December 16, 2013 Robert M. Gibbens, D.V.M. Western Regional Director USDA-APHIS-Animal Care 2150 Centre Ave.

Building B, Mailstop 3W11 Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117 Via first-class mail (with exhibits) and e-mail (without exhibits): robert.m.gibbens@usda.gov Re: Request for Nonrenewal of Laughing Valley Ranchs Animal Welfare Act License (Number 84-C-0088)

Dear Dr. Gibbens: I am writing on behalf of PETA to request that the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) decline renewal of William Lees Animal Welfare Act (AWA) license, number 84-C-0088, for Laughing Valley Ranch (LVR), in Idaho Springs, Colorado. The AWA license is set to expire on December 20, 2013. As discussed in the appendix and documented in the attachments, the USDA cannot lawfully reissue LVRs AWA license at this time because of the serious and recurring violations of the AWA at LVR. Indeed, between February 2011 and November 2013, USDA officials inspected the facility twenty-six times and found it in violation of the AWA on twenty of these inspections. In addition, less than two weeks ago a terrified reindeer escaped while being exhibited by LVR at a lighting ceremony. This escape was likely the result of AWA violations, as illustrated below, and PETA requests the USDA immediately investigate this incident. The escape further illustrates that LVR cannot demonstrate compliance with the AWA and that the USDA cannot lawfully reissue LVRs AWA license. Moreover, it would be highly improper for the USDA to reissue LVRs AWA license in light of Lees recent conviction for cruelty to animals. Very truly yours,

Delcianna Winders, Esq. Director Captive Animal Law Enforcement 202-309-3697

{00146889}

APPENDIX I. Laughing Valley Ranch Has Failed to Demonstrate Compliance with the AWA Standards. The AWA expressly provides that no AWA license shall be issued until the dealer or exhibitor shall have demonstrated that his facilities comply with the AWA standards. 7 U.S.C. 2133 (emphases added). As a federal district court recently made clear in a case involving the renewal of an exhibitors AWA license, the express language of the statutory mandate . . . requires a demonstration of compliance before such issuance [i.e., granting a renewal license] is proper. Order Denying Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Ray, et al. v. Vilsack, et al., No. 5:12-CV-212BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 18, 2013)1; see also id. (license renewal is not a discretionary enforcement action, but rather an agency action carried out according to statutory mandates issued by Congress and subject to judicial review). Thus, absent a demonstration of compliance separate and distinct from a certification of compliance2the USDA cannot lawfully issue a renewal license to LVR. As the evidence highlighted below and the documentation attached make clear, LVR has not demonstrated and cannot likely demonstrate compliance with the AWA standardsespecially in light of Lees recent guilty plea for cruelty to animals, as described in section II, and the recent reindeer escapebarring renewal of the exhibitor license. LVRs Recent Egregious Violations of the AWA According to the enclosed inspection reports, between February 28, 2011, and November 8, 2013, USDA officials inspected LVR twenty-six times and found it in violation of the AWA on twenty of these inspections.3 To name but a few of the of the recent AWA violations that show Lees apparent disregard for the health and wellbeing of the animals: 9 C.F.R. 2.40(b)(2), for failure to provide adequate veterinary care for three geriatric reindeer who had excessively long hooves which were impacting the animals ability to walk in a comfortable manner. (May 31, 2011, inspection report). 9 C.F.R. 3.127(a), (b), for failure to provide animals with adequate shelter or protection from inclement weather. (August 9, 2011, inspection report).

1 2

Ex. 1. See 7 U.S.C. 2133; Order Denying Defendants Motion to Dismiss, Ray, et al. v. Vilsack, et al., No. 5:12-CV212-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 18, 2013); compare 9 C.F.R. 2.2 (calling for self-certification of AWA compliance), with 9 C.F.R. 2.3 (additionally providing that [e]ach applicant must demonstrate that his or her premises and any animals, facilities, vehicles, equipment, or other premises used or intended for use in the business comply with the regulations and standards (emphasis added)); see also id. C.F.R. 2.1 (requiring that both section 2.2 and section 2.3 be satisfied for a license to be issued); Revision of Definitions, Regulations, and Standards for the Humane Handling, Care, Treatment, and Transportation of Dogs, Cats, and Certain Other Warmblooded Animals, 44 Fed. Reg. 63488, 63489 (Nov. 2, 1979) (Ex. 3) ( The Animal Welfare Act requires, in addition to a written application and payment of reasonable fees, that dealers and exhibitors demonstrate that their facilities comply with the standards promulgated by the Secretary. (emphasis added)). 3 Ex. 2.

{00146889}2

9 C.F.R. 3.55, for failure to provide rabbits with potable water. (September 26, 2011, inspection report). 9 C.F.R. 2.40(b)(2), for failure to provide a fourteen year old reindeer with appropriate veterinary care. The reindeer was observed lying downand [with] shallow, rapid breathing and [m]ucousstreaming from her nose. (January 5, 2012, inspection report). 9 C.F.R. 3.4(b)(3), for failure to provide dogs with adequate shelter needed to protect the animals from the elements. (January 12, 2012, inspection report). 9 C.F.R. 3.4(b)(4), for notprovid[ing] [animals with] adequate protection from the elements, posting a risk to their health and well-being. (February 1, 2012, inspection report). 9 C.F.R. 2.40(b)(2), for still not providing the fourteen year old reindeer who was observed on January 5 lying down.and [with] shallow, rapid breathing and [m]ucousstreaming from her nose with adequate veterinary care. The USDA determined this animal was suffering and required immediate veterinary care and the local sheriffs office seized the animal to provide proper veterinary care. (April 5, 2012, inspection report). 9 C.F.R. 2.40(b)(2), for failure to provide a llama with adequate veterinary care as she was observed to be extremely underweight. The USDA considered the llamas poor body condition to be severe and a risk to her well-being and the local sheriffs office seized the animal to provide proper veterinary care. (April 5, 2012, inspection report). 9 C.F.R. 2.40(b)(4), for failure to provide dogs with adequate protection from the elements, positing a risk to their health and well-being. (May 17, 2012, inspection report). 9 C.F.R. 2.40(b)(2), for failure to provide a dog who appeared to be painful [sic] when the foot was touched as was having difficulty walking in his enclosure with adequate veterinary care; for failure to provide a goat who was very thin and not bearing weight or barely toe-touching on that leg while standing with adequate veterinary care; and for failure to provide a juvenile reindeer who had thick and yellow discharge from his/or nose with adequate veterinary care. [D]ue to the seriousness of their conditions and the need for veterinary care, the local sheriffs office seized both the goat and the dog. (June 1, 2012, inspection report). 9 C.F.R. 2.40(b)(2), for failure to provide animals with adequate natural or artificial shelter to afford them protection form inclement weather. (February 7, 2013, and July 11, 2013, inspection reports). 9 C.F.R. 2.40(b)(2), for failure to provide a female reindeer who was observed limping and holding the leg up when at rest with adequate veterinary care and for failure to shear a goat in the summer heat (a repeat noncompliance previously cited on June 1, 2012, April 5, 2012, January 5, 2012, August 9, 2011, and June 9, 2009, and which was to be corrected by June 9, 2009). (July 3, 2013, inspection report). 9 C.F.R. 3.13(a), (d), for failure to ensure proper sanitation. The USDA inspector observed excessive accumulation of excreta where [n]umerous flies were accumulating and around water troughs and shelters. (July 3, 2013, and July 11, 2013, inspection reports). 9 C.F.R. 2.40(b)(2), as the USDA inspector observed the same female reindeer who was limping on July 3, in an unchanged condition, and because the goats remained

{00146889}3

unsheared despite the USDAs order to correct the violation by July 6. (July 11, 2013, inspection report). In addition, it was reported that on December 5, a reindeer being exhibited by LVR at a mall likely terrified from the loud sounds and commotionjumped out of his enclosure and roamed until the next day.4 PETA requests an immediate investigation into the reindeers escape, as it was likely caused by AWA violations, including the following: 9 C.F.R. 2.131 (c)(1), which requires that [d]uring public exhibition, any animal must be handled so there is minimal risk of harm to the animal and to the public, with sufficient distance and/or barriers between the animal and the general viewing public so as to assure the safety of animals and the public. 9 C.F.R. 3.125(a), which requires that housing facilities be constructed of such strength as appropriate for the animals involved, be structurally sound, and be maintained in good repair to protect the animals from injury and to contain the animals. 9 C.F.R. 2.131(a), which requires that all licensees who maintain wild or exotic animals demonstrate adequate experience and knowledge of the species they maintain. 9 C.F.R. 2.131(b)(1), which requires that the [h]andling of all animals shall be done as expeditiously and carefully as possible in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating, excessive cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort.

This incident, along with the numerous recent AWA violationssome of which are detailed aboveillustrate that LVR has not and likely cannot demonstrate compliance with the AWA standards, barring renewal of the exhibitor license. II. Lee Has Recently Pleaded Guilty to Animal Cruelty In June 2012, more than 100 animals5including geese, dogs, llamas, rabbits, mules, horses, goats, sheep, chickens, a pony, alpacas, cats and reindeerwere reportedly seized from LVR by the local sheriffs office and 13 other agencies6 due to apparent animal welfare concerns, including concerns about the animals living in unsanitary conditions.7 Lee was initially charged with 16 class 1 misdemeanors in connection with cruelty to and neglect of animals and pleaded guilty [on] March 20to one count of cruelty to animals and failure to provide.8 Reissuing an AWA license in light of Lees cruelty-to-animals guilty plea would contravene the intent of the AWA. 9 C.F.R. 2.12 (A license may be terminated during the license renewal
4

Ex. 3, PETA to Dillon Mayor Following Escaped Reindeer Fiasco: No More Live Animals at Events, Targeted News Service, (December 11, 2013). 5 Ex. 4 County sees ups and downs, changes in 2012, Clear Creek Courant (December 26, 2012). 6 Ex. 5, Ian Neligh, Lee pleads guilty to misdemea nor in animal cruelty case, Clear Creek Courant (March 26, 2013). 7 Id. 8 Id.

{00146889}4

process or at any other time for any reason that an initial license application may be denied pursuant to 2.11 after a hearing in accordance with the applicable rules of practice.); 9 C.F.R. 2.11(a)(4) (A license will not be issued to any applicant who: . . .[h]as pled nolo contendere (no contest) or has been found to have violated any Federal, State, or local laws or regulations pertaining to animal cruelty within 1 year of application, or after 1 year if the Administrator determines that the circumstances render the applicant unfit to be licensed.).9 Moreover, a guilty plea of this nature and the wanton neglect and other animal care issues described above make it highly unlikely that Lee could demonstrate compliance with the AWA, and further underscores that Lee and LVR are otherwise unfit to be licensed. 9 C.F.R. 2.11(a)(6)(A license will not be issued to any applicant who: . . is otherwise unfit to be licensed). Indeed, the reported treatment of AWA-regulated animalsincluding the geese and chickens10and even possibly non-AWA animals at LVR which lead to a multi-agency seizure of over 100 animals must be considered in the USDAs licensing decision. In fact, the treatment of non-regulated animals can even be cited in inspection reports according to the USDAs 2013 Animal Welfare Inspection Guide which says, [n]on-regulated animals should not be inspected or mentioned on the inspection report unless there is the potential for a negative effect on the health or well-being of the regulated animal(s). (emphasis added). Certainly conditions that would warrant such a massive seizure is highly relevant to the well-being of all animals confined at LVR. III. Conclusion Because LVR has failed to demonstrate and likely cannot currently demonstrate compliance with the AWA, it would be unlawful for the USDA to reissue Lees AWA license. Further, reissuing an AWA license in light of Lees cruelty-to-animals guilty plea would contravene the intent of the AWA.

Lee is the AWA licensee and as the person behind the LVR, his actions are deemed an action of the LVR. 7 U.S.C. 2139 ([T]he act, omission, or failure of any person acting for or employed byan exhibitor or a person licensed as a dealer or an exhibitorshall be deemed the act, omission, or failure of suchexhibitoras well as of such person.) 10 The AWA defines animal as any warm-blooded animal, as the Secretary may determine is being used, or is intended for use, for exhibition purposes 7 U.S.C. 2132(g). Although the USDA has not yet developed specific standards for birds, these warm-blooded animals used for exhibition are covered by the plain language of the AWA. Id. 2132(g); 9 C.F.R. 1.1. Indeed, in 2002 Congress amended the definition of covered animal under the AWA in order to codify its intent that the scope of the AWAs protections include all birds used in regulated activities, except those used for research. Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107171, 116 Stat. 134 (2002)) (codified at 7 U.S.C. 2132(g)). Two years later, in order to make the definition of animal in the AWA regulations consistent with the amended statutory definition of the term, the USDA amended its regulationswhich had previously excluded all birds from the definition of animalby narrowing the scope of the exclusion for birds to only those birds bred for use in research. USDA, Animal Welfare Act Def inition of Animal, Final Rule, 69 Fed. Reg. 31513Error! Bookmark not defined. (June 4, 2004); see also 9 C.F.R. 1.1.

{00146889}5