Animal exhibitors charged with animal abuse Alamosa, CO (US) Incident Date: Thursday, Jul 31, 1997 County: Alamosa Local Map: available Disposition: USDA Citation Persons of Interest: » Bethan F Chapman - Civil Case » Ira Brackrfield Chapman

Case ID: 6480 Classification: Beating, Neglect / Abandonment Animal: captive exotic View more cases in CO (US) Login to Watch this Case

In August 1997, the U.S. Department of Agriculture charged licensed animal exhibitors Bethan and I.B. Chapman, doing business as Alamo Tiger Ranch in Alamosa, Colo., with violations of the Animal Welfare Act.

"In this case, our inspectors reported several incidences of animal abuse," said W. Ron DeHaven, acting deputy administrator for animal care with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a part of USDA's marketing and regulatory programs mission area. "If the Chapmans are found guilty, APHIS will seek the most severe punishment allowed under the law."

APHIS inspectors found the Alamo Tiger Ranch:

-- Failed to maintain programs of disease control and prevention, euthanasia, and adequate veterinary care under the supervision and assistance of a doctor of veterinary medicine and failed to provide immediate veterinary care to an animal in need of care;

-- Handled a lion cub and a tiger in a manner which caused trauma, behavioral stress, physical harm and unnecessary discomfort;

-- Physically abused a lion cub and a tiger;

-- Failed to provide a sufficient distance or barrier between animals and the general viewing public;

-- Failed to provide a responsible, knowledgeable, and identifiable employee to control an animal during periods of public contact;

-- Failed to keep a dangerous animal under the direct control and supervision of an experienced animal handler during public exhibition;

-- Used physical abuse to train, work, or otherwise handle a tiger;

-- Failed to provide animals kept outdoors with adequate shelter from direct sunlight;

-- Failed to keep the premises clean in order to facilitate the prescribed husbandry practices;

-- Failed to provide animals with food of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain them in good health;

-- Failed to make provisions for the removal and disposal of a dead animal so as to minimize vermin infestation, odors, and disease hazards;

-- Refused to permit APHIS to conduct a complete inspection of their animal records;

-- Failed to maintain complete records showing the acquisition, disposition, and identification of animals; and

-- Failed to clean and sanitize primary enclosures.

In February 1998, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and licensed animal exhibitors Bethan and I.B. Chapman, doing business as Alamo Tiger Ranch in Alamosa, Colo., agreed to a consent decision and order regarding violations of the Animal Welfare Act.

The Chapmans neither admitted nor denied any violations of the AWA but agreed to a permanent license disqualification. They also agreed to a civil penalty of $30,000 of which $29,000 is suspended providing there are no future violations of the AWA.

"The most important item in this settlement is the permanent license disqualification," said W. Ron DeHaven, acting deputy administrator for animal care with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, a part of USDA'S marketing and regulatory programs mission area. "Shortly before USDA issued the original charges, the Chapmans voluntarily surrendered their animals which were then placed with the help of a local APHIS inspector. Now, without being able to qualify for another USDA license, the Chapmans will not be able to obtain animals for exhibition in the future."

Neighborhood Map

For more information about the Interactive Animal Cruelty Maps, see the map notes.

Back to Top

Add this case to:

Del.icio.us

|

Digg

|

Furl

|

References

	USDA - August 14, 1997
	USDA - February 19, 1998

« CO State Animal Cruelty Map

Not sure what these icons mean? Click here.

Note: Classifications and other fields should not be used to determine what specific charges the suspect is facing or was convicted of - they are for research and statistical purposes only. The case report and subsequent updates outline the specific charges. Charges referenced in the original case report may be modified throughout the course of the investigation or trial, so case updates, when available, should always be considered the most accurate reflection of charges.

For more information regarding classifications and usage of this database, please visit the database notes and disclaimer.