CHARLESTOWN — Recently released inspection reports from the U.S. Department of Agriculture claim conditions at Wildlife in Need in Charlestown could put visitors in risk of injury or even death, but owner Tim Stark says he abides by regulations and has since made necessary corrections.
The USDA's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, or APHIS, performed inspections on Wildlife in Need, a nonprofit facility housing wildlife, in September and October following a complaint filed by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA. The Sept. 13 report details a visit to the facility's popular Tiger Baby Playtime where visitors can pay to interact with tiger cubs and have their photo taken.
The day inspectors were at Wildlife in Need, there were 40 to 50 people, including a newborn baby, a toddler and about 10 other children younger than 10 years old, according to the report. Those people, inspectors said, could have been in serious danger.
"There were at least two incidents where members of the public were bitten," the report states, adding that an 8-to 9-year-old child yelled "oww" after one of the cubs bit her arm. Some of the other claims in the report include:
• Attendants swatted the cubs with a riding whip in a way that was sometimes "excessive in severity."
• The cubs were "too big, too fast and too dangerous" to be controlled with a riding whip.
• One attendant teased cubs "to make them 'attack'" for purpose of photographs with visitors.
The report states the cubs tried to "eat the cameras" and they "could easily have pounced on a younger child in the audience and caused serious injury or even death to the babies." The report asks Stark to correct the issues by ceasing "physical abuse to handle animals."
The Oct. 8 report cited issues with a broken pen door, housing in disrepair and fencing that was less than 12 feet high — too low to contain the lions and tigers inside. The report also states that a fox and a Great Dane were in need of immediate veterinary care.
Stark did not grant a phone interview request, but emailed a statement on the condition that it would only be printed in full.
Inspectors listed corrections Stark needed to make and when to make them by in order to comply with regulations. Those regulations are laid out in 1966 Animal Welfare Act, or AWA. But Tanya Espinosa, a USDA-APHIS spokesperson, said there is no penalty for noncompliance with the inspection report.
"When the inspectors go to the facility, they look to see whether the facility is in compliance with the AWA. If they find a noncompliance, it is documented on the inspection report," Espinosa said in an email. "If a facility has a history of repeat noncompliances or if a facility has a particularly grievous noncompliance, we may open an investigation."
Facilities are typically inspected once every year, but repeat noncompliance or complaints can call for additional inspections. Wildlife in Need has had 12 inspections since May 2013, according to online USDA records. Espinosa said a formal investigation can lead to a letter of warning, a monetary penalty or the USDA's Office of Administrative Law Judges can rule to suspend or revoke a license.
Stark is already facing a formal USDA investigation. In February, APHIS filed a motion to terminate his license citing a 2008 U.S. District Court case in which Stark pleaded guilty to selling an ocelot to a woman in Texas four years earlier. Stark was sentenced to three years of supervised probation for violating the Endangered Species Act. APHIS claims that conviction is grounds for terminating Stark's license. The case is pending.
Stark has faced criticism and accusations from PETA in the past. In August 2014, PETA asked the USDA to investigate Wildlife in Need after a video showing Stark holding a tiger cub up by the nape of its neck to show visitors what a “[ticked] off tiger looks like” before dropping it in a guest’s lap.
A two-part investigative series was later published in the News and Tribune in partnership with the Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting. Then in February, before the APHIS motion was filed, PETA again asked for an investigation into the facility over what it called preventable animal deaths, according to the Kentucky Center for Investigative Reporting.