having untrained office staff or vet techs doing procedures and you still get charged full rate.

Many are killing pets with their failures, and then lying about it.

There are also many alcoholics and drug addicts who are vets, and complete incompetents who are killing animals.

But animals can't talk and can't complain and can't file complaints. The owners have no idea what is going on in the back rooms. The owners trust, and much like stockbrokers, the veterinary profession takes advantage of that trust to a large degree.

And the licensing boards will ALWAYS give bad veterinarians and/or corrupt ones chance after chance or not even bother to investigate or suspend.

The AVMA and state licensing boards exist to help vets make money, not to control quality.

If you look at veterinary trade rags (magazines) they are filled with nothing but how to make more money and expand billing and charge more.

This is a field that needs to have its secrets revealed.

HonestyHelps said...

Yes, Anon I agree. I come from a background of a medical family. I have seen the classes offered by the AMA on how to get the most money from patients. This concept has spread into the veterinary arena and the chiropractic community. I know first hand and therefore I look for this shit. I know how to read x-rays, I have some knowledge and that helps me. I watch carefully at the vet's office. I even ask to go with them when they are running tests. That's why I have been through a lot of vet offices. I give them hell. I have a vet now who doesn't fit that mold. He is great although he has made mistakes, they were honest ones, forgivable. I was a little hesitant at first because he has a beautiful new building, with a pharmacy area, a garden for meditation, etc. But he has proven that he doesn't try to take advantage, he earned his money the good way, hard work.

I also had a vet once that was an alcoholic but a damn good vet. I told him that if he ever hurt my dog because he was drunk that he would pay. He was an excellent surgeon and saved my dog's life with a new procedure.

It's really up to us, as the consumer, to do our responsibility of checking everything. Of course, we will be taken advantage of if we allow it. Just like with the medical doctors, people are scared to speak up to them. Whenever I go to a new doctor, I always ask for an interview first. And the first thing I tell them is that I do not think they are God. Only the good ones continue the interview, the others get stark raving mad. One even followed me out, thru his lobby with patients waiting, yelling at me.

In this case with the AVMA, it is so obvious with this new guy, what they stand for. So whenever the pit nutters throw out the AVMA as supporting their cause, we have great ammunition to throw back in their faces.