Report: USDA inspections of dog breeders are often late and incomplete

by Clark Kauffman, Iowa Capital Dispatch
February 25, 2025

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s inspector general says the agency has failed to inspect dog breeders in a timely fashion and failed to ensure that breeders correct the violations for which they’re cited.

In a newly published report, the USDA inspector general says it recently reviewed the agency’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, better known as APHIS, and its handling of dog-breeder violations.

The report says the investigators concluded that APHIS was not responding to complaints in a timely manner, and that 80% of the dog breeders that investigators visited had not fully corrected the deficiencies for which they’d been cited by APHIS inspectors.

The inspector general also reported that of the dog breeders whose activities were selected for review, APHIS inspectors had failed to comply with their own guidelines for inspection frequency 95% of the time. Overall, the report says, 29% of the inspections that were conducted by APHIS were considered “late” according to APHIS’ own standards.

Inspections for three dog breeders occurred more than a year after the agency’s guidelines dictated such inspections should have taken place, the report states.

Violations overlooked by inspectors

The report also says that once APHIS inspectors were on site at various breeders, they often failed to review compliance with all of the basic regulations dealing with medications, food storage, animal enclosures, vaccination records and more.

In total, 57% of APHIS’ routine inspections had overlooked at least one of those areas of oversight, the inspector general reported. In one case, a dog breeder was not cited for one of its dogs dying in a fight with another dog inside a shared enclosure.

Those and other failings, the inspector general determined, appear to have contributed to certain dog breeders repeatedly violating the federal Animal Welfare Act. “Continued noncompliance with AWA requirements poses a threat to the safety and well-being of animals,” the report concluded.

Some of the findings echo those of a 2021 inspector general’s report. At that time, the inspector general found that APHIS did not consistently address complaints it received or adequately document the results of its work on complaints.

In 2023, APHIS had oversight of more than 16,000 licensed breeders and made over 10,000 on-site inspections to assess the health and care of animals covered under the Animal Welfare Act. During that time, 262 licensees were cited for alleged violations and 214 were given warnings. Sixteen breeders had their licenses suspended or revoked.

In 15 cases, settlements were reached that involved the imposition of penalties totaling $220,000. In 19 cases, a total of $35,000 in civil penalties was imposed through administrative orders.

Inspector general keeps dates, numbers confidential

“While dog breeders are ultimately responsible for ensuring compliance with Animal Welfare Act requirements, improvements to the timeliness and consistency of APHIS’ inspections can better hold breeders accountable and help prevent continued noncompliance,” the reported concluded.

The USDA has indicated it agrees with the findings of the inspector general and will follow the report’s recommendations for improving enforcement activities against breeders.

Some of the information in the new report is so heavily redacted — a relatively unusual occurrence for such a report — that certain key findings are rendered meaningless.

For example, the report states that the inspector general gauged the timeliness of APHIS’ complaint-driven investigations and “found that (redacted number) of the (redacted number) complaints were not closed timely and ranged from (redacted number) to (redacted number) days past the required deadline.”

The published report even redacts information as to the period of time for which the inspector general reviewed the APHIS’ enforcement activity. The report describes the dates and the number of violations as “sensitive information” that must be withheld due to unspecified “privacy concerns.”

Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com.