dogs, and then at the bottom there is a statement that says: "I understand that the above listed animals might be sold for research or educational purposes. I certify that I am the legal owner of the above listed animals. The animals were bred and raised by me and I have every right to sell them to Martin Creek Kennels." I have a place for them to sign that and a place for the number of animals that were sold and the date on that. The one I'm operating with now I revised just in the last few months and it also has a place for the phone number. We aren't asked to take phone numbers, we aren't asked to take signatures, but I saw as the trace-backs started, I saw some people they were trying to locate [people] that I knew and they were saying, "We can't locate these people." Some of the universities are beginning to do their own trace-backs and I had a university call me one day and there was some people they hadn't been able to trace back and it was causing them concern. These were people I knew. For whatever reason, their number wasn't listed. So, now I ask for phone numbers and I include that with every animal that I sell. I've done that since day one. It's required now. It wasn't until about a year or so ago. But, I've always included with every animal I've sold the source from which I bought the animal. Q. Let me ask you this question: Have you ever yourself falsified or made up records on the people that you bought - A. (Interposing) No, sir, I haven't, for several reasons. I'd like to explain myself there. Number one, it would be wrong and I just don't intend to do that. I preach every Sunday at a little place. I just won't do that. Q. You literally preach? A. Yes, sir. I've preach[ed] at the same church since 1965. Two, I would be very foolish to do it. The whole purpose of the record-keeping -as I understand it, the whole purpose of the record-keeping is to avoid the so-called stolen dog, the possibility of a dog being stolen. So, where's the logic if I falsified the records and I make a name up which is basically, I guess, what I'm being accused of, and the dog comes up stolen and somebody comes and says, "That's my dog," and I give the Sheriff the information knowing when I ha[n]d it to him he can't find the guy, you know, I'm hung with a potentially stolen dog. So, I want impeccable 57 Agric. Dec. 127 records. There would be no reason to. And, you know, beyond that, I don't need to buy from anyone who won't give me their information. So, I've never intentionally falsified any records. I'm going to admit that very possibly I've been naive enough to accept some information that was not correct, but I've never intentionally falsified anything. Q. Do you feel like what we've previously marked as Respondent's Exhibit No. 4 there as your new records you're referring to, how are they superior to what you were using, the older type records that we've marked as Exhibit No. 8? (The document was identified as Respondent Exhibit 4.) A. Well, I think these are basically going to be impeccable. Number one, I will not buy from anyone now who does not literally show me his driver's license. Now, in the older days I was big hand to trust people and I know there were some cases where somebody came to me and said, "Look" -- you know, when I said, "I need your driver's license," I would hear the story sometimes, "Well, I lost my wallet. I left it at home. I've got on a free pair of coveralls," or whatever, "but I know my number," and he rattled it off. And I am guilty of copying down such information without literally seeing that. I won't do that -- I don't care what the man's story is now, I just do not and will not do that. That accounts, I think, for some people who were able to give me some false information. I wasn't aware when I went into the business that there were some people out there who would have reason to want to give me false information. I wasn't aware that some of those coon hunters that I would meet at Joplin were guys who had already been issued a warning letter from USDA that "You guy[s] have sold too many dogs, therefore we can get you in big trouble." Guys have told me that they've had some very strong warnings about potential incrimination. I went to Joplin and I noticed that so many of these names that they're having trouble with are centered in and around the Joplin, Missouri area there. Either in Oklahoma or Kansas or Missouri. When I'd go to Joplin there would be sometimes as many as five buyers there. One out of Minnesota, two out of Missouri, one out of Kansas, myself. Sometimes the guy from Iowa would be there. It was very competitive to buy dogs there. And as I look back, I expect that of all the guys that sold too many animals knew they could be in a problem and they probably picked on the new buyer that was a little bit green and they came at me - with their dogs and again, you know, "I've lost my wallet," or this type thing. Sometimes the story -- and as I look back and it's again something I don't allow at all anymore, but sometimes the old concept of "My neighbor couldn't come in today and he asked me to haul these dogs, and here's his driver's license information." You know, I had no reason to question him. His neighbor is in the hospital, his wife wants me to -- you know, whatever this type of thing is. That doesn't happen anymore. If the man wants to sell me a dog, he's going to be here. [BY MR. ERTMAN:] Q. I'd like you to look at Complainant's Exhibit 123 please. I'd like you to look at the list of the breeds of dogs on this. [BY MR. BAIRD:] A. Okay. Q. Now, we have an airedale, and a dalmatian, and a lab cross, a July, a couple of shepherd crosses, a lab cross, and a pointer. Does this look to you more like a person selling their cull hunting dogs, or a person gathering dogs from various sources to sell to you? A. Number one, I never said that I only buy cull hunting dogs. Lots of people in the country have lots of dogs. What you're asking me to do basically is to make a judgment that if a man tells me these are his dogs and that he raised them, I don't know that I have any right or any responsibility to question his word or call him a liar. Now, these don't look like hunting dogs, for the most part. The July is a hunting dog, the pointer is a hunting dog, the walker is a hunting dog. The others primarily are not. But when you go to some of these places that live back in the woods, lots of them have lots of old mongrel dogs in their yard. I have no idea what his place looked like or what he had. 57 Agric. Dec. 127 Q. I would like for you to look at Complainant's Exhibit 119, please. A. Okay. Q. And I would like for you to look at the mix of breeds on this. A. Okay. Q. We have a shepherd cross and a pointer and a German shepherd, another shepherd cross, another pointer, and two walker hounds. Does this look like a person selling their cull dogs to you, or does this look like a person bunching dogs for the purpose of selling them to you? A. I don't have any way of responding to that, other than what the man tells me. Q. And you will accept whatever they tell you. A. If he tells me they are his dogs, that he raised the dogs, and he signs the statement with me that he raised the dogs, I have no right to question that. If I have a strong reason to think the man is less than honest, I would not, but if he's willing to show me his driver's license and sign in front of witnesses that, "Yes, I sold the dogs and I bred and raised them," I don't understand how I can be asked to do anymore than that. Q. But what have you asked him here? What is shown by this form that you asked him? A. Well, at this time, the form itself did not carry the statement that "were bred and raised." Q. But you asked them whether they were the legal owner of these dogs and cats. A. That's right. Q. But you weren't even asking them whether they were bred and raised, or born and raised, on the form. A. I[t] wasn't on the form, at that time, no, sir. At that time, the USDA had made basically an open statement that they were not enforcing it and it wasn't a big issue, and that's the reason I wasn't putting it on my form. I thought that the statement that I made that he had every right to sell the animals to Martin Creek Kennels, I thought that covered that issue, because by the regulation, if it were being enforced of the "bred and raised," he would not have the right to sell the animal if he had not bred and raised it, and that's one of the reasons why I put that statement in. Since it became a controversial issue, I went back and revised my statement and had it to read that they were bred and raised on their premises. Tr. 190-91, 197-204, 267-70. Respondent describes participating in "trade" days at Joplin, Missouri, and Poplar Bluff, Arkansas, where Respondent bought hunting dog culls, for the most part. Respondent's testimony does not claim that the trade day sellers were licensed dealers, authorized pounds, or authorized shelters, and I infer that they were not. Thus, a seller would have to have bred and raised the dog on the seller's premises, or Respondent would be impermissibly acquiring random source dogs. I find that it is not credible that Respondent would go to a "trade" day believing that the seasoned dog traders Respondent describes would always only have dogs bred and raised on their own premises when dealing with Respondent. Respondent admits to buying dogs in Joplin, Missouri, in hectic competition, with up to five other regional buyers like himself. The descriptions of these trade days are that the more likely scenario at any trade day is that the dogs offered Respondent had already traded hands several times before reaching Respondent. The ALJ used the testimony of APHIS investigators Kent Permentier (Tr. 145-46) and Daniel Hutchings (Tr. 158-59) to describe that the operations of the "field" men and "trade" days were such that the dogs changed hands many times (Initial Decision and Order at 2, 7). The record is conclusive in that Respondent admittedly made no genuine effort to determine whether a dog was random source, because Respondent believed that USDA was not enforcing the regulation, of which regulation Respondent nonetheless was well aware. In response to a question by the ALJ at the hearing, |