jurisdiction: US

text: b" U.S. Department of Agriculture\n Office of Inspector General\n\n\n\n\nControls Over APHIS Licensing\n of Animal Exhibitors\n\n\n\n\n Audit Report 33601-10-Ch\n June 2010\n\x0c U.S. Department of Agriculture\n Office of Inspector General\n Washington, D.C. 20250\n\n\n\nDATE: June 29, 2010\n\nREPLY TO\nATTN OF: 33601-0010-Ch\n\nTO: Cindy J. Smith\n Administrator\n Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service\n\nATTN: Joanne Munno\n Acting Deputy Administrator\n Marketing and Regulatory Programs Business Services\n\nFROM: Gil H. Harden /s/\n Assistant Inspector General\n for Audit\nSUBJECT: Controls Over Animal Plant Health Inspection Service Licensing of Animal\n Exhibitors\n\n\nThis report presents the results of the subject review. Excerpts of your May 28, 2010,\nresponse and the Office of Inspector General's position are incorporated in the applicable\nsections of the report. Based on you written response, we are accepting your management\ndecision for all audit recommendations in the report and no further response to us is\nnecessary. Please follow your agency\xe2\x80\x99s internal procedures in forwarding documentation for\nfinal actions to the Office of the Chief Financial Officer.\n\nWe appreciate the courtesies and cooperation extended to us by members of your staff during\nthis audit.\n\x0cTable of Contents\n\nExecutive Summary.................................................................................. 1\nBackground & Objectives ........................................................................ 4\n Background ............................................................................................ 4\n Objectives .............................................................................................. 5\nSection 1: APHIS Inspection of Animal Exhibitors................................ 6\n Finding 1: APHIS Needs to Strengthen the Inspection Process to\n Safeguard the Public at Animal Exhibitors .......................................... 6\n Recommendation 1........................................................................ 13\n Recommendation 2........................................................................ 13\n Recommendation 3........................................................................ 14\n Recommendation 4........................................................................ 14\nSection 2: APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 Licensing and Tracking of USDA Exhibitors......... 15\n Finding 2: APHIS Renewed Exhibitor\xe2\x80\x99s Licenses to Individuals Not\n Engaged in Exhibiting Activities ........................................................ 15\n Recommendation 5........................................................................ 17\n Recommendation 6........................................................................ 17\n Finding 3: APHIS Needs to Improve Their Tracking of Licensees\n That Travel with Their Exhibits ........................................................... 18\n Recommendation 7........................................................................ 19\nScope and Methodology ........................................................................ 20\nAbbreviations .......................................................................................... 22\nAgency\xe2\x80\x99s Response................................................................................ 23\n\x0cControls Over APHIS Licensing of Animal Exhibitors\n\nExecutive Summary\nThe Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) administers the Department of\nAgriculture\xe2\x80\x99s (USDA) responsibilities under the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) of 1966, as\namended. The AWA outlines minimum standards for the care and housing of certain warm-\nblooded animals used for research, exhibition, and commerce in order to ensure their humane\ntreatment. APHIS authorizes individuals, carnivals, zoos, circuses, and educational exhibitors to\ndisplay animals to the public by requiring them to obtain USDA exhibitor\xe2\x80\x99s licenses. Federal\nregulations require that during public exhibition, all animals must be handled in such a way as to\nassure the safety of both the animals and the public. APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 Animal Care unit inspects exhibitor\nfacilities based on risk criteria derived from previous inspection results; these criteria include\nprogram violations or other noncompliant items1 identified, as well as the presence of dangerous\nanimals, such as a lion or a tiger, at the licensee\xe2\x80\x99s place of exhibition. In fiscal year 2009,\nAnimal Care inspected nearly all licensed exhibitors at least once, and exhibitors deemed to be of\nhigher risk under APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 criteria were inspected more often. Additional inspections are also\nmade to ensure the timely correction of serious noncompliant items documented in previous\ninspections.2\n\nWe conducted this audit to evaluate whether APHIS has controls to safeguard both the animals\nand members of the public who visit exhibitor facilities. We evaluated animal enclosures and\nfacilities but we did not specifically evaluate exhibitors\xe2\x80\x99 treatment of animals at the sites we\nvisited.3 We also evaluated the corrective actions taken by APHIS in response to\nrecommendations in a prior audit. Since the issuance of our previous report, we found that\nAPHIS had made significant improvements in its controls to ensure that only legitimate\nexhibitors obtain licenses. However, agency officials also need to strengthen their inspection\nprocesses to ensure that licensed exhibitors comply with safety requirements for exhibiting\ndangerous animals. APHIS officials have acknowledged that they need to establish better\nguidance for Animal Care inspectors to enable them to more effectively evaluate exhibitor\ncompliance and have begun to take corrective actions.\n\nDuring this audit, we visited 31 exhibitor facilities to determine whether the facilities complied\nwith APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 safety requirements for dangerous animals, and we questioned safety conditions at\n15 of them. For example, at one facility, we found that a visitor could reach across the public\nbarrier and easily insert a hand into an enclosure where a cougar was being kept. Regulations\nrequire4 that exhibitors provide either a sufficient distance and/or barrier to keep the public safe,\nbut do not specify what distance or barriers would be considered sufficient. Another exhibitor\xe2\x80\x99s\nfacility we visited still had a tiger enclosure whose features were similar to those at another\nfacility which had failed to prevent a tiger from escaping in 2007, resulting in the death of a zoo\nvisitor. Not only did the inspector at this facility not know the details of the escape, but he was\n\n\n1\n A noncompliant item is a finding that the licensee or registrant has not complied with a specific regulation or standard.\n2\n For example, if the inspector notices there is an immediate danger of an animal escaping from its primary enclosure, inspectors would identify\nthis as a direct noncompliant item, require a short correction time frame, and come back within 45 days of the agreed upon correction date to\nverify the correction.\n3\n Nothing came to our attention on the mistreatment of animals in violation of the Animal Welfare Act.\n4\n 9 CFR 2.131 (c) (1), dated July 14, 2004.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 1\n\x0calso unaware of the similarity of the two facilities; thus, he was not in a position to evaluate\nwhether the deficiencies identified at the other facility could also apply to the facility he inspects.\n\nWe attributed this to the fact that when evaluating the safety of exhibitors\xe2\x80\x99 facilities, APHIS\nveterinarians and other field Animal Care inspectors relied on broadly-worded guidance which\nthey had difficulty interpreting. We agreed with APHIS officials\xe2\x80\x99 position that it was not always\npractical to provide explicit guidance on the dimensions or other construction details for each\ntype of animal enclosure. However, we also noted that APHIS did not implement other controls\nto compensate for this, such as instituting a process that would require Animal Care inspectors to\nconsult with APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 designated animal experts when evaluating the adequacy of dangerous\nanimal enclosures, particularly in situations where animal escapes have indicated that a facility\xe2\x80\x99s\nsafety features may be questionable. In addition, APHIS lacked a process to ensure that all\nAnimal Care inspectors were aware of the details regarding incidents that occurred at other\nexhibitors\xe2\x80\x99 facilities nationwide, so that they could determine whether their own facilities might\nbe at risk and take appropriate actions. Also, APHIS regulations do not currently require\nexhibitors to report animal escapes, even when these involve attacks by dangerous animals.\nFinally, we found that Animal Care inspectors did not always receive periodic onsite\nsupervision, and as a result were not consistently identifying safety-related deficiencies during\ntheir facility inspections. As a result of these factors, APHIS Animal Care inspectors were not\nalways aware of potentially dangerous situations at facilities they inspected. If uncorrected,\nthese could result in escapes by dangerous animals that would endanger the visiting public.\n\nWe also found that, although APHIS has strengthened its controls to ensure that only legitimate\nexhibitors receive USDA exhibitor licenses,5 current inspection procedures could still allow non-\nexhibitors to obtain and keep such licenses. Since APHIS did not require licensees to document\ntheir activities, we found that 5 of the 14 exhibitors6 we visited could not prove they had\nexhibited their animals in the past year. In fact, these five exhibitors appeared to maintain their\nexotic animals as pets. We attributed this to the fact that current APHIS regulations and\nprocedures allow Animal Care to renew a license based on the licensee\xe2\x80\x99s stated intent to exhibit,\nrather than on any proof of actual exhibition. As a result, we believe it is still possible for\nindividuals to obtain and keep APHIS exhibitor licenses to assist them in circumventing State\nand local laws which restrict the ownership of dangerous exotic animals.7\n\nFinally, we found that, for 6 of 40 traveling exhibitors we reviewed, Animal Care inspectors\ncould not perform timely reinspections to ensure that serious noncompliant items that were\nidentified in previous inspections had been resolved. For example, one exhibitor continued to\nshow its elephants on the road even though an animal care inspector had previously cited the\nexhibitor for the animals being too thin for travelling exhibition. This occurred because APHIS\nhad no requirement for exhibitors to submit travel itineraries, and the Animal Care inspectors\nwere therefore unable to determine the exhibitors\xe2\x80\x99 current locations. Without reinspection,\nAPHIS Animal Care inspectors cannot determine if the serious safety violations cited have been\ncorrected.\n\n5\n This was originally reported in Audit 33601-01-Ch, Licensing of Animal Exhibitors, dated June 1996.\n6\n We selected these 14 because of their size\xe2\x80\x934 or fewer animals\xe2\x80\x93or because APHIS inspectors had other reasons to believe they might be pet\nowners rather than actual exhibitors.\n7\n In our previous audit, 33601-01-Ch, Licensing of Animal Exhibitors, we concluded that 70 percent of the licensees we visited (with 4 or fewer\nanimals) were pet owners, rather than legitimate exhibitors.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 2\n\x0cWe believe that APHIS needs to strengthen its controls and guidance over animal exhibitors. By\nmaking these improvements, APHIS will be able to better protect the public and ensure that the\nexhibitor program cannot be used to circumvent State and local laws regarding the ownership of\ndangerous animals.\n\n Recommendation Summary\n\n We recommend that APHIS issue clear guidance to Animal Care inspectors, defining what\n constitutes a sufficient public barrier to ensure that visitors maintain a safe distance from\n dangerous animal enclosures. We also recommend that APHIS implement regulations\n requiring exhibitors to report all escapes and attacks involving dangerous animals to APHIS\n Animal Care inspectors, and that APHIS personnel determine the cause of these escapes or\n attacks, document the corrective actions taken, and ensure this information is available to\n other Animal Care inspectors when evaluating similar facilities. We recommend that APHIS\n require its Animal Care inspectors to consult agency experts to assist in evaluating exhibitor\n compliance, especially for those facilities that exhibit dangerous animals. Additionally, we\n recommend that APHIS implement procedures which include supervisory oversight of\n personnel to ensure that, during every inspection, Animal Care inspectors review all of the\n public safety related areas and cite all items that do not meet regulations. Finally, we\n recommend that APHIS implement regulations requiring exhibitors to maintain verifiable\n documentation to support their exhibiting activities and traveling exhibitors to submit their\n itineraries.\n\n Agency Response\n\n In their response dated May 28, 2010, APHIS officials agreed with all the findings and\n recommendations in this report. We have incorporated portions of the APHIS response,\n along with our position, in the applicable sections of this report. APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 response to the\n official draft report is included in its entirety at the end of this report.\n\n OIG Position\n\n Based on APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 response, we have reached management decisions on all recommendations\n in this report.\n\n\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 3\n\x0cBackground & Objectives\n\nBackground\nUnder the Animal Welfare Act (AWA), the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service\n(APHIS) is responsible for regulating the use of certain warm-blooded animals used in research,\nexhibition, and commerce in order to ensure their humane treatment. As part of its mission,\nAPHIS Animal Care is charged with providing leadership in (1) determining standards of\nhumane care and treatment of animals, (2) implementing those standards, and (3) ensuring\ncompliance with those standards through inspection, education, and cooperative efforts. To\nensure that compliance with the AWA is continually maintained, all facilities that exhibit\nanimals regulated under the AWA must be licensed8 with APHIS and inspected on a periodic\nbasis.\n\nAlthough Federal requirements establish minimum acceptable standards, many State and local\ngovernments have their own animal welfare legislation. Some of this legislation provides\nbroader and stricter regulations for the humane care and treatment of animals. Licensees must\nfollow all State and local laws in addition to Federal animal welfare standards. The AWA does\nnot supersede State and local authorities or restrict them in any way when their laws are more\nstringent than the AWA.\n\nAnimal exhibitors are public or private entities that exhibit animals for compensation. In some\ncases, this may be non-monetary,9 such as educational exhibitors. These exhibitors can be\nindividuals, public zoos, roadside zoos, circus/traveling exhibitors, and State parks.\n\nAPHIS requires licensed exhibitors to provide their animals with adequate care and treatment in\nthe areas of housing, handling, transportation, sanitation, nutrition, veterinary care, and\nprotection from extreme weather and temperatures. Exhibitors must maintain, on their premises,\naccurate records of the animals that come into their possession and of the veterinary care the\nanimals receive. Exhibitors must minimize possible harmful risks to animals and the public\nduring public exhibition by providing sufficient distance and/or barriers between the animals and\nthe public.\n\nOur previous audit10 found that 70 percent of the licensed exhibitors visited (with 4 or fewer\nanimals) at the time did not actually exhibit their animals, but instead maintained them as pets.\nWe reported that individuals, using the regulation\xe2\x80\x99s broad definition of an exhibitor, obtained\nexhibitor licenses in order to circumvent State or local laws intended to protect the public by\nrestricting private ownership of wild or exotic animals such as bears and tigers. The previous\naudit found that 14 of the 20 licensees, in this category, were actually pet owners. We concluded\nthat allowing pet owners to use their licenses to circumvent State or local laws could endanger\nboth the animals and the pub1ic. We also concluded that APHIS could conserve its limited\n\n\n\n8\n There are approximately 11 \xe2\x80\x9cregistered\xe2\x80\x9d exhibitors, such as a State-operated park, that are not required to be licensed or pay the applicable fees,\nbut still must meet the same animal care and treatment requirements.\n9\n APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 Animal Welfare website states that compensation is not limited to monetary compensation and in the case of zoos, compensation is not\nrequired for the facility to meet the definition of \xe2\x80\x9cexhibitor.\xe2\x80\x9d\n10\n Audit 33601-01-Ch, Licensing of Animal Exhibitors, dated June 1996.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 4\n\x0cinspection resources by making such non-exhibitors ineligible to receive licenses. The previous\naudit did not evaluate APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 controls over larger exhibitors, such as zoos and circuses.\n\nAPHIS Animal Care is headquartered in Riverdale, Maryland, and has regional offices located in\nRaleigh, North Carolina, and Fort Collins, Colorado. The Animal Care regional offices are\nresponsible for administering the AWA in the specific States within their respective jurisdictions.\nEach regional office employs a cadre of field inspectors (veterinary medical officers and animal\ncare inspectors) within the Animal Care program. APHIS also employs supervisory personnel to\noversee the activities of 8-15 field inspectors. These supervisors are responsible for the review\nand evaluation of generalized and specific compliance problems encountered by field inspectors\nand they aid in enforcing the AWA and in implementing corrective actions. Enforcement of the\nAWA is primarily through periodic, unannounced inspections of regulated entities.\n\nIf, during an unannounced visit, an inspector observes that the facility is not in full compliance\nwith the AWA requirements, he or she will explain to the owner or manager all deficiencies\nnoted during the inspection. The licensee is then given an appropriate amount of time to correct\nthe cited problems and become compliant. In serious cases of negligence or suffering, the\ninspector can recommend formal legal action, including issuing fines or revoking the license.\n\nAPHIS developed a Risk Based Inspection System for inspection to ensure that resources were\neffectively targeted and that entities with the highest risk for noncompliant items are inspected\nmore frequently. Under this system, exhibitors deemed to be of higher risk were required to be\ninspected more often. High-risk facilities with a high probability of AWA violations should be\ninspected three times a year. For example, a facility that allows direct contact with dangerous\nanimals and has a history of AWA violations would be inspected three times a year. A serious\nnoncompliant item, such as an immediate danger of an animal escaping from a primary\nenclosure, requires an inspector to identify this as a direct noncompliant item, require a short\ncorrection time frame, and reinspect within 45 days to verify the correction. In addition, APHIS\nAnimal Care inspectors follow up on complaints from private citizens.\n\nDuring fiscal year 2009, APHIS had 97 Animal Care inspectors who performed over\n4,300 inspections of more than 2,700 exhibitors. When inspecting a facility, APHIS Animal\nCare inspectors are required to observe and document in inspection reports all areas of care and\ntreatment covered by the AWA. In the past few years there have been several dangerous animal\nattacks reported in the media involving licensees such as zoos and circuses. In one incident, a\ntiger at a public zoo escaped its confinement and attacked and killed a visitor. Such incidents\nhave raised questions as to the adequacy of the standards these licensees are required to meet.\n\nObjectives\nThe objectives of our audit were to evaluate APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 controls over the licensing of exhibitors of\nexotic animals, and to evaluate the agency\xe2\x80\x99s efforts to safeguard both the animals and members\nof the public who visit exhibitor facilities. As part of this audit we followed up on the\nrecommendations of our previous audit to determine if adequate corrective actions had been\nimplemented.\n\n\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 5\n\x0cSection 1: APHIS Inspection of Animal Exhibitors\n\nFinding 1: APHIS Needs to Strengthen the Inspection Process to\nSafeguard the Public at Animal Exhibitors\nIn our visits to the facilities of 31 APHIS-licensed animal exhibitors, we questioned safety\nconditions at 15 of them. APHIS Animal Care inspectors did not report these conditions because\nthey had difficulty interpreting the broadly-worded guidance that was available for evaluating\nfacilities\xe2\x80\x99 compliance with safety requirements. At the same time, officials had not implemented\nother controls and processes\xe2\x80\x93such as a requirement for Animal Care inspectors to consult with\nAPHIS\xe2\x80\x99 designated animal experts when certain conditions arise\xe2\x80\x93which would have\ncompensated for the lack of detailed guidance. Finally, due to factors including a lack of\nperiodic onsite supervision, we noted several instances in which APHIS Animal Care inspectors\neither failed to identify safety-related deficiencies during inspections, or failed to document the\nconditions and require corrective actions. As a result, we found a lack of consistency in the\nsafety determinations made by APHIS Animal Care inspectors from one facility to another, and\nin some cases between different Animal Care inspectors at a single facility. In addition, at two\nfacilities we visited, we identified potentially dangerous situations which, at other similar\nfacilities, had allowed dangerous animals to escape their enclosures. Without clear and\nconsistent standards to follow and a process that ensures that potentially dangerous conditions\nare identified and remedied, APHIS cannot adequately ensure the safety of the animals, or of the\npublic who visits the various zoos, circuses, and other exhibitors who operate under an APHIS\nlicense.\n\nThe AWA, which APHIS enforces, is designed primarily to address the safety of animals rather\nthan that of the public. However, APHIS does have regulations included in Title 9 of the Code\nof Federal Regulations (9 CFR) which address public safety. The regulations require Animal\nCare inspectors to ensure that exhibits have enclosures sufficient to contain the animals,11 and\nthat these provide a sufficient distance and/or barrier to keep the public safe.12 They also require\nan exhibitor with dangerous animals to have a perimeter fence around the entire exhibit that is at\nleast eight feet high.13 However, these regulations and other APHIS guidance do not specifically\ndescribe how to achieve those assurances. APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 inspection guide requires that Animal Care\ninspectors develop a consistent method to ensure that inspections are thorough and accurate. 14\nWhen Animal Care inspectors become aware of any escapes or attacks by dangerous animals\nthey are to report the incidents to their APHIS regional office, but the regulations did not require\nexhibitors to do the same.\n\nWe judgmentally selected 31 exhibitor facilities to evaluate APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 inspection process.15\nDuring our audit we found that Animal Care inspectors determined 15 of the 31 facilities to be\nadequate even when there were potentially unsafe conditions present. For example, even though\nexhibitors are required to keep members of the public at a safe distance from dangerous animal\nenclosures, we noted at one facility that the public barrier was narrow enough that a visitor could\n\n11\n 9 CFR 2.131 (c) (1), dated July 14, 2004.\n12\n 9 CFR 3.125 (a), dated November 2, 1979.\n13\n 9 CFR 3.127 (d), dated November 28, 2000.\n14\n APHIS Exhibitor Inspection Guide, section 6.1.1, dated November 2004.\n15\n See Scope and Methodology section for a description of how we selected our sample.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 6\n\x0creach across it into an enclosure where a cougar was being confined. At 10 facilities, Animal\nCare inspectors stated that the regulations were not clear enough to support citing unsafe\nconditions which they believed to exist at those facilities. At five facilities, even though\nsufficient requirements existed, the Animal Care inspectors failed to detect or document\ndeficiencies. In addition, the Animal Care inspectors were unaware that their facilities had\nenclosures similar to the ones that had previously failed to contain dangerous animals.\n\nBroadly-Worded Guidance\n\nAPHIS officials did not provide clear guidance to their Animal Care inspectors to ensure safety\nconditions were reported at 10 of the exhibitor facilities we visited. Neither the AWA\nregulations nor APHIS guidance for evaluating the adequacy of exhibitors\xe2\x80\x99 animal enclosure\nareas and public barriers listed specific criteria, such as required dimensions for enclosure walls\nor moats. Some APHIS officials stated that, because each animal exhibitor facility was unique,\nanimal escapes or attacks occurring at one facility were not indicative of potential risks at others.\nInstead, APHIS used performance-based inspection criteria16 that gave wide discretion to\nindividual Animal Care inspectors. Both APHIS regional and Headquarters officials interpreted\nthese criteria to mean that a particular enclosure, enclosure area, or public barrier can be\nevaluated as safe based on the grounds that there had been no prior escapes or attacks. APHIS\nofficials stated they used performance-based criteria because other factors besides the design of\nthe enclosure area\xe2\x80\x93such as the age and physical condition of the animals\xe2\x80\x93must be taken into\nconsideration in deciding if the enclosure is adequate.\n\nWe found that APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 use of performance-based inspection criteria has a basic weakness.\nUnlike engineering criteria that require, for example, that a given fence be a specific height,\nperformance-based inspection criteria require that facilities be sufficient to achieve the goals of\ncontaining their animals while keeping the public out. While we agree with the officials\xe2\x80\x99\nposition that it would not be feasible to develop precise engineering requirements to fit every\nspecific circumstance, we also believe that APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 performance-based standards, as currently\napplied, may not be sufficient to guide an inspector in determining whether an exhibitor\xe2\x80\x99s facility\nis adequate to achieve safety goals which the standards call for. This can result in situations\nwhere APHIS Animal Care inspectors do not cite apparent safety concerns or require corrective\nactions until an event\xe2\x80\x93such as an escape or attack by a dangerous animal\xe2\x80\x93has already occurred.\nAt present, APHIS lacks the additional controls and processes needed to overcome these\nweaknesses.\n\nAt 7 of the 10 facilities we visited, we found that Animal Care inspectors agreed with our\nobservations regarding apparent safety deficiencies. However, they stated that they did not\nbelieve the regulations or other guidelines were specific enough to support them in citing these\nas noncompliant items. The following examples illustrate the type of problems we found at these\nseven exhibitors. At one public zoo we visited, the cheetah enclosure had failed on three\nseparate occasions over a period of 8 years to prevent escapes by these animals. We found that\non one occasion a cheetah had escaped by jumping across the enclosure\xe2\x80\x99s moat, and on two\nothers by jumping over the back wall. According to an APHIS inspector and zoo officials, the\n\n\n16\n Performance-based criteria require that a facility achieve a certain goal, such as containing an animal, without outlining specific requirements\non how to achieve that goal.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 7\n\x0czoo did make changes to the enclosure after each escape. However, the inspector told us that\nthere was no certainty that the changes would be effective because the regulations were too\nvague to use.17 The inspector stated that she relied on the word of the zoo staff and the fact that\nthe Association of Zoos and Aquariums had recently re-accredited this facility in making her\ndetermination that the enclosure was sufficient. An APHIS Headquarters official stated that\nAnimal Care inspectors should not rely on anyone other than an APHIS designated official or\nexpert as an authority when making such determinations. APHIS personnel are encouraged to\nconsult these experts when questions arise regarding the health, care, or enclosure of the animals\ninvolved. Inspectors are specifically instructed by their supervisors that if they have a question\nabout a regulatory decision they are to contact their supervisor or one of the APHIS experts.\n\nAt another facility, we found that the public barrier was so close to a cougar enclosure that a\nvisitor could reach across the barrier and insert a hand into the enclosure (see Photograph No. 1).\nThe inspector for this facility did not feel the public barrier was safe, but stated that she could not\ncite a noncompliance or require corrective action because there had not been any documented\nattacks related to this barrier.\n\n\n\n\n Photograph No. 1\n An OIG auditor reached her arm over the public barrier and touched the cage\n containing a cougar, showing that a member of the public could reach a hand into the\n enclosure.\n\nAt another facility, we found that tigers, bears, lions, and other dangerous animals were regularly\nexhibited to groups of 30 schoolchildren who would visit the facility for guided tours. At this\nfacility, the \xe2\x80\x9cpublic barrier\xe2\x80\x9d consisted of no more than single lengths of plastic chain that varied\nfrom 30 inches to as low as 12 inches above the ground, which a child could cross (see\nPhotograph No. 2). As a result, the facility depended on tour guides to maintain sufficient\n\n\n\n\n17\n 9 CFR 3.125 (a), dated November 2, 1979.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 8\n\x0cdistance between the animal enclosures and the public.18 The inspector believed this to be an\nunsafe situation, but stated that she could not require the exhibitor to change this because of the\nlack of support in the regulations.\n\n\n\n\n Photograph No. 2\n A plastic chain used as a public barrier at an exhibitor\xe2\x80\x99s lion exhibit.\n\nWe found that APHIS Animal Care inspectors did not regularly consult with the agency\xe2\x80\x99s\nresident animal expert to determine if an animal enclosure or barrier was sufficient. In the\nexample where a cheetah escaped by jumping over a wall, the APHIS inspector stated that she\ndid not consult the animal expert about the moat width, log placement, or wall heights of this\nexhibit before making a determination of its adequacy. These designated animal experts19 have\nspecialized knowledge that allows them to assist Animal Care inspectors in evaluating the\nsufficiency of specific exhibitors\xe2\x80\x99 facilities, as well as to answer general questions about animal\ncare. APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 current procedures encourage\xe2\x80\x93but do not require\xe2\x80\x93its Animal Care inspectors to\nseek out this assistance. Of nine Animal Care inspectors we interviewed who expressed\nconcerns that written requirements for public barriers were too broad to be useful, only three had\never consulted with APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 animal experts to resolve public safety questions during inspections.\nAPHIS Headquarters officials stated that they believed that their animal experts may not have\nalways been consulted in such cases because some supervisors require that Animal Care\ninspectors first go through their own regional offices before contacting the designated experts.\n\n\n18\n We have noted that tour guides have not always been able to keep the public safely away from dangerous animals at other facilities. For\nexample, at another facility we visited which also used tour guides as public barriers, documentation indicated that a member of the public had a\nfinger bitten off by a bear. We discussed this matter with the exhibitor, who stated that APHIS requirements changed several times since the\nincident depending on the APHIS inspector assigned. He emphasized that the regulations only mention that a sufficient barrier is needed to\nprotect the public and animal, and APHIS has not defined a \xe2\x80\x9csufficient barrier.\xe2\x80\x9d\n19\n APHIS has designated three experts; one each in the areas of non-human primates, elephants, and big cats. APHIS personnel are encouraged to\nconsult these experts when questions arise regarding the health, care, or enclosure of the animals involved. APHIS also uses the expert for big\ncats to answer any questions about all animals that are not non-human primates or elephants.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 9\n\x0cAn APHIS Headquarters official acknowledged that the guidance regarding public barriers\nneeded to be clarified, and we believe this would be of significant assistance to the Animal Care\ninspectors. This same official agreed that field Animal Care inspectors would also benefit if they\nbetter utilized their resident animal experts to answer technical questions on animal enclosures\nand public barrier concerns.\n\nInspector Oversight in Detecting Deficiencies\n\nAPHIS Animal Care inspectors did not report deficient items that involved public safety for five\nexhibitors we visited, even though sufficient guidance was available to allow them to make these\ndeterminations. We attributed this to certain factors including the lack of a requirement for\nperiodic onsite visits by APHIS Animal Care supervisors, who should have identified and\ncorrected such deficiencies in the inspection process.\n\nWe noted the following examples:\n\n \xc2\xb7 At one facility, we found a 12-inch gap at the bottom of a perimeter gate through which a\n child could access the lion and tiger primary enclosures. In addition, we found several\n places where the perimeter fences around exhibits housing dangerous exotic cats had\n sagged from the required 8 feet down to 7 feet. However, these deficiencies were not\n cited in prior inspection reports and the inspector only cited them as noncompliant items\n following our own observations. The inspector stated that she had never noticed these\n conditions prior to our visit, and stated that they could not catch everything during\n inspections. An APHIS Headquarters official stated that even a 1 foot difference in a\n perimeter fence is critical because it acts as a secondary enclosure which can prevent or\n delay the animal\xe2\x80\x99s escape. We conclude that allowing such deficiencies to persist gives\n APHIS reduced assurance that either the animals or the public have been properly\n safeguarded.\n \xc2\xb7 In a visit to another facility, we found that the primary enclosure for an exhibit that\n housed three coyotes lacked the required perimeter fence. The APHIS inspector stated\n that he was not going to cite this exhibitor because, due to the exhibit\xe2\x80\x99s location in a rural\n area, he did not feel it was a danger. We recognize that the Animal Care inspectors are\n given discretion on when to write up indirect noncompliant items.20 However, an APHIS\n Headquarters official confirmed that this should have been cited as a noncompliant item\n because the lack of a perimeter fence can threaten both the animal and the public,\n regardless of mitigating circumstances such as those stated by the inspector. The\n supervisor for this inspector accompanied inspectors on inspections at least once a year;\n however, she had not been to this facility. We have concluded that with adequate time\n and effort, the supervisor would eventually have uncovered and addressed the inspector\xe2\x80\x99s\n refusal to cite the noncompliance.\n\nWe attributed instances of this type, in part, to the fact that APHIS had not implemented a\nrequirement that Animal Care supervisors periodically accompany each inspector during\ninspections to exhibitors or other licensed facilities. This compensating control would allow\n\n20\n An indirect noncompliant item is one that violates the AWA, but does not threaten the animal\xe2\x80\x99s health or public safety.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 10\n\x0csupervisors to review and evaluate the performance of each inspector, and to correct any\nweaknesses\xe2\x80\x93such as overlooked or undocumented violations\xe2\x80\x93that might be observed.\n\nAnimal Escapes and Attacks\n\nAPHIS\xe2\x80\x99 current inspection processes are largely based on the assumption that Animal Care\ninspectors can consistently and correctly evaluate the adequacy and safety of animal enclosure\nfacilities using their own knowledge, training, and experience. During our audit, however, we\nconcluded that Animal Care inspectors were called upon to make determinations about the safety\nof animal enclosures even though they may not have been aware of relevant information\xe2\x80\x93such as\nspecific details of escapes and attacks at other, similar facilities\xe2\x80\x93which could influence their\ndecisions. In addition, Animal Care inspectors were not always aware of incidents that had\noccurred at exhibits for which they themselves were responsible because exhibitors were not\nrequired to report these. The APHIS Exhibitor Inspection Guide requires that Animal Care\ninspectors report to the regional office any incident that involves dangerous animals once they\nlearn about the incident. APHIS regional officials stated that the Animal Care inspectors do\ninform them when they learn of incidents that involve dangerous animals. However, regional\nofficials stated that while they do inform Animal Care inspectors when there have been escapes\nor attacks, they generally do not disseminate the details of these incidents because they believe\nthat each facility is \xe2\x80\x9ctoo unique to compare,\xe2\x80\x9d and that doing so might cause confusion on the part\nof the Animal Care inspectors.\n\nTo evaluate this, we obtained drawings, photographs, and key dimensions of facilities for\ndangerous animals at several public zoos, and discussed these with APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 animal expert. She\nstated that it is sometimes possible to compare key safety features21 at different facilities to\ndetermine whether documented design deficiencies at one facility may indicate a similar risk at\nothers that share similar characteristics. This contradicts APHIS officials\xe2\x80\x99 statement that\nfacilities are \xe2\x80\x9ctoo unique to compare.\xe2\x80\x9d As a result, APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 standard practice of not\ndisseminating such information\xe2\x80\x93either directly to Animal Care inspectors or through the\ndesignated animal experts\xe2\x80\x93caused at least two Animal Care inspectors to repeatedly approve\nexhibits that, according to APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 animal expert, could use additional review, as these exhibits\nwere similar to other exhibits at which incidents involving dangerous animals had occurred.\n\nFor example, we visited a public zoo, where a tiger, in 2007, escaped from an enclosure and\nattacked and killed a zoo patron. Although the Animal Care inspectors we interviewed at other\nexhibitor facilities we visited were aware of the escape, they did not know the details of how it\nhad occurred. In discussions with APHIS Headquarters officials, we found that APHIS had not\nperformed a review to identify other exhibitors whose facilities might be sufficiently similar to\nthe zoo involved in the 2007 tiger attack to put them at risk. However, in our field visits to eight\npublic zoos, we identified one whose tiger enclosure appeared very similar to the one that had\nfailed in 2007. We provided APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 animal expert with drawings, including key dimensions, of\nthese two exhibits and requested that she compare them. Based on her expertise, and on her\n\n\n\n21\n These can include the height of enclosure walls and the width of moats surrounding animal enclosures. However, these can also be affected by\nother design features such as the presence of electrified \xe2\x80\x9chot\xe2\x80\x9d wires around the enclosures, or the presence or absence of water in the moats. The\nsize, age, and physical condition of the animals in any particular enclosure must also be evaluated as part of an inspector\xe2\x80\x99s safety determination.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 11\n\x0cknowledge of the events surrounding the 2007 attack,22 she believed that the exhibit we visited\ncould use modifications to better ensure the safety of the public. We believe when escapes or\nattacks by dangerous animals occur, APHIS needs a process to determine whether other\nexhibitors with similar facilities need to be re-evaluated to ensure their continued safety.\n\nAt another public zoo we visited, a cheetah escaped from an enclosure in a manner similar to an\nescape at another facility a few years earlier. The inspector for the first facility stated that she\nhad never heard of any previous cheetah escapes. She also stated that, if she had, she would\nhave re-evaluated this exhibit using the details of the previous escape to ensure that this exhibit\ndid not have the same issues. Although no attacks occurred as a result of either of these escapes,\nthe possibility did exist since, in both cases, the escaped animals were first encountered by\nvisitors of the zoos. APHIS officials stated there was no requirement for exhibitors to report\nescapes to APHIS, even when they result in attacks by dangerous animals. The zoos did make\nchanges to the enclosures after the escapes; however, since the Animal Care inspectors were not\naware of these escapes, they continued to deem the enclosures sufficient without reevaluating\nthem in light of the incidents. In addition, since APHIS officials did not know about these\nincidents and the resulting changes to the enclosures, there was no way to inform other Animal\nCare inspectors at similar facilities about these incidents even though the information could\naffect their evaluations of the facilities.\n\nAn APHIS Headquarters official stated that field employees do make use of information about\nattacks and escapes from other exhibitor facilities when it is available to them. He continued by\nsaying that, while there currently is no requirement for exhibitors to report escapes or attacks\ninvolving dangerous animals, it would be a good idea to require them to do so. He also stated\nthat Animal Care inspectors need to know what goes on at their facilities as well as at other\nfacilities. In addition, officials at APHIS Headquarters stated that, due to the vague language of\nthe regulations, it is hard for Animal Care inspectors to argue that a public barrier is, or is not,\nsufficient. According to an APHIS official, APHIS has not implemented specific requirements\nbecause there are no scientifically based standards available. This issue is complicated because\nfacilities and animals are so different and that the establishment of specific standards is difficult.\n\nTo ensure that APHIS Animal Care inspectors are able to adequately safeguard both animals and\nthe public at the exhibitors they oversee, they need to be provided with the best and most current\nguidance and information possible to make their safety determinations. In some instances, such\nas the adequacy of public barriers to keep visitors away from dangerous animal enclosures, we\nagree with APHIS officials that this can be accomplished through clarifications to the existing\nregulations and other written guidance. However, since we also agree that the regulations cannot\naddress every situation that Animal Care inspectors may encounter during their inspections, we\nbelieve that APHIS also needs to implement a process under which the designated animal experts\nwould have greater involvement in evaluating the safety of enclosures containing dangerous\nanimals. This\xe2\x80\x93along with a process under which the designated experts would review incidents\ninvolving dangerous animal escapes, to determine and document their causes\xe2\x80\x93would ensure that\nrelevant information would be available to the Animal Care inspectors in making their safety\n\n\n22\n The animal expert had earlier analyzed the events surrounding the 2007 attack, and compiled her findings and recommendations in a formal\npresentation. Our review of this presentation found that the information was useful. However, as of January 2010, this had received only limited\ndistribution to approximately 30 percent of the inspectors within APHIS.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 12\n\x0cdeterminations. This involvement should include, but not be limited to, either onsite visits or\nreviews of photographs and design specifications for new or existing facilities. In addition, we\nbelieve that APHIS should implement a time-phased plan under which the designated experts\nwould\xe2\x80\x93on a schedule to be set by APHIS Animal Care\xe2\x80\x93have the opportunity to review and\nevaluate all pre-existing dangerous animal enclosures maintained by licensed exhibitors. Finally,\nto ensure that Animal Care inspectors are performing comprehensive inspection reviews and are\nuniformly enforcing the requirements of the regulations, we believe that APHIS officials need to\nensure Animal Care inspectors receive periodic, onsite supervision while performing inspection\nduties.\n\n Recommendation 1\n\n Issue clear regulations and guidance that define what constitutes a sufficient public barrier\n and require exhibitors to report all escapes and attacks involving dangerous animals to\n APHIS Animal Care inspectors.\n\n Agency Response\n\n In their response dated May 28, 2010, APHIS officials stated that they agreed with this\n recommendation and will develop a regulatory work plan to amend current regulations to\n clarify the intent of the public barriers and to require notification of all escapes and attacks.\n They also stated that APHIS will issue guidance to define what constitutes a sufficient public\n barrier and include this guidance in Animal Care's consolidated Inspection Guides. APHIS\n anticipates issuing the new guidance by September 30, 2010, and completing the\n development of the regulatory work plan by December 31, 2010.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision.\n\n Recommendation 2\n\n Implement a process to better utilize resident animal experts that would require Animal Care\n inspectors to submit technical questions in order to evaluate the safety of any newly-designed\n enclosure areas for dangerous animals, and establish a time-phased plan to review all existing\n facilities.\n\n Agency Response\n\n APHIS officials stated in their response that they agreed with this recommendation and that\n APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 Field Specialists (animal experts) will evaluate new enclosures and, according to a\n time-phased plan, review existing facilities. APHIS officials stated that a safety checklist/\n survey will be developed for inspectors to complete and forward with photos to the\n appropriate Specialist. APHIS officials stated that all enclosures for dangerous animals\n\n\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 13\n\x0c would be evaluated within 2 years. APHIS anticipates the process to evaluate new\n enclosures, the time phased plan, and the safety checklist/survey to be developed and\n distributed to the employees by September 30, 2010.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision.\n\n Recommendation 3\n\n Implement a process to ensure that APHIS personnel determine the cause of dangerous\n animal escapes or attacks, document the corrective actions taken, and ensure that this\n information is readily available to all Animal Care inspectors when evaluating similar\n facilities in their respective jurisdictions.\n\n Agency Response\n\n In their response, APHIS officials stated that they currently determine and/or document the\n cause of all known escapes and attacks, but plan to implement a 2-tiered approach to incident\n reporting. Tier 1 involves disseminating initial information of the escape/attack immediately\n after notification, and Tier 2 involves disseminating followup information in the form of a\n formal update from the appropriate Field Specialist once the situation has been investigated\n and/or evaluated and corrective action has been determine. APHIS officials stated that they\n began implementing this notification process on May 20, 2010.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision.\n\n Recommendation 4\n\n Implement procedures requiring periodic onsite supervisory visits to ensure that inspections\n of exhibitor facilities meet APHIS standards in a consistent manner.\n\n Agency Response\n\n APHIS officials stated that changes are already underway to address this issue based on the\n OIG Audit of Problematic Dog Dealers (2010). The response stated that Animal Care will\n increase its field supervisory capabilities and oversight of inspectors, allowing amplified\n supervisory presence on more inspections by September 30, 2010.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision.\n\n\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 14\n\x0cSection 2: APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 Licensing and Tracking of USDA Exhibitors\n\nFinding 2: APHIS Renewed Exhibitor\xe2\x80\x99s Licenses to Individuals Not\nEngaged in Exhibiting Activities\nWe found that APHIS renewed Department of Agriculture (USDA) exhibitor licenses to\nindividuals who could not provide evidence that they had actually exhibited their animals.\nAPHIS officials stated that they did not believe that the AWA allowed them to require existing\nlicensees to submit proof of their exhibiting activities, and therefore did not implement\nregulations to require that proof.23 APHIS officials have made significant progress in\nstrengthening their regulations and procedures in response to our prior audit, and our field visits\non this audit disclosed a greatly reduced incidence of licensees who appeared to be pet owners\nrather than true exhibitors. However, because regulations under the AWA do not require\nlicensees to provide documentation of their exhibition activities, we found that it was still\npossible for individuals to use exhibitor licenses to obtain and keep exotic animals as pets and\nthereby circumvent State and local laws.\n\nThe AWA provides APHIS the authority to issue exhibitor\xe2\x80\x99s licenses to individuals that exhibit\nanimals to the public. Because an applicant is not permitted to exhibit animals before obtaining\na license, APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 initial approval must be based on the applicant\xe2\x80\x99s stated intent to exhibit.\nAPHIS officials stated that they do have the authority to deny an applicant\xe2\x80\x99s request for a\nlicense\xe2\x80\x93or an existing licensee\xe2\x80\x99s request for renewal\xe2\x80\x93but only if the agency can substantiate that\nan applicant\xe2\x80\x99s or licensee\xe2\x80\x99s intent was to circumvent State or local law and keep the animals as\npets.24\n\nAt the time we issued our previous audit report on this program in 1996,25 APHIS regulations\nonly required applicants to undergo an inspection of their facilities and to pay a licensing fee\nbefore receiving a license. They did not provide APHIS the authority to withhold issuing a\nlicense based on whether or not an applicant actually intended to exhibit. As a result, our sample\nof 20 licensees who maintained 4 or fewer animals26 showed that 14 (70 percent) were not true\nexhibitors, and had obtained their licenses to aid them in circumventing State or local laws that\nrestricted private ownership of dangerous exotic animals. Based on our audit, APHIS officials\ntook action to strengthen their regulations to address this weakness. Included in these changes\nwere requirements for applicants to state their intent to exhibit their animals as part of their\napplication, and to provide proof of their training and/or experience in handling dangerous\nanimals. However, APHIS officials did not believe that the AWA granted them the authority to\nrequire that exhibitors, once they receive their licensees, provide Animal Care with\ndocumentation of their activities. As a result, we believe it is possible for a licensee to maintain\nhis or her status as an exhibitor indefinitely without ever actually exhibiting their animals.\n\n\n\n23\n The AWA grants APHIS the authority to regulate animal exhibition including the issuance of exhibitor licenses in such form and manner as it\nmay prescribe. In our review of the Act, we did not note any language that would prohibit APHIS from requiring exhibitors who are up for\nrenewal to present proof of exhibiting activities.\n24\n 9 CFR 2.11 (a) (5), dated July 14, 2004.\n25\n Audit 33601-01-Ch Licensing of Animal Exhibitors, dated June 1996.\n26\n We concluded that this group, as opposed to larger exhibitors such as zoos and circuses, had a greater likelihood of being pet owners rather\nthan exhibitors. See Audit 33601-01-Ch Licensing of Animal Exhibitors, dated June 1996.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 15\n\x0cOur review found that, because of this, APHIS had continued to renew exhibitor licenses from\nyear to year for individuals whom we concluded were not actually exhibiting dangerous animals,\nsuch as bears and cougars, but rather were keeping them as pets. Of the 31 licensed exhibitors\nwe reviewed, we selected 14 because they resided in States whose laws restricted the private\nownership of dangerous animals to licensed exhibitors, and because they either maintained 4 or\nfewer dangerous animals27 or were identified by APHIS Animal Care inspectors as possible pet\nowners. Since APHIS did not require exhibitors to document their activities, we found that\nAPHIS renewed the licenses for five of these (36 percent), without proof that the licensees had\nactually exhibited their animals during the previous year. For instance, we found that:\n\n \xc2\xb7 One licensee, in a prior year\xe2\x80\x99s application, stated that he wanted to exchange his USDA\n breeder\xe2\x80\x99s license (which authorized him to breed cougars) for an exhibitor\xe2\x80\x99s license in\n order to keep his animals. The county in which this individual lived had recently passed\n a law prohibiting the ownership of big cats unless a USDA exhibitor\xe2\x80\x99s license was\n obtained. This licensee could not provide any evidence that the animals had ever been\n exhibited. In addition, the statement on the application concerning the reason for\n obtaining the license did not appear sufficient to demonstrate licensee\xe2\x80\x99s intent to exhibit.\n\n \xc2\xb7 A second licensee stated that she no longer advertised her cougar exhibit, and that no\n records were kept of instances where she had exhibited her cougars. She stated that her\n \xe2\x80\x9cboyfriend sometimes brings people to the facility to show them the animals,\xe2\x80\x9d and that\n this was how she met APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 requirements to be a USDA licensed exhibitor. Based on\n her statements, we concluded that her activities were those of a pet owner, not an\n exhibitor.\n\n \xc2\xb7 A third licensee provided scraps of paper\xe2\x80\x94without specific dates\xe2\x80\x94that listed the names\n of several people who had visited her property over the past 2 years (2007-2008). She\n explained that all but one of these visitors were either co-workers, friends, relatives, or\n neighbors. She added that she considered her bobcat and other animals as her pets, and\n that she treated them in that manner. As a result, we considered her evidence of\n exhibition to be very questionable.\n\n \xc2\xb7 The other two licensees were unable to provide proof of exhibition, with one licensee\n stating that he obtained his bears so his son could have a pet.\n\nAPHIS regional officials stated that the agency cannot deny requests for license renewals\nwithout evidence, even if the Animal Care inspectors have doubts that the licensees are actually\nexhibiting, because under existing regulations the burden of proof rests with APHIS rather than\nwith the licensee. In addition, officials stated that Office of the General Counsel (OGC) verbally\ninformed them that they could not deny an individual a USDA exhibitor\xe2\x80\x99s license on the grounds\nthat they were not exhibiting their animals. However, we found that this was not a written\nopinion and that there was no evidence OGC had been considering this issue.\n\n\n\n\n27\n Our previous audit, 33601-01-Ch, Licensing of Animal Exhibitors, dated June 1996, found that USDA exhibitor licensees who kept 4 or fewer\nanimals were more likely to be pet owners.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 16\n\x0cAPHIS, with its exhibitor licenses, authorizes the act of animal exhibition rather than actual\nownership of exotic animals. Therefore, we concur with agency officials\xe2\x80\x99 position that the\nissuance of such licenses should be restricted to those individuals or organizations who truly\nintend to exhibit rather than to maintain animals as pets. Our field visits indicated that APHIS,\nas a result of its 2004 regulatory changes, had made significant progress in eliminating private\nexotic pet owners from the ranks of its exhibitor licensees. However, the fact that licenses can\ncontinue to be renewed from year to year based solely on a stated intent to exhibit may continue\nto provide a means for individuals to obtain and hold exhibitor licenses for purposes other than\nthose authorized under the Act. We believe that APHIS Animal Care officials should request a\nformal written opinion from OGC to determine whether, under existing regulations, their Animal\nCare inspectors may require licensees to provide documented proof of their activities and to\nwithhold license renewal in any case where this cannot be provided. If so, we believe that\nAPHIS officials should implement additional procedures that allow Animal Care inspectors to\nrequire proof of exhibition in any cases where this might be reasonably questioned. If OGC\ndetermines that the current regulations do not support this, we believe that APHIS officials\nshould seek to amend the regulations to make this possible. We believe that only in this way can\nAPHIS have reasonable assurance that its exhibitor licenses are being issued only to those\nengaged in activities covered by the AWA.\n\n Recommendation 5\n\n Obtain and document advice from OGC to determine whether APHIS can deny an\n individual\xe2\x80\x99s request for a USDA exhibitor\xe2\x80\x99s license renewal if that individual cannot prove\n he or she had exhibited animals to the public. If so, implement procedures for Animal Care\n inspectors to verify licensees\xe2\x80\x99 exhibiting activities in cases where this is considered\n questionable at the time of license renewal.\n\n Agency Response\n\n In their response, APHIS officials agreed to submit a formal request to OGC, by June 30,\n 2010, on the current interpretation of the AWA regulations and standards in order to\n determine what changes would be needed to support the intent of this recommendation.\n Based on OGC\xe2\x80\x99s response, APHIS will implement the action needed to establish this\n requirement and/or policy by December 31, 2010.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision.\n\n Recommendation 6\n\n If OGC issues an opinion that regulatory changes would be required, implement regulations\n to require that licensees provide verifiable documentation of exhibiting activities, if\n requested, before renewing an existing license.\n\n\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 17\n\x0c Agency Response\n\n APHIS officials agreed with the recommendation and stated that based on the response from\n OGC, APHIS will implement the action needed to establish this requirement and/or policy by\n December 31, 2010.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision.\n\nFinding 3: APHIS Needs to Improve Their Tracking of Licensees That\nTravel with Their Exhibits\nOur analysis28 of APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 oversight of 40 traveling exhibitors (i.e., circuses) found that Animal\nCare inspectors could not timely locate 6 of these in order to conduct critical reinspections. 29\nAlthough APHIS has proposed new regulations that would require traveling exhibitors to submit\nup-to-date travel itineraries, it has not established an effective date for the requirement to be\nimplemented. Without reinspections, some traveling exhibitors possessing dangerous animals\nmay fail to correct previously-cited deficiencies that could endanger both the exhibitors\xe2\x80\x99 animals\nand the public.\n\nAPHIS Animal Care inspectors perform routine inspections of traveling exhibitors to ensure the\nprimary enclosures for dangerous animals are sufficient to prevent escape, and that other\nrequirements to safeguard both the animals and the public have been met. APHIS guidelines\nstate that when an inspector identifies a condition that would currently and adversely affect the\nanimal or the public, the inspector will identify this as a direct noncompliant item, require a short\ncorrection timeframe, and reinspect the exhibitor's facility within 45 days of the correction date\nagreed upon by the inspector and exhibitor. However, because some traveling exhibitors do not\nroutinely provide their current travel locations to APHIS, the Animal Care inspectors are not\nalways able to timely reinspect these exhibitors to ensure that the cited deficiencies have been\nsatisfactorily corrected. While it is APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 standard practice to request that traveling exhibitors\nsubmit their current itineraries, the regulations do not specifically require them to do so.\n\nWe evaluated APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 reinspections performed for 40 traveling exhibitors that were cited with\n165 serious violations that placed either the animals or the public at risk. Based on our\nevaluation, we determined that APHIS Animal Care inspectors could not locate six of these to\nperform timely reinspections. At the time of our review, these critical reinspections were\nbetween 10 and 74 days late. APHIS Animal Care inspectors acknowledged that they needed to\nensure that those conditions were timely corrected but stated that without up-to-date itineraries of\nthe exhibitors\xe2\x80\x99 travel, they could not locate them in order to perform the reinspections.\n\nAn APHIS official agreed with our evaluation and stated that the agency has had problems with\nfinding traveling exhibitors. This same official stated that the agency published a proposed\nregulation30 that would require traveling exhibitors to submit itineraries. However, the proposed\n\n28\n We reviewed the timeliness of APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 reinspections for traveling exhibitors performed from October 2006 through June 2009.\n29\n Exhibitors with serious noncompliant items are to be reinspected within 45 days of the agreed upon correction date.\n30\n APHIS proposed to amend the AWA regulations concerning the submission of itineraries for traveling exhibitors on October 1, 2009.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 18\n\x0cregulations did not list an effective date and therefore these regulations would remain proposed\nuntil APHIS established an implementation date. An APHIS official stated that they need to\nincrease the priority in implementing this regulation. By requiring traveling exhibitors to submit\nand maintain current itineraries, APHIS can ensure timely reinspections intended to protect the\nanimals and the public that visits these exhibits.\n\n Recommendation 7\n\n Establish a timeframe for implementing the proposed regulations that would specifically\n require traveling exhibitors to submit and maintain current travel itineraries.\n\n Agency Response\n\n In their response, APHIS officials stated that the Itinerary by Traveling Exhibitors Docket\n (APHlS-2006-0023) has been published as a proposed rule, and public comments have been\n collected. APHIS anticipates that the final rule can be published by December 31, 2010, and\n implemented 30 days after publication.\n\n OIG Position\n\n We accept APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 management decision.\n\n\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 19\n\x0cScope and Methodology\nWe performed our audit at APHIS Headquarters in Riverdale, Maryland, and its regional offices\nlocated in Fort Collins, Colorado, and Raleigh, North Carolina. We judgmentally selected 31 out\nof the total 2,712 USDA licenses APHIS issued to exhibitors, as of January 2009. We reviewed\nthese 31 exhibitors based on the criteria that these exhibitors housed dangerous animals (i.e.,\nbears and cougars) in order to determine the adequacy of the animal enclosures and public\nbarriers. However, our review did not specifically evaluate exhibitors\xe2\x80\x99 treatment of animals at\nthe sites we visited.31 We selected 17 of the 31 because they had potential safety related issues,\nand 14 of the 31 were selected as potential pet owners and not bona fide exhibitors. The 31\nexhibitors consisted of 15 individuals, 8 public zoos, 4 roadside zoos, 3 circus/traveling\nexhibitors, and 1 State park. These exhibitors were located in California, Illinois, Indiana,\nMissouri, Texas, and Washington, D.C.32 We conducted our field work between March 2008\nand December 2009, and focused on exhibitor activities monitored by APHIS from October 2006\nthrough July 2009.\n\nTo accomplish our objectives, we performed the following procedures:\n\n \xc2\xb7 We interviewed APHIS Headquarters and regional officials and analyzed pertinent\n documents, which included public laws, procedures, and policies relating to the issuing of\n USDA exhibitor\xe2\x80\x99s licenses. We also interviewed APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 Animal Care experts on\n felids,33 primates, and elephants.\n\n \xc2\xb7 We interviewed officials at the Association of Zoos and Aquariums to determine their\n policies and procedures for accreditation of exhibitors.\n\n \xc2\xb7 We analyzed APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 procedures to ensure that all complaints were investigated and\n handled in a timely manner. We selected 159 of the 1,212 total complaints APHIS\n received about animal exhibitors. The 159 complaints we reviewed related to public\n safety or contact, enclosure quality, knowledge and training, and other AWA violations.\n Our review did not disclose any issues with those complaints.\n\n \xc2\xb7 We analyzed the APHIS Risk Based Inspection System (RBIS) to determine if APHIS\n was performing compliance inspections in a timely manner.\n\n \xc2\xb7 We visited 31 USDA licensed exhibitors accompanied by at least 1 of the 16 APHIS\n Animal Care inspectors responsible for monitoring these exhibitors. During our visits,\n we conducted interviews with the licensee and observed the animal enclosures, public\n barriers, and perimeter fencing for safety related issues. For 2 of the 31, the licensees\n were not home at the time of our visit, and therefore we were unable to interview the\n owner or observe the animals or enclosures.\n\n\n\n31\n Nothing came to our attention on the mistreatment of animals in violation of the Animal Welfare Act.\n32\n The National Zoo located in Washington, D.C. is a Federal facility and not subject to separate State laws.\n33\n APHIS\xe2\x80\x99 definition of felids includes cheetah, cougar (mountain lion, puma), jaguar, leopard, liger (which is a cross between a lion and a tiger),\nlion, panther, tiger (Bengal, Siberian), bobcat, and lynx.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 20\n\x0c \xc2\xb7 We interviewed State officials regarding their laws covering dangerous and/or exotic\n animal exhibits, as well as any licensing and inspection activities which they carry out.\n We reviewed exhibitors in five States, but interviewed officials in three States 34 because\n they explicitly prohibited private ownership of dangerous animals without a USDA\n exhibitor\xe2\x80\x99s license.\n\n \xc2\xb7 To determine whether APHIS inspectors timely reinspected the selected 40 travelling\n exhibitors, we reviewed APHIS Animal Care\xe2\x80\x99s system-generated listing of Direct\n Noncompliant Items noted at the time of facility inspection to obtain the inspection date.\n We then reviewed the corresponding inspection reports that APHIS generated to\n document facility inspections to determine whether APHIS timely revisited the traveling\n exhibitor facilities having direct Noncompliant Items to ensure reinspection was\n conducted within 45 days of the correction date as required by RBIS guidelines. Our\n period of review covers fiscal years 2006 through June 2009.\n\nWe conducted this audit in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.\nThose standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate\nevidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit\nobjectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings\nand conclusions based on our audit objectives.\n\nAPHIS used the Licensing and Registration Information System database to carry out this\nmission. During our audit, this system was replaced by the Animal Care Information System.\nWhile we used information from both systems during our audit, we make no representation\nregarding the accuracy or reliability of data from the system or the effectiveness of the system, as\nthe data were not assessed and information system controls are not part of our audit objectives.\n\n\n\n\n34\n This included officials with the California Departments of Fish and Game and Training and Administrative Services, Illinois Department of\nNatural Resources, and the Texas Animal Health Commission.\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 21\n\x0cAbbreviations\nAPHIS ......................... Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service\nAWA ........................... Animal Welfare Act\nCFR ............................. Code of Federal Regulations\nOGC ............................ Office of the General Counsel\nOCFO.......................... Office of the Chief Financial Officer\nOIG ............................. Office of the Inspector General\nRBIS............................ Risk Based Inspection System\nUSDA.......................... United States Department of Agriculture\n\n\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 22\n\x0cAgency\xe2\x80\x99s Response\n\n\n\n\n USDA\xe2\x80\x99S\n\n\n\n\n APHIS\n\n\n\n\n RESPONSE TO AUDIT REPORT\n\n\n\n\nAudit Report 33601-10-Ch 23\n\x0cUnited States\nDepartment of\n MEMORANDUM\nAgriculture May 28, 2010\nAnimal and Plant\nHealth Inspection TO: Gil H. Harden\nService\n Assistant Inspector General\nWashington, DC For Audit\n20250\n\n FROM: Cindy J. Smith /S/\n Administrator\n\n SUBJECT: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)\n Response and Request for Management Decisions on\n Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report, \xe2\x80\x9cControls\n Over APHIS Licensing of Animal Exhibitors (33601-10-CH)\n\n\n Thank you for allowing APHIS to comment on the above OIG report. We have\n addressed each Recommendation with our corrective actions and timeframes for\n implementation of those actions.\n\n Recommendation 1: Issue clear regulations and guidance that define what\n constitutes a sufficient public barrier and require exhibitors to report all\n escapes and attacks involving dangerous animals to APHIS Animal Care\n inspectors.\n\n APHIS Response: APHIS agrees with this recommendation and will develop a\n regulatory work plan to amend current regulations to clarify the intent of the public\n barriers and to require notification of all escapes and attacks. APHIS anticipates\n completing the development of the regulatory work plan by December 31, 2010.\n APHIS will provide employees with a guidance document to define what\n constitutes a sufficient public barrier and include this guidance in Animal Care\xe2\x80\x99s\n consolidated Inspection Guides by September 30, 2010.\n\n Recommendation 2: Implement a process to better utilize resident animal\n experts that would require Animal Care inspectors to submit technical\n questions in order to evaluate the safety of any newly-designed enclosure areas\n for dangerous animals, and establish a time-phased plan to review all existing\n facilities.\n\n APHIS Response: APHIS agrees with this recommendation and will develop a\n process to have newly designed enclosure areas for dangerous animals reviewed by\n the Field Specialists. In addition, AC will develop a time-phased plan for review of\n existing facilities. This time-phased plan would entail the Field Specialist\n reviewing facilities under investigation and a systematic approach of reviewing\n photos of other existing facilities. A safety checklist/survey will be developed for\n\n Safeguarding American Agriculture\n Federal Relay Service\n APHIS is an agency of USDA\xe2\x80\x99s Marketing and Regulatory Programs (Voice/TTY/ASCII/Spanish)\n An Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 1-800-877-8339\n\x0cGil H. Harden 2\n\n\nAC inspectors to complete and forward with photos to the appropriate Specialist\nwhen inspecting an enclosure for a dangerous animal that has not already been\nevaluated by a Field Specialist. All enclosures for dangerous animals would be\nevaluated within 2 years, corresponding to the Risk Based Inspection System\ninspection cycle and workload timeframes. We anticipate the process to evaluate\nnew enclosures, the time phased plan, and the safety checklist/survey to be\ndeveloped and distributed to the employees by September 30, 2010.\n\nRecommendation 3: Implement a process to ensure that APHIS personnel\ndetermine the cause of dangerous animal escapes or attacks, document the\ncorrective actions taken, and ensure that this information is readily available\nto all Animal Care inspectors when evaluating similar facilities in their\nrespective jurisdictions.\n\nModified APHIS Response: APHIS agrees with this recommendation. We\nrecognize that improved information sharing regarding escapes and attacks is\nneeded. AC determines and/or documents the cause of all known escapes and\nattacks reported to us or in the media. A 2-tiered approach to incident reporting to\nAC employees has been implemented. Tier 1 involves disseminating initial\ninformation of the escape/attack immediately after AC is notified, usually in the\nform of email updates. Tier 2 involves disseminating follow-up information once\nthe situation has been investigated and/or evaluated, corrective action determined\nand lessons learned in the form of a formal update from the appropriate Field\nSpecialist. Employees will also receive reminders on other training issues that may\nneed to be re-emphasized. Inspection and follow-up SOPs would be used to make\nsure corrective actions are documented. We began implementing this notification\nprocess on May 20, 2010.\n\nRecommendation 4: Implement procedures requiring periodic onsite\nsupervisory visits to ensure that inspections of exhibitor facilities meet APHIS\nstandards in a consistent manner.\n\nAPHIS Response: APHIS agrees with this recommendation. We have developed\nprocesses and changes are already underway to address this issue based on the OIG\nAudit of Problematic Dog Dealers (2010). AC will increase our field supervisory\ncapabilities and oversight of inspectors, allowing amplified supervisory presence on\nmore inspections by September 30, 2010.\n\nRecommendation 5: Obtain and document advice from the OGC to determine\nwhether APHIS can deny an individual's request for a USDA exhibitor's\nlicense renewal if that individual cannot prove he or she had exhibited animals\nto the public. If so, implement procedures for Animal Care inspectors to verify\nlicensees' exhibiting activities in cases where this is considered questionable at\nthe time of license renewal.\n\x0cGil H. Harden 3\n\n\nAPHIS Response: APHIS agrees with this recommendation. By June 30, 2010,\nAPHIS will formally ask for an opinion from OGC on the current interpretation of\nthe AWA regulations and standards and what changes would be needed to support\nthe intent of this recommendation. Based on the response, APHIS will implement\nthe action needed to establish this requirement and/or policy by December 31, 2010.\n\nRecommendation 6: If OGC issues an opinion that regulatory changes would\nbe required, implement regulations to require that licensees provide verifiable\ndocumentation of exhibiting activities, if requested, before renewing an\nexisting license.\n\nAPHIS Response: APHIS agrees with this recommendation. Based on the\nresponse from OGC, APHIS will implement the action needed to establish this\nrequirement and/or policy by December 31, 2010.\n\nRecommendation 7: Establish a timeframe for implementing the proposed\nregulations that would require traveling exhibitors to submit and maintain\ncurrent travel itineraries.\n\nAPHIS Response: APHIS agrees with this recommendation. The Itinerary by\nTraveling Exhibitors Docket (APHIS-2006-0023) has been published as a proposed\nrule, and public comments have been collected. The comments have been\nsummarized and we are currently developing our responses to the comments. We\nanticipate a final rule docket for Departmental clearance by August 2010. If OMB\nmaintains the \xe2\x80\x9cnot significant\xe2\x80\x9d designation for this rule, only Departmental\nclearance will be needed prior to publication and implementation. This process\nwould take approximately 2 months, to clear OGC and allow the administration\nthorough review the docket. Given this scenario, APHIS anticipates that the final\nrule can be published by December 31, 2010. It would be implemented 30 days\nafter publication.\n\x0c"


type: contracts

jurisdiction: EU

text:
 Fontos jogi nyilatkozat
 |
 21997D0710(19)
 Hivatalos Lap L 182 , 10/07/1997 o. 0054 - 0054
 Az EGT-Vegyesbizottság 20/97 határozata(1997. március 24.)az EGT-megállapodás XX. mellékletének (Környezet) módosításárólAZ EGT-VEGYESBIZOTTSÁG,tekintettel az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodásra (a továbbiakban: a megállapodás), amelyet az Európai Gazdasági Térségről szóló megállapodás kiigazításáról szóló jegyzőkönyv módosított, és különösen annak 98. cikkére,mivel a megállapodás XX. mellékletét a 61/95 EGT-vegyesbizottsági határozat [1] módosította;mivel a géntechnológiával módosított mikroorganizmusok zárt rendszerben történő felhasználásáról szóló 90/219/EGK tanácsi irányelv 4. cikkében említett, osztályozásra vonatkozó iránymutatásokról szóló 91/448/EGK határozat módosításáról szóló, 1996. január 16-i 96/134/EK bizottsági határozatot [2] be kell építeni a megállapodásba,A KÖVETKEZŐKÉPPEN HATÁROZOTT:1. cikkA megállapodás XX. mellékletének 24a. pontja (91/448/EGK bizottsági határozat) a következő szöveggel egészül ki:", az alábbi módosításokkal:- 396 D 0134: A Bizottság 1996. január 16-i 96/134/EK határozata (HL L 31., 1996.2.9., 25. o.)."2. cikkA 96/134/EK bizottsági határozat izlandi és norvég nyelvű szövegei, melyek e határozat megfelelő nyelvi változatának mellékletét képezik, hitelesek.3. cikkEz a határozat 1997. április 1-jén lép hatályba, amennyiben a Megállapodás 103. cikkének (1) bekezdése szerint előírt értesítéseket eljuttatták az EGT-Vegyesbizottsághoz.4. cikkEzt a határozatot az Európai Közösségek Hivatalos Lapjának EGT-re vonatkozó részében, illetve EGT-kiegészítésében közzé kell tenni.Kelt Brüsszelben, 1997. március 24-én.az EGT-Vegyesbizottság részérőlaz elnökC. Day[1] HL L 251., 1995.10.3., 43. o.[2] HL L 31., 1996.2.9., 25. o.--------------------------------------------------


type: wikipedia

text:
Charles Pierre Baudelaire [šárl bodlér] (9. dubna 1821 Paříž – 31. srpna 1867 Paříž) byl francouzský básník a překladatel, první z řady tzv. prokletých básníků. Jeho básnické dílo mělo zásadní vliv na rozvoj moderní poezie a inspirovalo mnoho dalších básníků (např. Mallarmé, Verlaine). Byl také uznávaným literárním a uměleckým kritikem.
 Život
 Dětství a studium
 Narodil se 9. dubna 1821 v Paříži. Matce Caroline bylo 27 let, otec Joseph-François měl 62 let a bylo to jeho druhé manželství. Charles měl nevlastního bratra Clauda Alphonse, který byl o šestnáct let starší. Jeho otec byl kněz, po revoluci byl vychovatelem a úředníkem, zemřel v r. 1827. Matka, kterou velmi miloval, se po dvou letech znovu provdala za důstojníka Jacquese Aupicka. V roce 1832 se přestěhovali do Lyonu, kam byl otčím převelen. Charles byl zapsán jako interní žák do Královské koleje (od roku 1888 Amperovo lyceum). Odloučení od matky nesl velmi těžce. Často psal nevlastnímu bratrovi, který se po dokončení studia práv oženil a stal se soudcem. Po počátečních neúspěších se Charlesovy studijní výsledky zlepšily. Byl mimořádně nadaný, ale jeho roztěkaná povaha a neschopnost se soustředit mu bránily udržet se mezi premianty a zavděčit se tak své matce.
 V lednu 1836 se rodina vrátila do Paříže. Charlese zapsali na lyceum Ludvíka Velikého. Kvůli rodičům se snažil uspět ve studiu, vynikal v latině a řečtině. Začal psát své první verše, které mu daly nový smysl života. V posledním ročníku byl vyloučen, když odmítl vydat učiteli lístek se vzkazem od spolužáka. V srpnu 1839 jako externí student složil maturitu na lyceu svatého Ludvíka. Ve stejný den byl jeho nevlastní otec povýšen na brigádního generála.
 Charles Baudelaire se chtěl stát básníkem. To se nelíbilo nevlastnímu otci, který z něho chtěl mít vojáka nebo diplomata. Na radu bratra Alphonse se zapsal na právnickou fakultu. Studium ho však nebavilo. Vedl bouřlivý život, stýkal se s pařížskou bohémou v latinské čtvrti. Utrácel peníze z kapesného od rodičů a dělal dluhy. Nevázaný životní styl a styky s prostitutkami měly za následek onemocnění pohlavní chorobou. V roce 1841 ho generál Aupick poslal do Kalkaty, aby ho zbavil špatného vlivu pařížských přátel. Cesta však nesplnila svůj účel. Po zastávce na Maskarénách, kde strávil několik měsíců na ostrově Réunion a Mauricius, se Charles rozhodl vrátit se zpět do Francie.
 Literární začátky
 V Paříži se vrátil k předchozímu způsobu života. Seznámil se s mladou kreolkou Jeanne Duvalovou, do které se vášnivě zamiloval. Smyslná, eroticky přitažlivá žena se stala inspirací pro jeho básnické dílo a jejich vztah trval s krátkými přestávkami téměř celý život. Její obraz nebo vzpomínka na ni se promítly do některých básní z pozdější sbírky Květy zla (Les fleurs du mal), např.: Exotický parfém (Parfum exotique), Vlasy (La chevelure), Had, který tančí (Le serpent qui dance), Posmrtná výčitka (Remords posthume). Její podobu zachytil i v několika perokresbách. Určitý výtvarný talent zdědil po otci, často a rád kreslil, zajímal se o výtvarné umění.
 V roce 1843 Baudelaire začal experimentovat s drogami, které podle jeho názoru podněcovaly jeho tvořivost. Závislost na drogách a lécích ho provázela zbytek života. Od roku 1847 bral pod lékařským dohledem opium jako lék na potíže způsobené syfilidou, kterou se nakazil pravděpodobně v roce 1840. Časté užívání drog navíc způsobilo, že se u Baudelaira projevily psychické obtíže. Začal trpět stihomamem, upadal do depresí, míval přeludy. Neléčená syfilida k tomu přidala další zdravotní problémy. O svých zkušenostech s alkoholem a drogami napsal později dvě eseje: O víně a hašiši (Du vin et du haschisch) z roku1851 a Umělé ráje (Les Paradis artificiels) z roku 1860.
 Během následujících dvou let Baudelaire v rozmařilém životě téměř promarnil dědictví po otci, které získal po dosažení plnoletosti. Neustále se obracel na matku s žádostí o peníze a jeho nezodpovědnost ji přiměla k podání žádosti o ustanovení soudního dohledu. V září 1844 se z rozhodnutí soudu stal znovu nezletilým a ztratil právo disponovat svým majetkem. Byla mu vyměřena malá měsíční renta. O peníze navíc musel žádat notáře nebo matku. S takovým ponížením a změnou životních podmínek se nedokázal vyrovnat a v červnu 1845 se demonstrativně pokusil o sebevraždu. V dopise na rozloučenou veškerý svůj majetek odkázal Jeanne Duvalové (Slečně Lemerové, což bylo její pravé jméno). Jeho zranění bylo jen povrchové a po uzdravení se definitivně odstěhoval z bytu svých rodičů. S nevlastním otcem, který byl jmenován velitelem pařížské Polytechniky, přerušil styky úplně.
 Vedle básnické tvorby se Baudelaire zajímal o výtvarné umění a své znalosti uplatňoval jako autor novinových článků a kritik. V roce 1845 vydal kritickou brožuru o Salonu vztahující se k výroční výstavě. Začaly mu vycházet drobné prozaické práce a další kritiky. Zpočátku je publikoval anonymně, později pod jménem Baudelaire-Dufaÿs, což bylo dívčí jméno jeho matky. V roce 1846 vyšla v revui Ľ Artiste jeho první významná báseň Don Juan v podsvětí (Don Juan en enfer), inspirovaná dvěma Delacroixovými obrazy. Eugene Delacroix byl jeho velkým idolem a Baudelaire mu po jeho smrti v roce 1862 věnoval několik oslavných článků.
 V roce 1848 se zapojil do revolučních událostí a bojoval na jedné z barikád. V následujících dvou letech se věnoval politické publicistice. Byl spoluzakladatelem radikálního opozičního časopisu Veřejné blaho (Le Salut Public), který však vyšel jen ve dvou číslech. Po době nadšení pro revoluci se vrátil ke svým příspěvkům o umění, divadle a literatuře. Vypracoval se na předního kritika. Rozčarován z výsledků revoluce zmařené převratem Napoleona III. a nastolením tzv. Druhého císařství ukončil politickou aktivitu a soustředil se na básnickou tvorbu. Připravoval vydání básnické sbírky s názvem Limby, řadu básní z ní dal předem ke zveřejnění v různých časopisech. V srpnu 1851 časopis Le Messager de l Assamblée vydal jedenáct básní pod názvem Limby. Své příspěvky již podepisoval plným jménem: Charles Baudelaire.
 Ještě před revolucí se seznámil s tvorbou Edgara Allana Poea, která mu byla velmi blízká. V roce 1848 se v revue Svoboda myšlení (La Liberté de penser) objevil Baudelairův překlad textu Edgara Allana Poea Fascinující zjevení (Révélation magnétique- Mesmeric Revelation). Od té doby dával najevo svůj obdiv k tomuto americkému spisovateli a stal se jeho uznávaným překladatelem. Zasloužil se o rozšíření Poeova díla nejen ve Francii, ale v celé Evropě. V roce 1852 byla zveřejněna jeho studie Edgar Allan Poe, jeho život a dílo. Jeho překlady měly v určité době u čtenářů větší úspěch než vlastní básně.
 Generál Aupick byl v roce 1848 jmenován velvyslancem v nejprve Cařihradě a později ve Španělsku, což pro Baudelaira znamenalo odloučení od matky. Až do návratu do Paříže roku 1853 spolu udržovali jen písemný styk, často motivovaný potřebou peněz. Baudelairův vztah k matce byl velmi složitý. Vyčítal jí, že sňatkem s Aupickem, který odsuzoval jeho způsob života, byl připraven o mateřskou lásku a rodinné zázemí. Teprve po smrti generála Aupicka v roce 1857 občas pobýval u matky v jejím domě v Honfleuru a postupně se sbližovali.
 Baudelairovým významným inspiračním zdrojem, který se promítl do jeho básnické tvorby, byly ženy. Vedle Jeanne Duvalové to byly Apollonie Sabatierová a Marie Daubrunová, které prošly jeho životem počátkem padesátých let 19. století. Platonicky obdivoval paní Apolonii Sabatierovou, která ve svém salonu přijímala umělce a jíž od roku 1852 posílal anonymní milostné dopisy s básněmi, které později zařadil do sbírky Květy zla. Po vydání sbírky v roce 1857 se snažil získat přímluvu paní Sabatierové v soudním řízení, ale po krátkém intimním vzplanutí Baudelaire tento vztah ukončil. V roce 1854 se setkal herečkou Marií Daubrunovou, která jeho obdiv využívala pro získání podpory své herecké kariéry. Zmiňuje se o ní v básních Jed, Podzimní zpěv a inspirovala ho k básni Jedné Madoně. Od konce roku 1855 Baudelaire žil ve společné domácnosti s Jeanne Duvalovou, ale v září následujícího roku se rozešli. Znovu se sblížili začátkem roku 1859, a když Jeane těžce onemocněla a hrozilo jí ochrnutí, Baudelaire ji podporoval i finančně.
 Květy zla
 Přelom roku 1856–1857 znamenal pro Baudelaira období intenzivní práce. S velkým úspěchem se setkaly jeho překlady Poeových Podivuhodných příběhů a v časopise Le Moniteur Universel vycházelo na pokračování Dobrodružství Arthura Gordona Pyma. V La Revue des Deux Mondes bylo zveřejněno osmnáct jeho nejlepších básní a v různých časopisech a novinách několik statí o umění a karikatuře. 30. prosince 1856 podepsal smlouvu s nakladatelem Poulet-Malassisem na vydání dvou knih.
 Jeho stěžejní dílo – básnická sbírka Květy zla (Les Fleurs du mal) – vyšlo 25. června 1857 nákladem 1 320 kusů s věnováním Théophilu Gautierovi. Byl to výsledek více než patnáctiletého snažení. Po zveřejnění odsuzující kritiky v novinách vypukla nenávistná kampaň se soudní dohrou. Pařížský přestupkový soud uložil básníkovi i nakladateli Poulet-Malassisovi pokutu za urážku veřejné morálky a dobrých mravů. Ze sbírky muselo být vyřazeno šest básní: Klenoty, Léthé, Té, která je příliš veselá, Lesbos, Prokleté ženy, Upírovy proměny (Les Bijoux ; Le Léthé ; À celle qui est trop gaie ; Lesbos ; Femmes damnées [Delphine et Hippolyte] ; Les métamorphoses du Vampire). Povzbuzující dopis mu napsal Victor Hugo ze svého exilu na ostrově Guernsey a také Gustave Flaubert ocenil jeho verše. V roce 1861 byla v nákladu 1500 výtisků vydána reedice Květů zla. Místo šesti vyřazených básní ji Baudelaire rozšířil o 35 nových. Sbírka nevzbudila velký zájem veřejnosti.
 Baudelaire hledal nové formy poezie a v roce 1862 mu vyšlo v La Presse dvacet menších textů – verše v próze. Na vydání Básní v próze (Pařížský splín) podepsal smlouvu s nakladatelstvím Hetzel, ale texty stále upravoval a doplňoval. Kniha byla vydána až po jeho smrti. O svém duševním rozpoložení psal Baudelaire ve sbírce poznámek Mé obnažené srdce (Mon cœur mis à nu), které tvoří s Raketami, Hygienou a Deníky soubor Důvěrných zápisků (Journaux intimes).
 V roce 1861 se Baudelaire ucházel o křeslo v Akademii, ale po delším neúspěšném vyjednávání o podpoře se sám kandidatury vzdal. Současně několikrát marně žádal Akademii o finanční podporu. Podílel se na zpracování čtvrtého dílu antologie z děl francouzských básníků, který vyšel v srpnu roku 1862.
 Závěr života
 V dubnu roku 1864 odjel do Belgie, kde měl přednášet o literatuře a pracovat jako umělecký kritik. Měl přislíbeno vydání svých esejů o umění. Aby získal peníze na cestu a uhradil alespoň část svých dluhů, prodal během roku 1863 práva na Květy zla a Pařížský splín nakladateli Hetzelovi a veškerá práva na pětidílný překlad díla Edgara Poea nakladatelství Michel Lévy-bratři. Pobyt v Bruselu však nesplnil jeho očekávání. Své znechucení zaznamenával v pamfletu Ubohá Belgie (Pauvre Belgique). Oporu mu poskytovalo několik přátel z Francie, kteří se usadili v Bruselu – např. nakladatel Poulet-Malassis nebo fotograf Nadar. S Poulet-Malassisem připravil k vydání sbírku Trosky (Les Épaves) obsahující třiadvacet básní, z nichž většina byla soudně zakázána nebo dosud nebyla vydána. Frontispis knihy vytvořil belgický malíř Félicien Rops, s nímž se Baudelaire spřátelil a měl o něm vysoké mínění. Stýkal se také s manželkou Victora Huga, která v té době s dětmi pobývala v Bruselu a několikrát se zde setkal i se slavným spisovatelem při jeho návštěvě Belgie během léta 1865.
 Duševní rozpoložení a neutěšená finanční situace se negativně promítly do Baudelairova zdraví, které bylo dlouhodobě oslabeno syfilidou, užíváním drog a alkoholem. Od začátku roku 1866 trpěl nevolnostmi, závratěmi, prudkou bolestí hlavy i poruchami vědomí. Během návštěvy kostela Saint-Loup v Namur v polovině března Baudelaire upadl do bezvědomí. Od té doby se jeho zdravotní stav rapidně zhoršil.
 Postihl ho další záchvat mrtvice, který měl za následek poruchu hybnosti pravé strany těla a ztrátu řeči. Byl převezen na kliniku, kam za ním přijela matka, aby se o něj postarala. V červenci 1866 ho nechala převézt do soukromého sanatoria v Paříži. Jeho přátelé mu na francouzské vládě vymohli malý finanční příspěvek na úhradu léčebných výdajů. Charles Baudelaire zemřel 31. srpna 1867. Byl pochován na hřbitově Montparnasse vedle svého nevlastního otce. Matka zemřela o čtyři roky později.
 Na přání matky se vydávání Baudelairova díla ujal jeho přítel Charles Asselineau, který v roce 1869 napsal jeho první biografii: Charles Baudelaire, sa vie et son œuvre. V roce 1868 byla vydána reedice Květů zla (soudem zakázané básně mohly být oficiálně vydány až poté, kdy kasační soud v roce 1949 zrušil rozsudek z roku 1857).
 V roce 1902 byl na montparnasském hřbitově nedaleko hrobu odhalen Baudelairův symbolický náhrobek (kenotaf) za účasti zástupů studentů. V r. 1917 vyšlo nové vydání Květů zla a jeho sláva překročila hranice.
 Dílo
 Ve své poezii odhaloval milostná a společenská zklamání, snažil se provokovat svojí otevřeností. V jeho díle je spojena láska a pohrdání, krása a zlo, touha po životě atd. Jeho dílo ovlivnilo moderní poezii. Jeho raná tvorba v sobě nese stopy romantismu, ale později mu bylo bližší hnutí Mladé Francie. Velký vliv na jeho tvorbu mělo rovněž poetické dílo Edgara Allana Poea, s nímž našel vnitřní spřízněnost. Baudelaire šel svou vlastní cestou. Usiloval o formální dokonalost svých básní, ale především mu záleželo na obsahové koncepci, básnické myšlence. Baudelairova veršová technika je přísná, projevuje se v ní snaha o bohatost rýmů a celkový harmonický dojem. Klad důraz na pečlivě zvolené a správně umístěné slovo. V jeho poezii se odráží jeho rozporuplná osobnost: realistické verše plné citlivého vnímání skutečnosti střídají myšlenky na smrt, smutek, omrzelost životem. Soudobou kritikou byl označován za otce dekadence a symbolismu. Kromě toho také překládal díla E. A. Poea.
 Květy zla (Les Fleurs du mal, 1857) – básnická (lyrická) sbírka, za kterou musel zaplatit pokutu z mravnostních důvodů (urážka náboženství a morálky). Tato básnická sbírka je považována za klíčové dílo moderní světové poezie. Les Fleurs du mal (doplněné vydání 1861) obsahují 126 básní, rozdělených do šesti oddílů: Splín a ideál, Pařížské obrazy, Víno, Květy zla, Revolta, Smrt; (v posmrtném vydání 1868 bylo vloženo dalších 14 básní). V poezii, kterou básník šokoval francouzskou společnost, se do velké míry odráží jeho nespoutaná osobnost i jeho život. V básních líčí nepřikrášlený obraz skutečnosti, které vládne nepoetické Zlo, jehož ztvárnění se až dosud poezie vyhýbala (báseň Zdechlina). Výchozím bodem sbírky je nemožnost člověka dosáhnout štěstí a odtud pramení bolest, o to intenzivnější, že se záblesky štěstí hlásí ve snu a vzpomínání. V reálném světě tak zůstává jedinou pozitivní hodnotou umění usilující o krásu. Nakonec se jediným existenciálním řešením bolestné zkušenosti stává klidné spočinutí ve smrti.
 Malé básně v próze (Petits poèmes en prose, 1869) – původně byly vydány pod názvem Pařížský splín. Jedná se o padesát krátkých poetických próz. Baudelaire zde dospívá k poznání, že skutečná podstata poetického vyjádření nespočívá v tradičním rytmickém členění, spojeném s rýmem, ale výhradně v básnické vizi, metaforice a obrazech. Jde vlastně o jakousi básnickou symfonii Paříže, moderního člověka a jeho složité životní problematiky. Za smyslovým světem nachází existenci jiného, vnitřního světa, do něhož proniká pomocí symbolů a obrazného myšlení a který se vymyká běžné logice.
 Básně
 Albatros
 Exotický parfém
 Jisté kreolské dámě
 Vlas
 Zdechlina
 Krása
 Splín
 Víno samotářovo
 Puklý zvon
 Litanie k Satanovi
 Proměny upíra
 Tanec kostlivců
 Epitaf na odsouzenou knihu
 Eseje
 Umělé ráje – o účincích hašiše a opia. Vydávaná také jako Báseň o hašiši.
 Knihy
 Estetické zajímavosti
 Romantické umění
 Zápisky
 Intimní deníky
 Bruselské roky
 Odkazy
 Reference
 Literatura
 Související články
 Seznam francouzských spisovatelů
 Francouzská literatura
 Prokletí básníci
 Fotografická kritika
 Externí odkazy
 Česká stránka věnovaná Baudelairovi a jeho tvorbě v češtině, francouzštině a angličtině
 Baudelaire – Sa vie, son œuvre: le poète maudit
 Nadarovy portréty Charlese Baudelaira v archivu La Médiathèque de l'architecture et du patrimoine
 Jitka Bačáková: Charles Baudelaire – osobnost a tvorba, bakalářská práce, UK
 Francouzští básníci
 Francouzští překladatelé
 Básníci tvořící francouzsky
 Překladatelé do francouzštiny
 Překladatelé z angličtiny
 Prokletí básníci
 Pohřbení na hřbitově Montparnasse
 Narození 9. dubna
 Narození 1821
 Úmrtí 31. srpna
 Úmrtí 1867
 Muži
 Osobnosti na francouzských poštovních známkách
 Narození v Paříži
 Úmrtí v Paříži
 Zemřelí na syfilis