ANALYSIS OF VIOLATIONS OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT REGULATIONS ATTESTED TO IN THE SWORN AFFIDAVITS OF
AARON A. WILSON AND MELISSA A. HINDMAN

Prepared by Suzanne Roy, In Defense of Animals
March 30, 2001

The sworn affidavits of Aaron A. Wilson and Melissa A. Hindman, two former Six Flags Marine World (SFMW) employees, attest to numerous violations of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 9, Volume 1, Parts 1 to 199, which were promulgated under the Animal Welfare Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2131 et. seq. SFMW is a USDA-licensed exhibitor (License #93-C-0021). The widespread AWA transgressions attested to in these affidavits include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following sections of the federal code.

Sec. 2.131 Handling of animals.

(a)(1) Handling of all animals shall be done as expeditiously and carefully as possible in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating, excessive cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort.

(2)(i) Physical abuse shall not be used to train, work, or otherwise handle animals.

The violations of this section attested to by the affiants include the following:

1. SFMW allowed unqualified, untrained personnel to handle animals through "brute force" in a manner that caused the animals to be "terrified of their handlers" and be "afraid of getting beaten." (Hindman pp. 1-3)

2. SFMW placed Amy Canova and Tracy Kotyluk in supervisory positions at the Land Animal Keeping Department when they lacked proper animal handling and behavioral training. (Hindman p. 1-3)

3. In June or July of 1999, Amy Canova "hit a camel named Miles so hard with a crop that it put a welt on his stomach. The wound was actually bleeding from the impact." (Hindman p. 1)

4. In August 2000 Amy Canova dragged a miniature donkey down a road by his halter and "beat him with his lead" and "hit the animal on his back because he would not move up to her command." (Hindman p. 2)

5. In June or July of 1999, Tracy Kotyluk lost control of a camel named Kenji while out on a walk. She "started hitting him with a crop and screaming at him" and "pinned the camel up against the fence and was trying to get him to cooperate through brute force" (Hindman p. 3)

6. Amy Canova stated that she had used a hot shot (a stun gun-like device) and stud chain on miniature donkey, making him "go into a rage." (Hindman p. 2)

Sec. 2.131 Handling of animals

(b)(1) During public exhibition, any animal must be handled so there is minimal risk of harm to the animal and to the public, with sufficient distance and/or barriers between the animal and the general viewing public so as to assure the safety of animals and the public.

The violations of this section attested to by the affiants include the following:

1. ". . . lack of proper handling and training presented a safety threat to employees and parkgoers." In June or July of 1999, Tracy Kotyluk lost control of the camel named Kenji while out on a walk in an area in which the public was present. (Hindman pp. 2-3)

2. SFMW allowed "Untrained people who had no idea how to handle camels" to walk these animals in areas that entailed close contact with the public. (Hindman p.3 )

3. On more than one occasion, SFMW trainers were kicked by camels under the control of Tracy Kotyluk. (Hindman p. 3)

Sec. 2.40 Attending veterinarian and adequate veterinary care (dealers and exhibitors).

(a) Each dealer or exhibitor shall have an attending veterinarian who shall provide adequate veterinary care to its animals in compliance with this section.

The violations of this section attested to by the affiants include the following:

1. SFMW provided inadequate veterinary care to animals. "I also believe veterinary care is inadequate at the facility. . .." The SFMW veterinarian "seems to know very little about exotic animals. . . [and many] times . . . did not know how to treat a particular illness or injury and would frequently ask keepers for their advice on what to do. With the exception of one employee who was a veterinary technician, the keepers and trainers had no medical training and were not qualified to make medical decisions." (Hindman p. 6).

2. SFMW's veterinarian allowed the Land Animals Department Supervisor, Amy Canova, to make medical decisions regarding medical treatment for camels. "Ms. Canova was not qualified to make medical decisions. And, given her frequently stated concern about the financial bottom line, putting her in charge of medical decisions for animals could be a serious conflict of interest." (Hindman p.6)

3. SFMW did not have properly trained veterinary personnel. ". . . I do not believe that veterinary care was adequate for the animals in the Land Animal Keeping department." The SFMW veterinarian "appeared to be unskilled and unknowledgeable about exotic land animals, and most of the veterinary technicians were not certified, but rather had received their training at the Six Flags Marine World park." (Wilson p. 4)

4. The SFMW veterinarian was "so unsure of her own abilities that she declined to administer the shot [to the shoulder of a camel named Miles], even when the UC Davis veterinarian said that he would guide" her through the procedure. (Wilson p. 3)

Sec. 2.40 Attending veterinarian and adequate veterinary care (dealers and exhibitors).

(b) Each dealer or exhibitor shall establish and maintain programs of adequate veterinary care that include:

(1) The availability of appropriate facilities, personnel, equipment, and services to comply with the provisions of this subchapter;

The violations of this section attested to by the affiants include the following:

1. SFMW lacked equipment for large animal veterinary practice (Hindman p.5/Wilson p. 3, 4), and employees lacked training for handling animals in need of veterinary care. (Hindman p. 5)

2. SFMW lacked a chute to restrain giraffes for veterinary care (Wilson p. 4/Hindman P. 5)

3. SFMW was unable to examine or assist a giraffe named Abbey after she swallowed a palm-sized ball of wire mesh due to the lack of an appropriate chute. (Wilson p. 4)

4. SFMW lacked a chute to restrain llamas. SFMW mishandled llamas placed in improperly fitting camel chutes for medical treatment so they were " restrained by ropes that pinned their heads up against the pole of the chute." (Hindman p. 5)

5. SFMW lacked x-ray equipment for large animal practice. (Wilson p.3)

6. SFMW refused to take the camel named Miles to UC Davis for diagnostic x-rays because it was "not cost-effective." (Wilson p.3)

4. SFMW's veterinarian lacked competence in the care of exotic land animals (Hindman p. 6, Wilson p. 4)

5. Most of SFMW's veterinary technicians lack professional certification. (Hindman p. 6, Wilson p. 4)

Sec. 2.40 Attending veterinarian and adequate veterinary care (dealers and exhibitors).

(2) The use of appropriate methods to prevent, control, diagnose, and treat diseases and injuries, and the availability of emergency, weekend, and holiday care;

The violations of this section attested to by the affiants include the following:

1. SFMW failed to provide adequate veterinary care to sheep.

2. SFMW failed to properly diagnose or treat the abscesses and illnesses that afflicted sheep. (Hindman p. 3)

3. SFMW failed to determine a cause of death for numerous sheep who died. (Hindman p. 3)

4. SFMW failed to protect the health of surviving sheep, employees and the public by failing to identify potentially infectious conditions that could require quarantine.

5. SFMW had a high death rate for kangaroos and wallabies between March 1998 and April 2000. "At least 12 macropods died during my tenure at Six Flags Marine World. In my opinion, twelve animals out of a total population of approximately 34 is a very high death rate in just two years. I believe something is seriously wrong with the way that Six Flags Marine World is keeping and treating these animals." (Wilson p. 2)

6. SFMW failed to provide adequate veterinary care to kangaroos. (Wilson p.2, Hindman p. 4-5)

7. SFMW failed to determine the cause of abscesses suffered by kangaroos on their mouths and cheeks. (Hindman p. 4)

8. SFMW failed to diagnose the cause of death for Gibson, a kangaroo who died and was found, on necropsy, to have a deteriorating liver and severe abnormalities of his internal organs. (Hindman p. 4, Wilson p.2)

9. SFMW failed to properly treat and promptly euthanize a suffering kangaroo named Murray. (Hindman p. 4-5)

10. SFMW failed to provide adequate veterinary care to wallabies. (Wilson p. 2)

11. SFMW failed to properly address a chronic infection suffered by a female Dama wallaby named Gracie. The animal was captured almost daily for wound cleaning, causing her to "become very stressed out and sick." She eventually died. (Wilson p. 2)

12. SFMW failed to determine a cause of death for a male Dama wallaby named Phillip who was found in his enclosure lethargic, and breathing heavily with thick mucous coming out of his nose and mouth during the 1998 season. (Wilson P. 2)

13. SFMW failed to properly diagnose and treat a female Bennet's Wallaby named Fuzzy, who apparently died of malnutrition. A necropsy showed an enlarged esophagus that made it difficult for her to keep food down. Her teeth had rotted from the acid reflux she suffered as a result of her condition. (Wilson p. 2 )

14. SFMW failed to provide adequate veterinary care to pot bellied pigs. SFMW failed to adequately treat them for arthritis and failed to keep their feet trimmed. (Hindman p. 5)

15. SFMW failed to provide adequate veterinary care to a camel named Miles, who suffered from arthritis in his shoulders after years of hurling himself into the fence during his rutting periods. SFMW failed to get Miles necessary x-rays, failed to utilize painkillers at appropriate doses and for appropriate amounts of time, and failed to seek prompt treatment when it became apparent that painkillers were not working. SFMW allowed this camel's condition to deteriorate to the point where he could barely stand.

Sec. 2.40 Attending veterinarian and adequate veterinary care (dealers and exhibitors)

(4) Adequate guidance to personnel involved in the care and use of animals regarding handling, immobilization, anesthesia, analgesia, tranquilization, and euthanasia; and

The violations of this section attested to by the affiants include the following:

1. SFMW employees were untrained in proper animal handling techniques. SFMW employees mishandled animals in need of medical care. (Hindman p. 5)

2. SFMW employees roped, grabbed, chased, pinned down and handled Mouflan sheep with "brute force" to capture them for blood draws and vaccination. (Hindman p. 5)

3. SFMW employees mishandled petting zoo animals during "roundups" for medical care, sometimes to the point of being bloodied. (Hindman p. 5)

4. SFMW employees mishandled sheep during blood draws. (Hindman p. 5)

5. SFMW employees placed llamas in an ill-fitting camel chute for medical care, restraining them "by ropes that pinned their heads against the pole of the chute." (Hindman p. 5)


Sec. 3.128 Space requirements

Enclosures shall be constructed and maintained so as to provide sufficient space to allow each animal to make normal postural and social adjustments with adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of malnutrition, poor condition, debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns.

The violations of this section attested to by the affiants include the following:

1. SFMW housed Barbary sheep in an inadequate, fifty by seventy-five-foot dirt enclosure that was "very old and decrepit" and provided inadequate space to minimize competition amongst the animals. (Wilson p. 5)

2. SFMW failed to provide space adequate to minimize competition among Barbary sheep. One sheep was constantly picked on and could not get enough food and shelter as a result. He was euthanized during the 1999 season after becoming extremely weak. (Wilson p. 5)

3. SFMW failed to provide adequate space for kangaroos and wallabies. Approximately 4 Red Kangaroos, 4 Gray Kangaroos , 20 Bennet's Wallabies and 8 Dama Wallabies were "crammed into four small pens on the back road," "sandwi ched between the Elephant Log Show and the bathrooms." (Wilson p. 1) The back pens were made of "rotting wood" and had cement floors and outdated heaters. (Hindman p. 4)

4. SFMW's failure to provide adequate space to macropods may have contributed to competition between animals resulting in the death of a male albino wallaby named Randy who suffered trauma to his chest and lungs, possibly sustained during a fight with a kangaroo. (Wilson p. 2)

5. SFMW failed to provide the kangaroo and wallaby enclosure with the proper groundcover and bedding. (Hindman p. 4)

6. SFMW ignored the suggestions of a kangaroo expert for changes to kangaroo bedding, groundcover and diet. SFMW cited financial reasons for not implementing the changes. (Hindman p. 4)

7. SFMW locked the kangaroos and wallabies out on pubic display with no possibility of escape from the growing crowds, thus failing to protect the animals from unnecessary and undue stress. (Wilson pp. 1-2)

Sec. 3.129 Feeding.

(a) The food shall be wholesome, palatable, and free from contamination and of sufficient quantity and nutritive value to maintain all animals in good health. The diet shall be prepared with consideration for the age, species, condition, size, and type of the animal. Animals shall be fed at least once a day except as dictated by hibernation, veterinary treatment, normal fasts, or other professionally accepted practices.

The violations of this section attested to by the affiants include the following:

1. SFMW failed to feed petting zoo sheep an adequate diet. Sheep were not fed food sufficient to allow for their selective grazing behavior. SFMW cited financial reasons for not providing sheep with an adequate diet. The inadequate diet caused the sheep to become emaciated. (Hindman p. 3)

1. SFMW failed to feed mouflan sheep an adequate diet. (Hindman p. 5)

3. SFMW failed to feed kangaroos and wallabies an adequate diet. SFMW ignored recommendations by a kangaroo expert to improve the animals' diet. (Hindman p. 4). The inadequate diet may have caused the kangaroos and wallabies to suffer from calcified stones, including a red kangaroo who had so many surgeries for stones that blocked his urinary tract that he "had holes in his penis where the surgery had taken place. When he urinated, it was like a little sprinkler." (Wilson p. 2)

Sec. 3.131 Sanitation
.
(c) Housekeeping. Premises (buildings and grounds) shall be kept clean and in good repair in order to protect the animals from injury and to facilitate the prescribed husbandry practices set forth in this subpart. Accumulations of trash shall be placed in designated areas and cleared as necessary to protect the health of the animals.

The violations of this section attested to by the affiants include the following:

1. SFMW failed to keep the sheep barn in good repair. It was "falling apart" with holes in the walls and a rat infestation. (Hindman p. 3)

2. SFMW failed to keep the petting zoo in good repair. It had large holes in the ground, a gate in need of repair with boards falling off that presented hazards to animals and the public. (Hindman p. 3)

3. SFMW failed to keep the kangaroo and wallaby enclosure in good repair. The back pens were made of " rotting wood" with cement floors and old, outdated heaters. (Hindman p. 4)

4. The SFMW giraffe feeding dock had wire mesh used to guard the wood on the dock from being eaten. On at least one occasion, a piece of this mesh was ingested by a giraffe. (Wilson p. 4)

5. SFMW failed to protect the health of the kangaroo and wallabies by keeping them in an enclosure where objects and trash could be thrown into their pen by members of the public. (Wilson p. 5)

Sec. 3.131 Sanitation

(d) Pest control. A safe and effective program for the control of insects, ectoparasites, and avian and mammalian pests shall be established and maintained.

The violations of this section attested to by the affiants include the following:

1. SFMW had a serious and persistent rat infestation in the sheep barn, Land Animal kitchen, the dry storage area, and throughout the animal enclosures. Bags of feed soaked with rat urine were used to feed animals. (Wilson p. 5, Hindman pp. 3-4)

Sec. 3.132 Employees

A sufficient number of adequately trained employees shall be utilized to maintain the professionally acceptable level of husbandry practices set forth in this subpart. Such practices shall be under a supervisor who has a background in animal care.

The violations of this section attested to by the affiants include the following:

1. SFMW failed to adequately train animal handlers and the supervisory animal care staff of the Land Animal Keeping Department. (Hindman pp. 1-3, 5)

2. SFMW failed to maintain staffing adequate to care for the animals in the Land Animal Keeping Department (Wilson p. 4)

General Compliance Issues

The Animal Welfare Act and its regulations require that licensed exhibitors meet minimum requirements for humane handling, housing, feeding, and caring for animals. The USDA must monitor compliance of exhibitors through unannounced inspections of exhibitor facilities. However, the USDA usually conducts such inspections at most, once annually. A USDA inspector cannot be onsite at all times, and thus cannot monitor a facility's compliance on a day-to-day basis. The same could be said of an exhibitor's management, in this case, the Six Flags Marine World corporation. Six Flags officials are not involved with animal care on a day-to-day basis and therefore cannot monitor compliance with the AWA unless park employees are free to report concerns and violations to park management.

The affidavits attest to the fact that employees at Six Flags Marine World could not bring concerns about animal care and AWA violations to management's attention. In fact, "there was no mechanism for reporting concerns about animal mistreatment and animal welfare to management at the park. . . . To my knowledge, there was never any action taken against individuals in management positions who were responsible for negligence and animal mistreatment. There was nowhere to report concerns, and nowhere to go to improve the treatment of animals at the park. "(Hindman p. 1)

SFMW failure to provide employees with a mechanism to report animal welfare concerns, and the non-responsiveness of SFMW management to such concerns, represent a serious failure of SFMW to fulfill its responsibilities as a licensed exhibitor under the Animal Welfare Act.

Impact of Thrill Rides

The USDA stated in a January 22, 2001 letter that it had investigated the impact of thrill rides on the animals at SFMW and had found "no evidence that the addition of rides to the park has had any negative impact on the well-being of the animals."

The contradictions of this USDA finding attested to by the affiants include the following:

1. Kangaroos hurled themselves into a fence until they were bloody each time the Boomerang roller coaster blasted off. (Wilson p. 1)

2. Kangaroos, wallabies, and sheep were moved to a remote corner of the park and kept in substandard and dilapidated housing in order to make room for the rides. (Wilson p. 1)

3. Camels were not exercised adequately due to lack of space because of rides and crowds drawn by rides. (Wilson p. 4)

4. Sensitive animals like kangaroos and wallabies have been locked out on public display with no escape from the growing crowds drawn by the thrill rides. (Wilson pp. 1-2)

5. Barbary Sheep were taken out of enclosures altogether to make room for rides and placed in dilapidated dirt area on "the back road." (Wilson p. 5)

6. Camels brought to the front of the park in the morning during Summer Camp and similar programs would become "highly agitated," "bucking and kicking in fear" when the rides were being tested. (Hindman p. 3)

News Release :: IDA Home Page