UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE In re: AWA Docket No. 14-0 CASEY LUDWIG, an individual, Respondent. 3 COMPLAINT There is reason to believe that the respondent named herein has willfully violated the Animal Welfare Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 2131 e_t (Act or AWA), and the regulations issued pursuant thereto (9 C.F.R. 1.1 e_t (the Regulations). Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), issues this complaint alleging the following: JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Casey Ludwig is an individual whose mailing address is 15811 Highway 32, Mountain, Wisconsin 54149. At all times mentioned herein, respondent was operating as an exhibitor, as that term is used in the Act and the Regulations, and did business as Lakewood Zoo. Respondent held Animal Welfare Act license until December 1, 201 1, when it expired for failure to renew. 2. At all times mentioned herein, respondent operated a business exhibiting wild and exotic animals to the public. In December 2011, respondent reported holding 84 animals. The gravity of the violations herein is great and include repeated failures to handle animals and to provide them with minimally-adequate veterinary care in accordance with the applicable Regulations. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 3. APHIS conducted inspections of respondent? 5 facilities, records and animals on June 18, June 25, July 21, October 29, and November 19, 2009, February 24, June 15, July 27, August 17, and November 30, 2010, and April 13, May 25, and November 28, 2011. APHIS documented noncompliance with the Regulations and Standards on each of these occasions. 4. On the following dates, respondent willfully violated the Act and the Regulations, 7 U.S.C. 2146(a), 9 C.F.R. 2.126: a. On July 21, 2009, June 15, 2010, July 27, 2010, and August 17, 2010, respondent failed to make his records available for inspection by APHIS inspectors. b. On October 29, 2009, respondent failed on two occasions to permit APHIS inspectors to conduct an inspection of his facilities, animals, and records, and failed to have a responsible person available to accompany APHIS inspectors on an inspection. 5. On or about the following dates, respondent willfully violated the Regulations governing veterinary care (9 C.F.R. 2.40), by failing to provide adequate veterinary care to animals, and failing to establish and maintain programs of veterinary care that included the use of appropriate methods to prevent and treat disease and injury, and daily observation: a. June 18 2009. Respondent failed to observe and obtain adequate veterinary care for a tiger suffering from metabolic bone disease, a camel, and two silver foxes. b. June 25 2009. Respondent failed to observe and obtain adequate veterinary care for a tiger (Apollo) suffering from metabolic bone disease. 0. November 19. 2009. Respondent failed to observe and obtain adequate veterinary care for a ram with overgrown hooves. d. February 24, 2010. Respondent failed to obtain veterinary care for a ram with overgrown hooves, and a thin tiger (Angel) that had cloudy eyes, multiple areas of hair loss, blisters on his feet, and dif?culty ambulating and reclining. e. June 15 2010. Respondent failed to obtain veterinary care for a ram with overgrown hooves. f. July 27, 2010. Respondent failed to obtain veterinary care for a ram with overgrown hooves. g. August 17, 2010. Respondent failed to obtain veterinary care for a tiger with a bleeding wound on his head and face. h. November 28. 2011. Respondent failed to obtain veterinary care for a lion with multiple open wounds on his face. 6. On or about June 18, 2009, reSpondent willfully violated the Regulations by failing to make, keep and maintain records of the acquisition and disposition of animals (hedgeho gs, camel and opossum), as required. 9 C.F.R. 7. On or about the following dates, respondent willfully violated the Regulations governing handling (9 C.F.R. by failing to handle animals during public exhibition with minimal risk of harm to the animals and the public: a. June 18 2009. Respondent exhibited a tiger, silver foxes, kinkajous and wallabies without a public barrier to separate the animals from the public. b. July 21, 2009. Respondent exhibited kinkajous, wallabies, arctic foxes, African porcupine, skunk, and silver foxes in enclosures without adequate distance and/or barriers between the animals and the public. 0. June 15 2010. Respondent exhibited kinkajous, wallabies, opossums, raccoons, African porcupine, coatimundi, skunk, fennec foxes, and silver fox in enclosures without adequate distance and/or barriers between the animals and the public. (1. Auggst 17, 2010. Respondent exhibited kinkajous, wallabies, opossums, 4 coatimundi, skunk, fennec foxes, and silver fox, in enclosures without. adequate distance and/or barriers between the animals and the public. e. November 30. 2010. Respondent exhibited opossums in enclosures without adequate distance and/or barriers between the animals and the public. f. May 25, 2011. Respondent exhibited opossums, porcupine, wallabies, raccoons, and silver foxes, in enclosures without adequate distance and/or barriers between the animals and the public. 8. On June 18, 2009, respondent willfully violated the Regulations, 9 C.F.R. by failing to meet the minimum Standards, as follows: a. Respondent failed to enclose the outdoor area of a sheltered housing facility for non-human primates by a fence of sufficient height to keep unwanted species out. 9 C.F.R. b. Respondent failed to provide a public barrier to restrict access to three non- human primates. 9 C.F.R. 0. Respondent failed to develop or document a plan for environmental enrichment for three non-human primates. 9 C.F.R. 3.81. d. Respondent failed to provide two tigers with adequate shelter from sunlight. 9 C.F.R. e. Respondent failed to provide two tigers with adequate shelter from inclement weather. 9 C.F.R. f. Respondent housed two tigers in enclosures without an adequate perimeter fence. 9 C.F.R. 5 g. Respondent failed to provide a tiger (Apollo) with suf?cient food appropriate to its species, causing the tiger to have metabolic bone disease. 9 C.F.R. h. Respondent housed a female opossum and in an enclosure in the petting 200 area, where the adjacent animals interfered with the opossums? health and caused them discomfort. 9 C.F.R. 3.133. 9. On June 25, 2009, respondent will?illy violated the Regulations by failing to meet the minimum Standards for feeding, 9 C.F.R. and speci?cally, failed to provide a tiger (Apollo) with suf?cient food appropriate to its species, causing the tiger to have metabolic bone disease. 9 C.F.R. 10. On July 21, 2009, respondent willfully violated the Regulations, 9 C.F.R. by failing to meet the minimum Standards, as follows: a. Respondent failed to provide a public barrier to restrict access to three non- human primates. 9 C.F.R. b. Respondent failed to develop or document a plan for environmental enrichment for three non-human primates. 9 C.F.R. 3.81. 0. Respondent failed to provide two tigers with adequate shelter from inclement weather. 9 C.F.R. d. Respondent housed tigers in enclosures Without an adequate perimeter fence. 9 C.F.R. 11. On November 19, 2009, respondent will?illy violated the Regulations, 9 C.F.R. by failing to meet the minimum Standards, as follows: a. Respondent failed to develop or document a plan for environmental enrichment for three non-human primates. 9 C.F.R. 3.81. b. Respondent housed tigers and a lion in enclosures without an adequate perimeter fence. 9 C.F.R. 12. On February 24, 2010, respondent willfully violated the Regulations, 9 C.F.R. by failing to meet the minimum Standards by failing to enclose facilities for large felids and foxes by an adequate perimeter fence. 9 C.F.R. 13. On June 15, 2010, respondent willfully violated the Regulations, 9 C.F.R. by failing to meet the minimum Standards, by housing animals, including skunks, wallabies and Opossum, in enclosures without an adequate perimeter fence. 9 C.F.R. 14. On August 17, 2010, respondent willfully violated the Regulations, 9 C.F.R. by failing to meet the minimum Standards, by housing animals, including tigers and silver foxes, in enclosures without an adequate perimeter fence. 9 C.F.R. 15. On or about November 30, 2010, respondent willfully violated the Regulations, 9 C.F.R. by failing to meet the minimum Standards, as follows: a. Respondent failed to ensure that enclosures for rabbits were structurally sound and in good repair to contain the rabbits, and speci?cally, a Flemish Giant rabbit was able to exit her enclosure'a week preceding the inspection, and as of November 30, 2010, had not been recovered. 9 C.F.R. b. Respondent failed to ensure that enclosures for goats were structurally sound and in good repair to contain the goats, and on or about November 30, 2010, two goats were able to exit their enclosure, and the APHIS inspector observed the goats grazing near the highway outside the respondent?s facility. 9 C.F.R. 7 c. ReSpondent housed silver foxes and tigers in enclosures without an adequate perimeter fence. 9 C.F.R. 16. On April 13, 201 1, respondent willfully violated the Regulations, 9 C.F.R. by failing to meet the minimum Standards, by housing tigers in enclosures without an adequate perimeter fence. 9 C.F.respondent willfully violated the Regulations, 9 C.F.R. by failing to meet the minimum Standards, by housing tigers in enclosures without an adequate perimeter fence. 9 C.F.R. 18. On November 28, 2011, respondent willfully violated the Regulations, 9 C.F.R. by failing to meet the minimum Standards, as follows: a. Respondent failed to provide a tiger with adequate shelter from inclement weather. 9 C.F.R. b. Respondent housed eight tigers in enclosures without an adequate perimeter fence. 9 C.F.R. c. Respondent failed to remove excreta from tiger and lion enclosures as often as necessary. 9 C.F.R. (1. Respondent housed a male lion with other large felids that were not compatible with the lion, resulting in ?ghts which caused injury to the lion. C.F.R. 3.133. WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that for the purpose of determining whether the respondent has in fact willfully violated the Act and the regulations issued under the Act, this complaint shall be served upon the respondent. The respondent shall ?le an answer with the Hearing 8 Clerk, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC. 20250-9200, in accordance with the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act (7 C.F.R. 1.130 gt Failure to ?le an answer shall constitute an admission of all the material allegations of this complaint. APHIS requests that unless the respondent fails to ?le an answer within the time allowed therefor, or ?les an answer admitting all the material allegations of this complaint, this proceeding be set for oral hearing in conformity with the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act; and that such order or orders be issued as are authorized by the Act and warranted under the circumstances. Done at Washington, DC. this /j2 day of 2014 - Ami mal and Plant Health Inspection Service COLLEEN A. CARROLL Attorney for Complainant Of?ce of the General Counsel United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue, SW. Room 2343 South Building Washington, DC. 20250?1400 Telephone (202) 720-6430; 202-690-4299 (Fax) e-mail: colleen.carroll@ogc.usda.gov