Officials of Hogle Zoo have denied all 11 violations of the Animal Welfare Act that were alleged in a civil action filed against the zoo in July by the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
The complaint had asked for penalties, including fines or a suspension of the zoo license. It said the zoo had dirty facilities and fences that were not maintained well enough to keep out predators like coyotes, and that the zoo's negligence caused the deaths of two giraffes and two gazelles.In a response mailed to the USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on Tuesday, the zoo said it never willfully violated the law. Also, all improvements suggested by APHIS were made or are being made within the prescribed time, says the document.
The 13-page response was prepared by zoo attorneys John P. Ashton and Thomas R. Burton, of the private firm of Prince, Yeates & Geldzahler.
"All improvements have been verified by USDA inspectors," says a prepared statement released on Thursday.
The legal document says in respect to the death of one of the giraffes, "respondent denies that the actions and training of any of its employees constituted a willful violation" of federal law.In another place, it says, "Respondent admits that two gazelles died in the fall of 1993 due to predation. Respondent denies that the death of the gazelles or the conditions which allegedly caused such death constituted a willful violation" of the statute.
The response also says the zoo admitted that a "giraffe died on or about Dec. 3, 1993. Respondent denies that the giraffe's death, or the events leading up to it, constitute a willful violation."
Zoo officials in their response said they lack information regarding the alleged inspection of the zoo on Jan. 24, 1994, and the zoo "therefore denies all of the allegations" in a paragraph of the complaint involving that inspection.
The zoo says that the USDA sets forth no evidence of an intent to violate the act, "nor has the USDA described any instance of non-cooperation or resistance on the part of the zoo."
Zoo officials said they have instituted many programs and improvements beyond those required by APHIS; some of the upgrades date back to early 1994.
These include remodeling of the perimeter fence with an underground concrete barrier to keep out predators, weekly perimeter fence patrols, establishment of training protocol manuals for each animal area, mock APHIS inspections and follow-up workshops, mandatory keeper training classes using state-of-the-art training manuals, establishment of five new policy committees and the closing of exhibits if the facility conditions could not be satisfactorily maintained.
The zoo asked that the administrative complaint be dismissed, that the tribunal issue a finding that the zoo did not willfully violate the Animal Welfare Act, that no civil penalties be levied, that the zoo's license not be suspended and that an order requiring the zoo to cease and desist from violating the act not be issued.
Zoo director LaMar Farnsworth said, "Now that we have had an opportunity to present our side of the complaint, we are leaving it up to our legal counsel to settle this matter fairly for the zoo."