Thanks for the opportunity to review that nice piece of PR work. Let me try to quickly dash off
some answers, too:
We regret that the agencies with regulatory authority of BAU are certainly not “well known for
their thorough scrutiny.” In fact, they are much criticized, especially the USDA (even by its own
inspector general), for failing to catch problems. To give just two examples: Professional
Laboratory and Research Services (PLRS), a North Carolina company that tested insecticides
and other chemicals on dogs and cats by force-feeding or smearing chemicals onto dogs and cats
skin, were inspected annually by the USDA. PLRS knew to expect federal inspectors in June or
July, so staffers would paint over the rusty surfaces that the USDA had warned them about the
previous year and finally reported that ailing animals had conditions that might merit veterinary
care—which the facility’s attending veterinarian reportedly advised she would not provide—so
that PLRS staff would be “covered” from blame should the inspector inquire about the animals’
conditions. The USDA’s 2010 visit to PLRS, which housed approximately 400 animals at the
time, lasted only two hours and 15 minutes. PETA’s 2010 investigation revealed a host of cruelty
at PLRS, however (discussed in detail here), and resulted in indictments of four PLRS
employees, including a supervisor, on 14 felony charges of cruelty-to-animals. Similarly, at
Holmes Farm—a Pennsylvania small animal dealer—USDA’s three inspections preceding a
PETA investigation reported finding no violations of the Animal Welfare Act. After PETA
presented its evidence to USDA, the agency found at least 117 violations of 14 federal
regulations.
Nor does the CA Dept. of Fish & Wildlife or the USDA “award top marks” to facilities. They
either tick the box, literally, or cite for failure to comply with minimum requirements, and they
are very minimal indeed. As we explained with the issue of the USDA’s failure to regulate
captive birds, PETA has long pushed the agency for tougher enforcement, stronger regulations,
and more meaningful penalties when violations are found. In the meantime, PETA has rescued
57 bears and seven chimpanzees from inadequate conditions at roadside zoos and other
exhibitors who were failed by the USDA’s inaction in the past four years.
There is, similarly, no “exemplary” record of care. And no agency ever writes, “animals looked
scared, lonely, cold” as that is not their mandate. Ultimately, PETA’s evidence and
documentation of pathetic conditions for animals stands on its own, and the public will judge for
itself whether they can justify shelling out $15 for a movie ticket when it comes at the expense of
animals like the dogs who went without bedding at BAU, birds who suffered in enclosures caked
with their own feces, and the many animals who languished with illnesses and injuries without
adequate veterinary care, some of whom apparently died as a result. Animals were even
intentionally underfed and even starved at BAU to fit the desired aesthetic of film and television
producers. It’s no surprise that BAU omitted that allegation from its statement to you. Even the
craftiest of spin-doctors can’t defend the indefensible.
A few other points, quickly:
1.a. Bird cages: BAU admits that the cages were not cleaned. This is illegal. Cal. Code Regs. tit.
14, § 671.2 (a)(4) requires (in pertinent part) that "[e]xcrement shall be removed from enclosures
at least once per day…." The observer who documented these conditions was not charged with
cleaning these cages; in fact, she was forbidden from doing so. She affirmed that they were not
cleaned for six weeks as PETA has alleged.
1.b. Barren cages: The observer was not charged with cleaning these cages either, and this
documentation did not take place in the context that BAU suggests. The animals live in these
barren conditions day after day. PETA did not suggest that BAU should provide these birds
“toys,” but environmental enrichment, such as tree limbs, climbing structures, and hiding places.
1.c. Cats isolation: BAU concurs that the cats are all kept isolated. Not all cats can possibly be
100% unsocializable or isolative, and the rear door has no relevance.
1.d. Adoption: Since the information about false pretenses came from their own facility staff,
yes they should investigate. We suggest that they make this information public or tell you exactly
which facilities they got each animal from. That would clear it up.
1.e. Miss Piggy: As I wrote you earlier, there was only one veterinarian observed on BAU’s
premises in 2.5 months. He was there simply to microchip cats, not to treat or examine any
animal. Another person who was thought to be or identified as a “vet” was actually a farrier.
Miss Piggy was also documented to be in an emaciated body condition—a licensed veterinarian
assessed her body condition score of 1 out of 5—for which there is no justification.
1.f. Dry Skin and Hooves: Reputable facilities do not just chalk such things up to old age, they
treat the skin daily to make the animal more comfortable, and PETA stands by its contention that
the hooves were not diligently being trimmed back on a proper schedule.
1.g. Bedding: PETA’s observer was not in charge of providing bedding to dogs; in fact, she
asked to do so and was told by BAU personnel that it was not yet cold enough. The law requires
that animals be provided bedding to help them retain their body heat in cold conditions, and it is
reprehensible to claim that no bedding could be given to the dogs because they might eat it and
have an intestinal blockage. Professionals use bedding that is appropriate to the species, size, and
so on of the animal, they don’t just fail to provide any at all.
1.h. Dove: Our position is that you have an obligation to either treat (and treat timely) or
euthanize, one or the other. Do something, that’s the obligation.
1.i. Penguins: Perhaps the penguins have inches more than is minimally required by law, but,
again, those requirements are bare bones. The SeaWorld orcas’ tanks exceed those standards too.
1.j. Cervical dislocation: This may be allowed by law, depending on how seriously you take
“failure to prevent needless suffering” provisions, but they are not quick, painless, or humane. It
is death by slow suffocation while fully conscious. And, in many cases at BAU—according to a
manager—it had to be repeated.
1.k. Mites: Professionals routinely dust birds for mites. It’s SOP in most places, and the
observer was not charged with that duty.
2
1.l. Lewis: This is inadequate care for arthritis.
Please also note that, as mentioned briefly above, BAU does not mention food deprivation in
their response. That is significant. To cite just two examples, cats Gus Gus and Nibbs lost 5% of
their body weight in just a few days. On August 27, Gus Gus weighed 8.66 lbs., and after being
virtually starved for days, on September 1, he weighed 8.24 lbs. Nibbs weighed 9.92 lbs. on
August 27, but his weight had dropped to 9.42 lbs. after he too was essentially starved for days—
according to a BAU worker, this was done because a production company wanted underweightlooking cats for a production.
There is also no reference to BAU’s lying to USDA inspectors and falsifying federal records to
misstate the cause of death of Lenny the kangaroo, who a facility manager claimed died after he
stopped eating due to a broken jaw.
Nor does BAU reference Snoop, the dog who, after testing positive for heartworm, months of
refusing to eat, vomiting, losing weight, and bleeding from his paws was not euthanized until he
had (inconveniently) lost the use of his bowels.
Finally, although I may have left other objections out on short notice, our observer was told by
the ranch manager that Crash was used in Harry Potter, the crows were used in The Crow, and
that Missy Piggy was used in College Road Trip. Perhaps such remarks are made to impress
people, or perhaps the current denial is incorrect.
3