55 Agric. Dec. 1095 United States Department of Agriculture Office of the General Counsel Room 2014 South Building Washington, D.C. 20250-1417 2. Respondent, its agents and employees, successors and assigns, directly or through any corporate or other device, shall cease and desist from violating the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards issued under the Animal Welfare Act, and in particular, shall cease and desist from: a. Engaging in activity for which a license is required under the Animal Welfare Act and Regulations without being licensed; b. Failing to ensure that animals have access to adequate uncontaminated food and water; c. Failing to maintain a written program of veterinary care; d. Failing to ensure that adequate barriers are maintained between the animals and the public, and that employees are present during periods of public contact; e. Failing to maintain adequate records; and f. Failing to ensure that facilities and enclosures for animals provide adequate shelter, and are constructed, maintained, and cleaned, as required. The cease and desist provisions of this Order shall become effective on the day after service of this Order on Respondent. In re: JAMES B. GARRETTSON d/b/a Garrettson Enterprises. AWA Docket No. 96-0053. Decision and Order filed September 17, 1996. Failure to file an answer - Operating as a dealer without being licensed - Operating as an exhibitor without being licensed Cease and desist order Civil Penalty License Disqualification. Tejal Mehta, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Decision and Order issued by Dorothea A. Baker, Administrative Law Judge. Preliminary Statement This proceeding was instituted under the Animal Welfare Act ("Act"), as amended (7 U.S.C.§ 2131 et seq.), by a complaint filed by the Administrator, Further, I disagree with Respondent's contention that the assessment of a $5,000 civil penalty is inappropriate because Respondent has made "efforts to comply in good faith," has corrected the violations alleged in the Complaint, and is now "in complete compliance" with the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulation and Standards. (Respondent's Appeal Petition, p. 3.) This Department's policy is that the subsequent correction of a condition not in compliance with the Animal Welfare Act or the Regulations or Standards has no bearing on the fact that a violation has occurred. In re Big Bear Farm, Inc., supra, slip op. at 44-45; In re Pet Paradise, Inc., supra, 51 Agric. Dec. at 1069-70, 1075. Each dealer, exhibitor, operator of an auction sale, and intermediate handler must always be in compliance in all respects with the Regulations in 9 C.F.R. pt. 2 and the Standards in 9 C.F.R. pt. 3. (9 C.F.R.§2.100(a).) This duty exists regardless of a "correction date" suggested by an APHIS inspector who notes the existence of a violation. While corrections are to be encouraged and may be taken into account when determining the sanction to be imposed, even the immediate correction of a violation does not operate to eliminate the fact that a violation occurred and does not provide a basis for the dismissal of the alleged violation. Under these circumstances, the assessment of a civil penalty of $5,000 against Respondent is warranted and appropriate and consistent with civil penalties requested and assessed in similar circumstances. For the foregoing reasons, the following Order should be issued. Order 1. Respondent City of Orange, California, Community Services Department, d/b/a Eisenhower Park, is assessed a civil penalty of $5,000, which shall be paid by certified check or money order, made payable to the Treasurer of the United States, and forwarded within 30 days after service of this Order on Respondent to: Colleen A. Carroll Dec. 46 (1984) ($1,000 civil penalty for 5 violations of the Animal Welfare Act and the Standards); In re Lorraine McBryde, 42 Agric. Dec. 1375 (1983) ($500 civil penalty for 2 violations of the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations); In re Richard "Dick" Robinson, 42 Agric. Dec. 7 (1983), aff'd, 718 F.2d 336 (10th Cir. 1983) ($500 civil penalty for 1 violation of the Animal Welfare Act). 55 Agric. Dec. 1095 United States Department of Agriculture Office of the General Counsel Room 2014 South Building Washington, D.C. 20250-1417 2. Respondent, its agents and employees, successors and assigns, directly or through any corporate or other device, shall cease and desist from violating the Animal Welfare Act and the Regulations and Standards issued under the Animal Welfare Act, and in particular, shall cease and desist from: a. Engaging in activity for which a license is required under the Animal Welfare Act and Regulations without being licensed; b. Failing to ensure that animals have access to adequate uncontaminated food and water; c. Failing to maintain a written program of veterinary care; d. Failing to ensure that adequate barriers are maintained between the animals and the public, and that employees are present during periods of public contact; e. Failing to maintain adequate records; and f. Failing to ensure that facilities and enclosures for animals provide adequate shelter, and are constructed, maintained, and cleaned, as required. The cease and desist provisions of this Order shall become effective on the day after service of this Order on Respondent. In re: JAMES B. GARRETTSON d/b/a Garrettson Enterprises. AWA Docket No. 96-0053. Decision and Order filed September 17, 1996. Failure to file an answer - Operating as a dealer without being licensed - Operating as an exhibitor without being licensed Cease and desist order - Civil Penalty - License Disqualification. Tejal Mehta, for Complainant. Respondent, Pro se. Decision and Order issued by Dorothea A. Baker, Administrative Law Judge. Preliminary Statement This proceeding was instituted under the Animal Welfare Act ("Act"), as amended (7 U.S.C.§ 2131 et seq.), by a complaint filed by the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that James Brandon Garretson, hereafter the Respondent, willfully violated the Act. The complaint and the Rules of Practice governing proceedings under the Act, 7 C.F.R. §§ 1.130-1.151,were served on the Respondent by ordinary mail on June 27, 1996.' Respondent was informed in the letter of service that an answer should be filed pursuant to the Rules of Practice and that failure to answer any allegation in the complaint would constitute an admission of that allegation. The Respondent failed to file an answer within the time prescribed in the Rules of Practice, and the material facts alleged in the complaint, which are admitted by Respondent's failure to file an answer, are adopted and set forth herein as Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. This decision and order, therefore, is issued pursuant to section 1.139 of the Rules of Practice, 7 C.F.R. § 1.139. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 1. James Brandon Garretson, dba Garretson Enterprises, hereinafter referred to as respondent, is an individual whose address is 300 West Wintergreen, Apt. 416, De Soto, Texas 75115. 2. The respondent, at all times material herein, was operating as a dealer and an exhibitor, as defined in the Act and the regulations. 3. From June 11, 1994, and continuing to the present, respondent has been operating as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.1). Specifically, respondent offered for sale and sold numerous exotic animals in commerce. The sale or offer for sale of animal constitutes a separate violation. 4. On June 11, 1994, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.1). Specifically, respondent bought and transported two lions. The sale transaction for each animal constitutes a separate violation. 'The Hearing Clerk attempted service on respondent James Brandon Garretson by certified mail on May 15, 1996. Upon return of the complaint as "Unclaimed" on June 18, 1996, the Hearing Clerk served respondent by ordinary mail as per § 1.147 of the Rules of Practice (7 C.F.R. § 1.136). 55 Agric. Dec. 1095 5. On June 26, 1994, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. §2.1). Specifically, respondent bought and transported one tiger. The sale transaction for each animal constitutes a separate violation. 6. On August 8, 1994, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.1). Specifically, respondent bought and transported one lion. The sale transaction for each animal constitutes a separate violation. 7. On November 10, 1994, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R.§ 2.1). Specifically, respondent transported two lions and one tiger. The transportation of each animal constitutes a separate violation. 8. On March 1, 1995, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. § 2.1). Specifically, respondent transported one tiger. The transportation of each animal constitutes a separate violation. 9. On May 2, 1995, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. §2.1). Specifically, respondent transported two tigers. The transportation of each animal constitutes a separate violation. 10. On May 5, 1995, respondent operated as an exhibitor as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R.§ 2.1). Specifically, respondent exhibited two tigers. The exhibition of each animal constitutes a separate violation. 11. On May 6, 1995, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. §2.1). Specifically, respondent transported two tigers. The transportation of each animal constitutes a separate violation. 12. On June 16, 1995, respondent operated as a dealer as defined in the Act and regulations, without possessing a license, in willful violation of section 4 of the Act (7 U.S.C. § 2134) and section 2.1 of the regulations (9 C.F.R. |