LSD ! LJ/O C UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ~ !'. ~:·~ BEFORE THE SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE fu~ ) ) DONALD SCHRAGE, an individual doing ) business as RABBIT RIDGE KENNEL, ) ) Respondent. ) AWADocketNo.16-~ 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 et seq.)(Act or A WA), and the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 1.1 et ~.)(Regulations) promulgated thereunder. Therefore, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health fuspection Service (APIIlS) issues this complaint alleging the following: JURISDICTIONAL ALLEGATIONS 1. Donald Schrage is an individual doing business as Rabbit Ridge Kennel, and whose mailing address is . At all times mentioned herein, respondent was a dealer as that term is defined in the Act and the Regulations and held AWA license number 43-A-1957 (breeder). ALLEGATIONS REGARDING SIZE OF BUSINESS, GRAVITY OF VIOLATIONS, AND COMPLIANCE HISTORY 2. Respondent reported to APHIS receipt of $49,970 from the sale of259 animals in 2014, and $16,775 from the sale of 61 animals in 2015. This complaint alleges multiple instances of failures to provide minimally-adequate veterinary care. Respondent was a respondent in In re Donald Schrage and Mary Ruth Schrage, dba Rabbit Ridge Kennels, AWA Docket No. 95-61 (Consent Decision and Order, July 8, 1996). 1 On February 5, 2001, APHIS issued an official 1 fu addition to a cease-and-desist order, the consent decision assessed the Schrage respondents $12,000, of which $10,000 was suspended as long as they were in compliance with the AWA and the Regulations: A2. Respondents are assessed a civil penalty of$12,000. - 9 ,;, I= 5 2 warning letter to respondent for failing to meet the minimum standards for dogs promulgated under the Act (9 C.F.R. § 3.l-3.19)(Standards). Respondent is currently a respondent in In re Donald Schrage, dba Rabbit Ridge Kennel, AWA Docket No. 15-0081. ALLEGED VIOLATIONS 3. On or about January 25, 2016, respondent failed to provide APHIS with access for inspection and/or to have a responsible adult available to accompany APHIS officials during inspection, in willful violation of the Act and the Regulations. 7 U.S.C. § 2146(a); 9 C.F.R. § 2.126(b). 4. On or about the following dates, respondent failed to provide adequate veterinary care to animals, and failed to establish and maintain programs of adequate veterinary care that included appropriate methods to prevent, control, diagnose, and treat diseases and injuries, and/or daily observation of animals, in willful violation of the Regulations. 9 C.F.R. § 2.40. a. February 9, 2015. An adult male Bichon Frise (#081779872) had overgrown rear dew claws that curled around and had grown into the pads underneath the nails on each foot, with swollen or thickened tissue on both rear feet, and serious dental problems, evidenced by the condition of his gum tissue and the discolored material a. Respondents shall pay $1,000 by certified check or money order made payable to the Treasurer of the United States within 90 days of service of this Order. b. The respondents shall spend $1,000 of the civil penalty on the improvement of Rabbit Ridge Kennels' animal facilities. Such improvement is to be made within six months of the effective date of this consent decision. c. Payment of remaining $10,000 of the civil penalty is hereby suspended as long as respondents comply with the Animal Welfare Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder. In re Schrage, AWA Docket No. 95-61. 3 covenng the surfaces of his teeth, and although respondent's veterinarian had recommended treatment, respondent failed to treat the dog. 9 C.F.R. §§ 2.40(a), 2.40(b)(2). b. February 9, 2015. A female Schnauzer (#087) had flaky skin, patches of hair loss along her back, and thinning hair over her right rear leg, hip, and abdomen. 9 C.F.R. §§ 2.40(a), 2.40(b)(2). c. February 9, 2015. A female Schnauzer (#121), had flaky skin and patches of hair loss along her back and extending over the hips. 9 C.F.R. §§ 2.40(a), 2.40(b)(2). d. February 9, 2015. An adult female chocolate Poodle (#OA02201570) was non-weight-bearing on her left rear leg and had not been seen by a veterinarian for this condition. 9 C.F.R. §§ 2.40(a), 2.40(b)(2). e. November 10, 2015. A female Lhasa Apso (#0754) had a partially closed eye with yellow discharge and dried material. 9 C.F.R. §§ 2.40(a), 2.40(b)(2). £ March 23, 2016. Respondent failed to follow the veterinarian's written Program of Veterinary Care for his ectoparasite control program. 9 C.F.R. § 2.40(b)(2). g. March 23, 2016. A male merle Cocker Spaniel (000016701496) had a mass on his left ear flap near the ear canal and the inside of the ear canal was not clear, his left eye had thick green discharge that had accumulated at the bottom of the eye and browngreen crusty material present in and near the comer of the eye and he had not been seen by a veterinarian for this condition. 9 C.F.R. §§ 2.40(a),2.40(b)(2). h. June 2, 2016. A female Cocker Spaniel (141) had a large amount of discharge from her right ear, her inner ear flap was reddened and moist with abundant 4 thick creamy yellowish-white discharge near the ear canal that was also on the surrounding fur, and she had not been seen by a veterinarian for this condition. 9 C.F.R. §§ 2.40(a), 2 .40(b)(2). 1. June 2, 2016. A white and golden male Lhasa Apso (OA02201909) had a laceration-like lesion on its neck, with exposed red tissue underneath and a thick creamy whitish discharge around the lesion, his fur was blackened and significantly matted, and he had not been seen by a veterinarian for this condition. 9 C.F.R. §§ 2.40(a), 2.40(b)(2). j. June 2, 2016. Respondent was using a bottle of injectable medication (Agri-Cillin) specifically labeled for use on Bovine animals on a Lhasa Apso dog (OA02201909). 9 C.F.R. § 2.40(b)(2). 5. On or about June 23, 2015, respondent failed to make, keep and maintain accurate and complete records of 12 dogs at the facility and of the disposition of 44 dogs, in willful violation of the Regulations. 9 C.F.R. § 2.75(a)(l). 6. On or about the following dates, respondent willfully violated the Regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.IOO(a)), by failing to comply with the minimum standards for dogs: a. February 9, 2015. There was a pile of fecal material and discarded bedding adjacent to four of the outdoor enclosures housing ten dogs. 9 C.F.R. § 3.l(f). b. February 9, 2015. Respondent housed two adult Golden Retrievers in enclosures that did not permit the dogs to raise their heads comfortably. 9 C.F.R. § 3 .6(c)(1 )(iii). c. February 9, 2015. Respondent's self-feeders for eight dogs were 5 contaminated with rodent feces. 9 C.F.R. § 3.9(b). d. February 9, 2015. Food receptacles on. the north side of the sheltered facility, for forty-six dogs, were not protected :from the rain and snow. 9 C.F.R. § 3.9(b). e. February 9, 2015. Respondent failed to establish and maintain an effective pest control program, as evidenced by rodent droppings visible in self-feeders, and the presence of rodent burrows adjacent to self-feeders and inside and outside animal ·enclosures. 9 C.F .R. § 3 .11 (d). f. February 25, 2015. Respondent's self-feeders for sixteen dogs were contaminated with rodent feces. 9 C.F.R. § 3.9(b). g. November 10, 2015. Enclosures housing nine dogs had broken wires with sharp points protruding into the enclosures. 9 C.F.R. § 3.6(a)(2)(i). h. March 23, 2016. In the indoor whelping facility, PVC support pipes and the expanded metal flooring had an accumulation of hair, dirt, and grime built up and there were three plastic whelping boxes that were chewed to create pitted areas. 9 C.F .R. § 3.l(c)(3). 1. June 2, 2016. The wooden floor of an enclosure housing five puppies was not impervious to moisture and was soaked with water. 9 C.F.R. § 3.3(e)(l)(iii). WHEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that for the purpose of determining whether the respondent has in fact willfully violated the Act and the Regulations, this complaint shall be served on the respondent, who shall file an answer with the Hearing Clerk, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250-9200, in accordance with the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act (7 C.F.R. § 1.130 et~.). Failure to file an answer shall constitute an 6 admission of all the material allegations of this complaint. APHIS requests that this proceeding be conducted in accordance with the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act, and .that such order or orders be issued as are authorized by the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2149) and warranted under the circumstances. Done at Washington, D.C., this ,5'~ day of August 2016 evm ea, 1mstrator Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service LAURENE. BECKER Attorney for Complainant Office of the General Counsel United States Department of Agriculture 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W. Room 2343 South Building Washington, D.C. 20250-1400 Telephone (202) 720-7753 e-mail: lauren.becker@ogc.usda.gov