The Issue Whether Petitioner’s application for a license to possess Class II Wildlife for exhibition or public sale should be approved.
Findings Of Fact FWC is the state agency with exclusive jurisdiction to regulate all wild animal life in Florida. See Art. IV, § 9, Fla. Const.1 1 All references to the Florida Constitution, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code are to current versions that have not substantively changed as applied to the facts in this case. All persons who possess captive wildlife for the purposes of public display or public sale must have a license from FWC. See § 379.3761(1), Fla. Stat. By rule promulgated by FWC, categories of wildlife for which a license is required are broken down into three classes. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 68A- 6.002. Generally, a person cannot possess Class I animals for personal pets unless they came into their possession prior to 1988. Class I animals include 24 different species generally considered extremely dangerous, and include wildlife such as chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, baboons, leopards, jaguars, tigers, bears, rhinoceros, elephants, hippopotamuses, crocodiles, and Komodo dragons. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 68A-6.002(1)(a). Class II animals include 38 different species that may, with a proper license, be possessed as personal pets or for commercial purposes. Class II animals have the potential to cause harm but not to the extent of Class I animals and include wildlife such as Howler monkeys, Patas monkeys, Vervet monkeys, Macaques, bobcats, wolves, wolverines, honey badgers, and alligators. See Fla. Admin Code R. 68A-6.002(1)(b). Class III animals include wildlife not listed as Class I or II. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 68A-6.002(1)(c). The application at issue in this case is Petitioner’s application, ID 75226, to possess, exhibit, or sell Class II wildlife. Petitioner’s application, dated September 9, 2019, identifies Macaques, Patas, Vervet, Grivet, and Green monkeys as species that he does not currently possess, put plans to possess. By letter to Petitioner dated February 5, 2020 (Denial Letter), FWC advised Petitioner that his application was being denied because of prior violations of law and FWC rules regulating wildlife. In particular, the Denial Letter states that on June 19, 2017, FWC investigator Rick Brown found Petitioner in possession of a Vervet monkey without a license. The Denial Letter explains that, on that same date, Petitioner told investigator Brown that Petitioner had sold a lemur, two squirrel monkeys, and an artic fox earlier in that year, but was unable to provide documents for those sales as required by FWC rule. According to the Denial Letter, Petitioner was issued misdemeanor citations for those violations and, on July 21, 2017, Petitioner received adjudication other than acquittal or dismissal for those violations. The Denial Letter also states that, during an investigation of Petitioner at a new location on February 13, 2018, conducted by FWC investigator Steve McDaniel, it was discovered that Petitioner had sold two ring-tail lemurs to an unlicensed individual on December 15, 2017, and that at the time of the sale Petitioner’s license was expired and was not otherwise valid for sales from Petitioner’s new location. The Denial Letter further states that as a result, Petitioner was issued a citation for selling the lemurs without a valid license and a written warning for selling to an unlicensed individual. According to the Denial Letter, on May 22, 2018, Petitioner received adjudication other than acquittal or dismissal for the citation. The Denial Letter concludes: Pursuant to Rule 68-1.010 [Florida Administrative Code], and due to facts stated above, your application has been denied. We are processing your application fee for a refund, and you should receive it within 21 days. During the hearing for this case, the factual basis set forth in the Denial Letter was demonstrated by a preponderance of the evidence provided by the testimony of FWC investigators Brown and McDaniel, the documentary evidence, and Petitioner’s own testimony. Indeed, the evidence showed that during an investigation conducted by investigator Brown on June 19, 2017, Petitioner was found to be in possession of a Class II Vervet monkey without a proper license. Petitioner has never had a Class II license. It was also demonstrated that, at the time of that investigation, Petitioner was unable to produce sales records for a lemur, two squirrel monkeys, and an arctic fox that he had sold earlier that year. While Petitioner provided some documents at the hearing purporting to be records related to those sales, they were insufficient to overcome the preponderance of the evidence in this case. At the hearing, Petitioner admitted that he paid the fine from the citation issued against him for possession of the Vervet and lack of sales records. In addition, it was shown by a preponderance of the evidence that on December 15, 2017, Petitioner sold two ringtail lemurs to an unlicensed individual under a Class III license that was expired and that, prior to its expiration, had only been valid at his previous location, instead of the new location where the sale had taken place.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission issue a Final Order denying Petitioner Gregory Nelson’s application for a license to possess Class II wildlife for exhibition or public sale. DONE AND ENTERED this 28th day of August, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JAMES H. PETERSON, III Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 28th day of August, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Gregory Nelson 23033 Brouwerton Road Howey-in-the-Hills, Florida 34737 Rhonda E. Parnell, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Eric Sutton, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Emily Norton, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050 (eServed)
The Issue Whether Respondent properly denied the applications of Petitioner for Class I wildlife; and whether Respondent's previous granting of Class I licensure to Petitioner estops Respondent from denying the instant applications.
Findings Of Fact On July 15, 1998, Petitioner applied to the Commission for licenses, via three separate applications, to possess wildlife, particularly bears, leopards, and baboons at three separate locations. The applications cited the addresses of 127 West Hiawatha Street, 116 West Elm Street, and 6802 North Highland Avenue, all in Tampa, Florida, as the locations where Petitioner planned to possess the animals. Petitioner applied to possess bears (family ursidae), leopards (family felidae) and baboons (family cercopithecidae) at each location. All these animals are Class I wildlife. Respondent issued Notices of Denial of the three applications to Petitioner on September 22, 1998. Class I animals are dangerous animals that cannot be possessed for personal use, and are typically found in zoos. They are dangerous because of their ferocity and size. These animals may be aggressive towards anyone, including their keeper. Class II wildlife are potentially dangerous animals which should only be possessed by experienced individuals. Class III animals are of smaller size and are less aggressive. The goal of the Commission's classification system is to promote the safehousing of wildlife, and to protect the general public and the individual keeping the animals. In the application for 116 West Elm Street, Petitioner noted that he presently possessed five white-tailed deer, one muntjac, and one emu, all Class III wildlife. Petitioner did not possess authorization to house Class I wildlife at 116 West Elms Street, the year previous to the instant application. In the application for 127 West Hiawatha Street, Petitioner noted that he presently possessed two panthers and one bobcat, both Class II wildlife, and two alligators, which are Class III wildlife. Petitioner did not possess authorization to house Class I wildlife at 127 West Hiawatha Street the year previous to the instant application. In the application for 6802 North Highland Avenue, Petitioner noted that he presently possessed no wildlife at this location. Petitioner did not possess authorization to house Class I wildlife at 6802 North Highland Avenue the year previous to the instant application. Two of Petitioner's locations are contiguous: 127 West Hiawatha Street, and 166 West Elm Street. Petitioner's location at 6802 North Highland Avenue is approximately one block from the other two sites, and on the other side of the street. Elm and Hiawatha are not one property, but two separate residences and addresses. The Hiawatha and Elm Street addresses were treated as two separate locations by the Commission as they are separate addresses with separate applications. The Elm Street and Hiawatha locations are separated by a fence at the back of each property. Petitioner uses a ladder to traverse over the fence between the Elm Street and Hiawatha locations. The area where Petitioner wishes to house Class I wildlife is a residential area with small single-family houses located close together, with small yards, and near a major road. There are residential properties to the east of both the Hiawatha and Elm Street locations. Petitioner's neighborhood is densely populated, with single-family residential dwellings and small lots. Petitioner's locations are within approximately 100 yards from large intersections at Sligh Avenue and Florida Avenue. The three properties where Petitioner sought to keep Class I wildlife are zoned single-family residential. Approximately six people per week visit through Petitioner's facilities. Petitioner has received various permits, including Class I, from the Commission for over the past 15 years. It is possible to obtain a Class I license and not be qualified to possess animals at the address on the license. Pursuant to law, a permittee for Class I wildlife has to meet specific requirements including standard caging requirements and land area. The land area required to house Class I wildlife is 1/4 acre minimum. An acre of land is 43,560 square feet. One-quarter of an acre is 10,890 square feet. The 1/4 acre minimum area for Class I wildlife is critical because it allows for a larger buffer for dangerous animals. Respondent wildlife inspectors visit applied-for sites to determine whether the facility meets the caging requirements, whether wildlife are housed safely and ensure the public is not at risk. Respondent inspections are made to determine whether caging is strong enough to contain animals safely and to verify the owner or possessor does not exceed the number of permitted animals. Wildlife officers regulate and enforce the caging of captive wildlife, both exotic and native. It is necessary to have cages meet the rules to protect the safety of the animal, the neighbors, and the keeper. Respondent's Lieutenant Stephen Delacure, who has been a Commission Wildlife Officer or Inspector for approximately ten years, has been to Petitioner's three locations in Tampa at least 15 times over the past four years. Delacure has never seen any Class I animals at any of Petitioner's three locations. On November 12, 1998, Delacure and Lieutenant Krause inspected all three of Petitioner's locations pursuant to his application. Delacure inspected the three locations for appropriate caging and land area for bears, leopards, and baboons. Delacure measured all locations with Petitioner present and indicated that he gave Petitioner "the benefit of the doubt" as to the measurements. Delacure measured the total area for 127 West Hiawatha Street to be 103 feet by 39 feet (front and depth) (4,017 square feet). Delacure measured the total area of 116 West Elm Street to be 87 feet by 69 feet (6,003 square feet). Therefore, Delacure found the combined area for 127 West Hiawatha Street and 116 West Elm to be 10,020 square feet. Delacure measured the total area of 6802 North Highland Avenue to be 102 feet by 42 feet (4,284 square feet). Delacure found no adequate caging for Class I bears, baboons, or cats at 127 West Hiawatha Street. In addition, Delacure found no caging for Class I wildlife at 116 West Elm Street nor 6802 North Highland Avenue. The November 1998 inspection was the basis for the issuance of the amended notice of denial for failure to meet land area requirements and to meet caging requirements. Respondent denied Class I licenses to Petitioner because of inadequate land area and caging. Class II licenses do not say "all" for possession purposes, as these licenses are defined by specific animal families. However, Class III licenses may say "all" for possession purposes. The Respondent changed Class I licenses to animal specific from the "all" designation to ensure that the animal possessor is familiar with the handling of that family or species of animal as nutritional, health, and handling requirements are different for each animal family. Linda Coomey is a building inspector for the City of Tampa, having done this job for 15 years. Coomey inspects zoning and code enforcement. Coomey has been to Petitioner's locations 12-13 times over the last eight years. Coomey calculated the area of 127 West Hiawatha Street as 38 feet by 103 feet (3,914 square feet). Coomey calculated the area of 116 West Elm Street as 65 feet by 80 feet (5,200 square feet). Therefore, Coomey found the combined area of 127 West Hiawatha Street and 116 West Elm Street is 9,114 square feet. The area of 6802 North Highland Avenue was calculated by Coomey as 50 feet by 104 feet (5,200 square feet). These measurements were taken from the Hillsborough County plat maps and Coomey does not consider any error in measuring the square footage as acceptable. The Hillsborough County Property Appraiser's Office found the area of the three properties to be as follows: 127 West Hiawatha Street, 38 feet by 103 feet (3,914 square feet); 116 West Elm Street, 65 feet by 80 feet (5,200 square feet); and 6802 North Highland Avenue, 50 feet by 104 feet (5,200 square feet). None of these individual areas is equal to or greater than 1/4 acre, nor does the combining of the areas of 127 West Hiawatha Street and 116 West Elm Street (3,914 square feet and 5,200 square feet, for a total of 9,114 square feet) meet or exceed 1/4 acre. The Hillsborough County Tax Collector's Office reports 127 West Hiawatha Street as being .09 acres; 116 West Elm Street as being .12 acres; and 6802 North Highland Avenue as being .12 acres. Therefore, the Hillsborough County Tax Collector's Office found the combined area of 127 West Hiawatha Street and 116 West Elm Street is .21 acres. Per Petitioner, 127 West Hiawatha Avenue is 39 feet by 103 feet (4,017 square feet) in total area, and Respondent's officers informed Petitioner he did not have the required acreage. Respondent informed Petitioner on more than one occasion that Petitioner could have a Class I license that allows a person to borrow an animal and not be allowed to posseses Class I animals on the license holder's property. On September 6, 1991, Petitioner was issued a license for 127 West Hiawatha Street, which cited that Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, felidae, cercopithecidae, and ursidae; Class II, felidae and cercopithecidae; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. On July 23, 1993, Petitioner was issued a license for 127 West Hiawatha Street, which cited that Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, none; Class II, felidae; Class III, all excluding felidae. On June 29, 1993, Petitioner was issued a license for 116 West Elm Street, which cited that Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, ursidae, cercopithecidae, and felidae. On June 29, 1993, Petitioner was issued a license for 6802 North Highland Avenue, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, ursidae, felidae, and cercopithecidae; Class II, all excluding venomous reptiles; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. On June 29, 1994, Petitioner was issued a license for 116 West Elm Street, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, felidae, cercopithecidae, and ursidae; Class II, all, excluding venomous reptiles; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. On June 29, 1994, Petitioner was a issued a license for 6802 North Highland Avenue, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, felidae, cercopithecidae, and ursidae; Class II, all, excluding venomous reptiles; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. On July 4, 1994, Petitioner was issued a license for 127 West Hiawatha Street, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, none; Class II, felidae; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. On June 27, 1996, Petitioner was issued a license for 127 West Hiawatha Street, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, none; Class II, felidae; Class III, all, excluding venomous reptiles. On August 9, 1996, Petitioner was issued a license for 116 West Elm Street, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, felidae, cercopithecidae, and ursidae; Class II, felidae and cercopithecidae; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. On August 9, 1996, Petitioner was issued a license for 6802 North Highland Avenue, which cited Petitioner could possess the following: Class I, felidae, cercopithecidae, and ursidae; Class II, felidae and cercopithecidae; Class III, all excluding venomous reptiles. This was the last instance where Petitioner was licensed to possess Class I wildlife. On September 16, 1997, Petitioner was issued a license for 127 Hiawatha Street, which cited Petitioner could possess: Class I, none; Class II, felidae; Class III, all. On September 16, 1997, Petitioner was issued a license for 116 West Elm Street, which cited Petitioner could possess: Class I, none; Class II, none; Class III, all, excluding venomous reptiles. On September 16, 1997, Petitioner was issued a license for 6802 North Highland Avenue, which cited Petitioner could possess: Class I, none; Class II, none. Lieutenant Dennis Parker is an inspector for Respondent, having worked for Respondent 26 years. Parker has consistently inspected Petitioner's facilities for more than 15 years. Parker measured 127 West Hiawatha Street "from curb to curb" in 1992 pursuant to Petitioner having a bear on the premises. Petitioner immediately received notice from Respondent that his acreage was inadequate via a "field revocation." Petitioner was ordered to remove the Class I animals. Petitioner was mistakenly provided a Class I license for ursidae before the Commission measured 127 West Hiawatha Street, under Parker's assumption that Petitioner had adequate acreage. A Class I license requires 1/4 acre or more to possess a Class I animal on that property. Petitioner's license for Class I ursidae was based on Petitioner's borrowing a bear for exhibition, with the bear being kept at a licensed facility not owned by Petitioner. Petitioner used 127 West Hiawatha Street as the mailing address for the license. Respondent had never inspected or authorized caging for bears at 127 West Hiawatha Street. Petitioner originally obtained bears without the knowledge and/or consent of Respondent, then a complaint was filed with Respondent. Petitioner recently had an animal escape from the 116 Elm Street location. Petitioner presently possesses Class I animals. Petitioner's properties do not meet the regulatory requirement for acreage size to house Class I wildlife pursuant to Rule 68A- 6.022 (formerly 39-6.022), Florida Administrative Code. Petitioner is one of thousands of persons who has authority to possess animals, but does not have an approved facility address to house the animals. Moreover, assuming arguendo that the properties are combined, Petitioner's properties at 127 West Hiawatha and 116 West Elm fail to meet the mandatory requirements for acreage to house Class I wildlife, pursuant to Rule 68A-6.022, Florida Administrative Code.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission enter a final order upholding the Commission's Amended Notice of Denial. DONE AND ENTERED this 18th day of February, 2000, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM R. PFEIFFER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 18th day of February, 2000. COPIES FURNISHED: Joseph R. Fritz, Esquire 4204 North Nebraska Avenue Tampa, Florida 33603 Preston T. Robertson, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Allan L. Egbert, Ph.D., Interim Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 James Antista, Acting General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600
The Issue The issues to be determined in this case are whether Petitioner, Sherrie Wentworth (Petitioner), is entitled to approval of her applications to renew her Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit, and her License to Possess Class III Wildlife for Exhibition or Public Sale.
Findings Of Fact The following Findings of Fact are taken from the parties' joint pre-hearing stipulation, and the direct evidence adduced at the hearing. Stipulated Facts Petitioner pled no contest and had adjudication withheld on the following seven captive wildlife violations on April 28, 2015: Possession of Class I Wildlife (a tiger) without a required permit (a violation of section 379.3761, Florida Statutes). Failure to have a required permit for the importation of non-native species of wildlife (a tiger) (a violation of section 379.231(1)). Failure to possess the required financial responsibility for Class I Wildlife (a tiger) (a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 68A-6.0024(3)). Maintaining Class I Wildlife (a tiger) on less than five acres (a violation of rule 68A-6.003(2)(c)2.a.). Personal possession of Class II Wildlife (a coyote) without a required permit (a violation of section 379.3762). Unsafe housing of Class II Wildlife (a coyote) (a violation of rule 68A-6.0023(2)). Not having caging of proper size for Class II Wildlife (a coyote) (a violation of rule 68A-6.003(2)(c)4.b.). Two warnings were issued by Respondent to Petitioner on September 20, 2017, for the following two captive wildlife violations: Failure to keep complete accurate records of squirrels entering the facility (a violation of Florida Administrative Code Rule 68A-9.006(4)(b)). Failure to maintain a daily log of animals entering the rehabilitation facility (specifically to log a hawk taken in on September 14, 2017) (a violation of rule 68A-9.006(5)(e)). No additional adjudications or violations were entered against Petitioner between April 29, 2015, and September 19, 2017, that served as a basis for the denial at issue. There were no errors or omissions in the renewal applications at issue and there have been no previous errors or omissions in previous applications submitted by Petitioner that serve as a basis for the denial at issue. There have been no material changes to the criteria used to evaluate the issuance of the two licenses at issue since 2015. Petitioner admits that squirrels were not properly logged into Petitioner's records at the time of the September 20, 2017, warning violations. March 2015 In March 2015, then Captive Wildlife Investigator Steven Grigg responded to an anonymous complaint about a tiger at East Coast. See Resp. Ex. 4. Investigator Grigg testified that prior to that time Petitioner had expressed interest in getting a tiger, and he advised her regarding the necessary steps to obtain a Class I Wildlife permit that would allow her to possess a tiger. He was aware that the Class I Wildlife permit was denied in July 2014. Petitioner acquired the tiger while the Class I Wildlife permit application was pending, and she continued to possess the tiger for several months after being denied. At first, Petitioner denied having a tiger on the premises. The tiger was an approximately 200-pound female for which, in March 2015, Petitioner neither had the Class I Wildlife permit, nor did she have financial responsibility coverage and five acres for exclusive use. In addition, the non-native tiger was imported from outside the state without the necessary importation permit. Investigator Grigg issued Petitioner four separate citations related to unlawful possession of the tiger. See Stipulated Fact No. 1. Possession of a tiger without the necessary license and financial responsibility is a serious safety concern, both for the safety of the public and the person in possession of the animal. Possession of a tiger without having five acres of land on which no other use is taking place is necessary to ensure a buffer between the tiger and the public. East Coast sits on 2.5 acres, and Petitioner leased an adjacent 2.5 acres. See Pet. Ex. 2. Petitioner testified that she thought she had the necessary five acres for possession of the tiger. However, an examination of the lease for the adjacent property shows that there was a home with a couple residing there. Possession of a non-native tiger without the necessary import permit is a potential danger to native species of wildlife. Species outside of Florida may carry diseases not present in Florida wildlife. Bringing these species into the state without the necessary precautions associated with proper permits places native wildlife at risk. In addition, Petitioner kept the tiger at East Coast where injured and sick wildlife were also present. During the investigation of Petitioner's facility in March 2015, Investigator Grigg also discovered that she was keeping a coyote as a pet without a proper permit. Investigator Grigg cited Petitioner for keeping a Class II animal without the proper permit, and for housing the coyote in a cage that was neither the correct size nor the minimum necessary strength. See Stipulated Fact No. 1. A coyote is a Class II animal——the second most dangerous type of animal in Florida. Possession of a coyote without the necessary permit is a serious safety concern for the public. Petitioner's housing of the coyote in caging that was not as strong as the law requires also posed a danger to the public. Also during the March 2015 visit, Investigator Grigg discovered that Petitioner was keeping a red fox——a Class III animal——as a pet without a permit. Investigator Grigg issued a warning to Petitioner although he could have issued her a citation. He also issued Petitioner a warning for housing the fox in caging that was less than the minimum size required. Petitioner testified that she applied to Respondent and was granted a variance for the size of the cage for the red fox. September 2017 On September 20, 2017, Captive Wildlife Investigator J. Scott Wilkenson conducted an unannounced compliance inspection of Petitioner's facility. See Resp. Ex. 7. Petitioner had not entered approximately 60 squirrels into the facility logs as required by her Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit. That permit stated "[c]omplete, accurate written records shall be kept by the permittee . . . ." and "[a]ll permittees shall keep a log on each animal entering the facility for treatment . . . ." Petitioner testified that she entered the squirrels into a daily log, but she did not show proof of such a log to Investigator Wilkenson at the time of the inspection. Volunteer Donna Bloom testified that neither written nor electronic logs were provided to Investigator Wilkenson at the time of the inspection. Investigator Wilkenson issued a warning to Petitioner for the failure to enter the 60 squirrels into her facility logs as required by the law and her permit. At the September 2017 inspection, Investigator Wilkenson also noted that Petitioner did not enter record of a hawk into a daily log as required by Petitioner's Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit in effect at the time. The Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit stated that "[a]ll permittees shall keep a log on each animal entering the facility for treatment. The log shall include a record of the animals' treatment, condition, and disposition." Petitioner offered into evidence a record that purported to be the daily log reflecting the intake of the hawk. See Pet. Ex. 12. Investigator Wilkenson testified that he initially requested these documents but that they were not immediately available at the facility during his on-site inspection. Investigator Wilkenson issued Petitioner a warning for the failure to enter the hawk into a daily log as required by her permit. Petitioner and her recordkeeper, Ms. Bloom, admitted that the manual daily logs were not on-site during the September 20, 2017, inspection because Ms. Bloom took them home to enter into the computer. She testified that Hurricane Irma had impacted electricity at the facility and delayed entry of the manual daily logs into the computer. The Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit recordkeeping requirements are necessary to ensure permittee accountability. Records quickly show investigators what animals are on the permittee's property and their condition. Accurate records ensure that Respondent is able to carry out its constitutional responsibility regarding the care of wildlife for protection of both the public and the animals. Other Aggravating Evidence Investigator Grigg testified that over the years he repeatedly advised and warned Petitioner that it was necessary to follow the captive wildlife laws, including maintaining complete and accurate records. Investigator Grigg's interactions with Petitioner showed him that she would intentionally and with knowledge violate the captive wildlife laws for as long as she could before getting caught. Her actions left him concerned that she is not willing to comply with the captive wildlife laws. In addition, Petitioner has expressed to him that she does not have time to follow the rules and that Respondent's legal requirements impede her ability to care for the animals. Both Investigators Grigg and Wilkenson testified that Petitioner should reduce the number of species she intakes at the facility. Mitigating Evidence Petitioner testified that she opened East Coast in approximately January 2012, giving up her prior profession as a licensed pilot and investing approximately $100,000. Petitioner testified that her facility is the only rehabilitation center open 24 hours a day, seven days a week and year-round for injured animal intake. She testified that she takes animals that other centers will not and will travel from the center in Volusia County to Flagler County to pick up injured animals. She believes her operations provide a needed benefit to the community in Volusia and Flagler Counties. Ms. Lundell testified that the Chase Academy has 52 autistic children. The Academy partners with East Coast in an educational program for the students. Petitioner brings in the animals and educates the students about caring for and handling injured wildlife and wildlife in general. Petitioner testified that in September 2017, there was power loss and damage at East Coast caused by Hurricane Irma. Despite the situation, she testified that East Coast was the only rehabilitation center open and taking calls to pick up injured animals. She testified that she logged animals manually using paper forms, but on the date of Respondent's inspection, the paper forms were in the possession of Ms. Bloom, who was transferring the forms to Petitioner's electronic records system at home where there was power. However, Petitioner was unable to produce the paper forms at the time of Investigator Wilkenson's inspection or at any time thereafter.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent enter a final order denying Petitioner's applications for renewal of her Wildlife Rehabilitation Permit and License to Possess Class III Wildlife for Exhibition or Public Sale. DONE AND ENTERED this 13th day of June, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S FRANCINE M. FFOLKES Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 13th day of June, 2018. COPIES FURNISHED: Christopher Block, Esquire Block Law Firm, PLLC Post Office Box 560618 Rockledge, Florida 32956 (eServed) Sherrie Wentworth 2090 Halifax Drive Port Orange, Florida 32128 Tracey Scott Hartman, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Brandy Elaine Elliott, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Eric Sutton, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Harold G. "Bud" Vielhauer, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed)
The Issue Did Respondent, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (Commission) correctly deny the application of Petitioner, James Hammonds, to renew his Game Farm License (Case No. 19-6307)? Did the Commission correctly deny Mr. Hammonds' application to renew his License to Possess Class III Wildlife for Exhibition or Public Sale (Case No. 19-6326)?
Findings Of Fact The Parties Article IV, Section 9 of the Florida Constitution creates the Commission. It charges the Commission to "exercise the regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life, and … exercise regulatory and executive powers of the state with respect to marine life, … ." Chapter 379, Florida Statutes (2019), implements the constitutional provision and did so in 2017. Mr. Hammonds owns and operates The Monkey Whisperer in Parrish, Florida. He breeds and sells exotic animals. Mr. Hammonds holds five separate licenses authorizing him to own, breed, sell, and transport wild life. They are a Class III license5 (with a Capuchin Monkey and Spider Monkey endorsement) that authorizes him to exhibit and sell wildlife, a game farm license, a deer herd management license, a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) transport license, and a USDA license to trade in wildlife animals. The renewal of his Game Farm License and License for Exhibition and Public Sale of Wildlife are the subject of this matter. The Commission refused to renew both. Mr. Hammonds has held these two licenses since 2012. Since obtaining his licenses, Mr. Hammonds has passed all Commission inspections. In addition, the Commission has issued him a game farm license. The 2012 Conviction In 2012 Mr. Hammonds pleaded no contest to a charge of unlawfully selling wildlife to an unpermitted entity. The offense was sale of a marmoset at a flea market to an unlicensed purchaser. The record does not provide a citation to the statute violated. Mr. Hammonds was new to the exotic animal trade. He relied upon statements by the purchaser and a Commission representative that the Commission had issued the purchaser a license and that it was en route. The court adjudicated Mr. Hammonds guilty and ordered him to pay a fine and costs totaling $450.00. It also required Mr. Hammonds to pay an additional $50.00 for costs of prosecution. Mr. Hammonds paid the fine and 5 Section 379.3762(2), Florida Statutes (2019), creates three classifications of wildlife types. Class I is wildlife that because of its nature, habit, or status may not be possessed as a pet. Class II is wildlife presenting a real or potential threat to human safety. Class III is all wildlife not included in Classes I and II. costs. Aware of this conviction, the Commission nonetheless routinely approved Mr. Hammonds' license renewal applications and approved his application for a game farm license over the next six years. There is no evidence of or charge of any other violations by Mr. Hammonds until the charges involved in these cases. The Capuchin Monkey In October 2017, Mr. Hammonds sold a Capuchin monkey to Christina Brown. He verified her identity and Nevada residency by looking at her Nevada driver's license. Nevada does not require a license to own exotic animals, including Capuchin monkeys. The Commission did not prove that Ms. Brown did not hold a Florida permit to own wildlife.6 Mr. Hammonds had a few conversations with Ms. Brown and her assistant Manny Ortiz about the sale. On October 12, 2017, Mr. Hammonds completed the required USDA form, "Record of Acquisition, Disposition or Transport of Animals," for the Capuchin sale.7 Mr. Hammonds was advised that Jennifer and Michael Brister would pick up the monkey to transport it to Nevada. The Bristers are located in 6 Lack of proof is the hallmark of this case. The Commission relied solely upon the testimony of one witness. The testimony was almost entirely hearsay or descriptions of document contents. This is despite the Commission, according to its witness, having recordings, sworn statements, telephone records, and financial records to support its allegations. The Commission did not offer these into evidence. Hearsay alone cannot be the basis for a finding of fact unless it would be admissible over objection in a circuit court trial. § 120.57(1)(c), Fla. Stat. (2019). Document descriptions are subject to memory failings, incompleteness, inaccuracies, and other factors that make them less than persuasive. See § 90.952, Fla. Stat.; See Williams v. State, 386 So. 2d 538, 540 (Fla. 1980). 7 The form does not have a field calling for the buyer's telephone number, or any telephone number for that matter. This is noted because the Commission's witness and Notices emphasize, as proof of guilt, an unsupported claim that Mr. Hammonds put his telephone number on the form where the buyer's telephone number went. The unsupported testimony and insistence on its significance is one of the reasons that the witness' testimony is given little credence or weight. Also Mr. O'Horo testified that the form showed a Virginia address for Ms. Brown. It shows a Nevada address. Tennessee. The Bristers held a USDA Class T Carrier permit issued under the federal Animal Welfare Act. Mr. Hammonds obtained proof that the Bristers held this federal permit required for interstate transport of the monkey. He went so far as to obtain a copy of their USDA certification to provide this service. Mr. Hammonds was also aware that the Bristers frequently did business in Florida. Other breeders recommended them highly. The Commission did not prove that the Bristers did not hold a Florida permit to own wildlife. The Bristers picked up the monkey, on behalf of Ms. Brown, from Mr. Hammonds in Florida. Other than to receive a telephone call reporting that the monkey had been delivered, Mr. Hammonds had no further contact with or communications about the monkey or Ms. Brown until the Commission's investigator contacted him. There is no admissible, credible, persuasive evidence about what happened to the monkey from this point forward. The Commission offered only uncorroborated hearsay testimony from Mr. O'Horo on this subject. The Rhesus Macaque Monkey Mr. Hammonds also assists people in rescues of exotic animals whose owners have realized they cannot care for them. In 2017, Mr. Hammonds facilitated the transfer of a Rhesus Macaque monkey from one individual to another. A Macaque monkey is a Class II animal. The monkey owner came to Mr. Hammonds' business seeking assistance because he could not handle the monkey. The monkey was in a pet carrier. Mr. Hammonds recalled a woman in Orlando who had contacted him in the past seeking a Macaque. He put the two individuals in touch with each other. The two individuals agreed to the exchange of the monkey. The woman came the same day, met the Macaque owner, and accepted the monkey from him. The owner kept the monkey with him in the carrier until he gave it to the woman. Mr. Hammonds was paid for his services in facilitating the exchange. There is no competent, persuasive evidence that Mr. Hammonds ever had ownership, physical possession, control, or custody of the Macaque monkey in any form.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent, Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, issue a final order renewing the Game Farm License and the License to Possess Class III Wildlife for Exhibition or Public Sale of Petitioner, James Hammonds. DONE AND ENTERED this 23rd day of June, 2020, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S JOHN D. C. NEWTON, II Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 23rd day of June, 2020. COPIES FURNISHED: Rhonda E. Parnell, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399 (eServed) David A. Fernandez, Esquire Florida Trial Counsel 4705 26th Street West, Suite A Bradenton, Florida 34207 (eServed) Sean P. Flynn, Esquire Flynn Law, P.A. 2200 Manatee Avenue West Bradenton, Florida 34025 (eServed) Eric Sutton, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed) Emily Norton, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 (eServed)
The Issue The issue in this case concerns whether the Respondent violated Sections and 585.80, Florida Statutes, by selling or offering to sell animal products that were adulterated, misbranded, or uninspected, and, if so, a determination of the appropriate penalty to be imposed.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is engaged in the business of selling meat products at its location at 4267 Northwest 12th Street, Lauderhill, Florida 33313, and holds Food Permit No. 55402, pursuant to Section 500.12, Florida Statutes. On January 12, 1993, a United States Department of Agriculture Compliance Officer performed an inspection at Respondent's facility. During this inspection, the Compliance Officer examined and placed under detention approximately 327 pounds of uninspected meat product, consisting of the following: two pig carcasses, one cow head, singed cow feet, beef lungs, and goat tripe. None of the products bore any marks of inspection. With the exception of the two pig carcasses, 1/ all of the uninspected meat product was being offered for sale to retail customers. Beef lungs, or "lite," may not be sold as human food under any circumstances in the State of Florida. The goat tripe, or stomachs, were adulterated with ingesta, which is the contents of the stomach at the time the animal is slaughtered. Some of the beef lungs were darkly colored which, in the opinion of the Compliance Officer, was because they were either old or had been left unrefrigerated for some period of time. One of the pig carcasses was unclean and bruised, and was therefore condemned. The other carcass was released to Mr. Richard Gray after it was determined by the Compliance Officer that, despite the lack of proper labeling, the pig carcasses were being held for the personal use of Mr. Gray. On February 12, 1993, a Department Compliance Officer performed a second inspection at Respondent's facility. At this time, the Compliance Officer examined and detained approximately 65 pounds of uninspected meat products, consisting of the following: goat feet (hide on), goat intestines, goat tripe, and beef lungs. None of the products bore marks of inspection, nor were they marked as "Not for Sale." The goat feet and beef lungs were adulterated with ingesta and were generally dirty. The products detained during the February 12, 1993, inspection, were delivered to Respondent's facility on January 19, 1993, as part of the same purchase of meat products as the items found by the USDA Compliance Officer on January 12, 1993. The Florida meat inspection program requires an animal to be inspected both before and after slaughter. Antemortem inspection is necessary to determine the general health of the animal, while postmortem inspection may reveal pathological conditions and diseases. The tissue is also examined for evidence of abscess, parasites, and arthritic conditions, as well as drug residues. These steps must be taken to safeguard the consumer from exposure to contaminated and diseased meat products. By means of the Department's letter dated May 29, 1991, Respondent has previously received a formal notice of warning concerning a separate violation of the same statutory prohibition, namely the sale and offer for sale of adulterated and misbranded cow and goat feet.
Recommendation On the basis of all of the foregoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issue a Final Order in this case to the following effect: Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of Sections 500.04 and 585.80(2), Florida Statutes, by offering for sale uninspected animal products and adulterated animal products on January 12, 1993; Concluding that the Respondent is guilty of a violation of Sections 500.04 and 585.80(2), Florida Statutes, by offering for sale uninspected animal products and adulterated animal products on February 12, 1993; and Imposing an administrative fine in the amount of $1,000.00 for each of the two violations mentioned above, for a grand total of $2,000.00 in administrative fines. DONE AND ENTERED this 27th day of May 1994 in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. MICHAEL M. PARRISH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 27th day of May 1994.
Findings Of Fact Respondent is permitted by Petitioner to treat sick and injured wildlife under a wildlife rehabilitation permit, the latest and current permit being issued to Respondent on January 21, 1983. Respondent has been engaged in the business of treating sick and injured wildlife -- including both birds and mammals -- under permit from Petitioner for at least three (3) years. Petitioner issues wildlife rehabilitation permits to those persons demonstrating to Petitioner the degree of expertise in treating sick and injured wildlife necessary to assure safety to the treated animals. In addition, Petitioner monitors wildlife rehabilitation permittees to assure that sick and injured wildlife are treated humanely and caged in a safe and sanitary manner so as to protect the health and safety of the wildlife treated and the public. In order to monitor such permittees, periodic inspections of the premises where sick and injured wildlife is treated are made by Petitioner. In addition, Petitioner required such permittees to maintain records and to submit the same to Petitioner upon Petitioner's request. Wildlife rehabilitators are notified of this requirement through an informational packet provided them by Petitioner, which specifies that permittees must keep records of specimens cared for and submit reports of same to Petitioner upon request. The requirement that records be maintained and reported to the Petitioner upon request is applied to all of the one hundred (100) wildlife rehabilitators permitted by Petitioner. Examination of records is routinely requested by Petitioner when inspecting the premises where sick and injured wildlife is kept. On at least two occasions, Petitioner requested the production of records maintained by Respondent in connection with Petitioner's inspection of Respondent's wildlife rehabilitation facilities. On neither occasion did Respondent produce records for Petitioner's inspection. On February 3, 1983, Petitioner notified Respondent by letter that Respondent should submit a report of the numbers and types of wildlife accepted for rehabilitation and the disposition of said wildlife. The letter directed Respondent to submit his report immediately and to maintain records for examination by Petitioner in conjunction with future inspections. No report was submitted to Petitioner by the Respondent. On September 8, 1983, in response to a citizen complaint, Petitioner initiated an investigation of the wildlife rehabilitation operation of Respondent. In conjunction with its investigation of Respondent, Petitioner requested of Respondent the production of the wildlife rehabilitation records on September 22, 1983. Respondent did not produce the records as requested. Petitioner again requested Respondent to produce the records on September 23, 1983, and again Respondent failed to produce the records for Petitioner. Respondent did provide, on two separate occasions, documents to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a federal agency. The documents submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service purported to reflect numbers of birds treated by Respondent during 1982. The documents failed to reflect the type of treatment, the specific disposition of said birds, any reference to mammals, or any recording of numbers or types of mammals. The two separate documents submitted are in irreconcilable conflict as to numbers and types of birds treated. In addition, the documents contain no reference to certain birds delivered by Petitioner to respondent's wildlife rehabilitation facility during 1982. Said documents were never submitted by Respondent to Petitioner. On no occasion has Respondent produced any records or reports for 1982 to Petitioner in connection with Respondent's wildlife rehabilitation. On November 1, 1983, Respondent was informed by letter dated October 27, 1983, that Petitioner intended to revoke Respondent's wildlife rehabilitation permit due to Respondent's failure to comply with the record keeping and reporting requirements of the wildlife rehabilitation permit.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing findings of fact and conclusions of law, it is RECOMMENDED: That the Petitioner Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission enter a final order revoking the wildlife permit of the Respondent Jack Kassewitz, Jr. DONE and ORDERED THIS 15th day of May, 1984, in Tallahassee, Florida. SHARYN L. SMITH Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The Oakland Building 2009 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32301 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 15th day of May, 1984.
The Issue The issue in this proceeding concerns whether Leonard Mattox, the Petitioner, or his business, Sasquatch Park, is qualified under the provisions of Rule 39-6.0022(5)(c)1, Florida Administrative Code, to engage in the husbandry of a cougar (felis concolor), in terms of the experience requirement of that rule.
Findings Of Fact The Petitioner, Leonard M. Mattox, doing business as Sasquatch Park, operates a captive wildlife facility, open to the public, in Okaloosa County, Florida, near the City of Crestview. The facility is open to the public between the hours of 9:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., and the Petitioner holds a Class II permit authorizing possession of macaques, a primate. Class II wildlife species are animals which have the potential of posing some degree of danger to human beings. The permits for possession of such animals are issued by the Commission. The Petitioner's Class II permit authorizing the possession of a macaque was issued on August 19, 1988. On April 19, 1989, the Petitioner applied to the Commission to upgrade that permit to include cougars (felis concolor), also an animal on the Class II wildlife species list, delineated in Rule 39-6.002, Florida Administrative Code. Rule 39-6.0011, Florida Administrative Code, then required that an applicant for a Class II permit must possess three-years minimum experience in the husbandry of the species for which the permit was sought. Subsequent to that application, the Commission changed the experience requirement by enacting Rule 39- 6.0022(5)(c)1 on July 1, 1990. That provision defines experience requirement as being no less than one year of substantial, practical experience and consisting of not less than 1,000 hours in the care, feeding, and handling of the species for which the permit is sought. Petitioner concedes that he does not possess the required 12 months or 1,000 hours of experience. In fact, he testified that although he has extensive experience in the care and husbandry of numerous exotic wildlife species, including macaques, a Class II species, he has no formal experience in the husbandry of cougars. Rather, the Petitioner is relying on the experience of Mr. Bobby Spencer and Ms. Pauline Redding, both of whom have owned and possessed and cared for cougars for approximately five years. The cougar that the Petitioner seeks to own and exhibit in his zoo is "Micah", presently owned by Mr. Spencer. Mr. Spencer wishes to donate Micah to the Petitioner's zoo in order to give the cougar a safe, comfortable, appropriate home because he can longer keep the cougar. His grandson is allergic to the cougar's fur and exhibits a violent reaction to being in the proximity of the cougar. The Petitioner seeks to establish that his facility is appropriately qualified to maintain and care for the cougar within the requirements of the above rule by retaining both Mr. Spencer and Ms. Redding as "curators". It is undisputed that both of those individuals have more than the required experience in the husbandry of cougars. The Petitioner has proposed, with the agreement of both Mr. Spencer and Ms. Redding, that they will make routine, frequent and unannounced visits to the cougar's enclosure to ensure that the cougar is being appropriately cared for and that the public viewing the cougar will not be at risk. Both Mr. Spencer and Ms. Redding will be available on an "on-call" basis at any hour of the day or night, in addition to making routine unannounced visits to the enclosure. Both Mr. Spencer and Ms. Redding possess Class II permits from the Commission to possess cougars as personal pets. They keep their animals at Commission- approved facilities at their residences, although they do not exhibit them to the general public. Mr. Spencer resides approximately 27 miles from the Petitioner's facility, and Ms. Redding resides approximately five miles away and can be at the Petitioner's facility within approximately five minutes. Both are employed full-time, however. Mr. Spencer is a real estate salesman, and Ms. Redding is a full-time receptionist and veterinarian's assistant employed with a veterinarian in Ft. Walton Beach, some 27 miles from the Petitioner's facility, during normal working hours. In addition to being experienced in the husbandry of a cougar, Ms. Redding is experienced in the care of many types of animals in her duties as a veterinarian's assistant, which include functioning as an anesthesiologist. The testimony of Captain Jerry Thomas of the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission established that the Commission's two primary concerns are the safety of the public and the humane treatment of the animal in situations where a permit is sought for the possession and exhibition of a Class II wildlife species, such as a cougar. There is no dispute that the Sasquatch Facility exceeds the Commission's requirements for housing, possessing and exhibiting the cougar. In fact, the enclosure built specifically for this cougar exceeds the more stringent provisions in the Commission's rules for housing African lions. The facility was designed to comport with the rule requirements for housing a breeding pair of African lions. There is a personnel "stand off fence" to protect the public so that no member of the public can approach the cage. The cougar's enclosure itself is an eight-foot high, nine-gauge, chain-link wire enclosure with nine-gauge chain-link wire covering the top of it to prevent the cougar from scaling his enclosure. There are also drop gates installed in the facility to manage a cougar and isolate him, as needed, from one side or other of his enclosure and to prevent involuntary release. In the extremely unlikely event of involuntary release of the cougar, there is an eight-foot perimeter fence around the zoo's facility. This particular cougar, who is substantially overweight, would likely be unable to scale it. If for some reason he was able to scale that enclosure, the rural, wooded character of the area of the Sasquatch facility, which is sparsely populated, would minimize the likelihood of any risk to humans before the zoo personnel could tranquilize the cougar, apprehend him, and return him to the facility. The Petitioner is equipped with the proper equipment and trained personnel, who are capable of tranquilizing the cougar and returning him to the facility. Tranquilizer guns with the appropriate chemical dosage, as prescribed by a veterinarian for an animal such as a cougar, are maintained in readiness at the facility at all times. Thus, the Commission's interest in the safety of the public is well-served by the facility and the personnel it maintains to possess, exhibit and care for animals such as cougars. Concerning the issue of the humane treatment of the animal, the facility is equipped with an automatic watering device and a staff veterinarian, Dr. Hill, whose office and residence is in nearby Crestview, is on call on a 24-hour basis. In addition to Mr. Mattox and his wife, who live on the premises and are present every day, the Sasquatch facility has two other full-time employees during each regular working day. Additionally, there are volunteers assisting almost daily. Mr. Mattox himself has a Class I wildlife possession license and previously has been approved for a Class II permit authorizing the possession and exhibition of macaques at the facility. Although the individual care requirements for the two animals are different, macaques are also Class II wildlife species considered to pose a potential threat to humans. There is no question that with the experienced personnel maintained by the Sasquatch facility, the advice and oversight of Mr. Spencer and Ms. Redding, both of whom have years of experience in the husbandry of cougars, the required feeding, medical attention, watering, and general care of the cougar will be well-accomplished. In carrying out the intent of the rule, as it perceives it, to insure the safety of the public and the humane treatment of the animal involved, the Commission has interpreted the experience provision of the subject rule to mean that where the applicant for the permit represents an entity or business, as is involved herein, which will house the animal in question, the applicant himself or herself need not possess the required experience, so long as personnel employed by the entity housing the animal will have the requisite experience provided for in the rule. Since Mr. Mattox himself does not have the requisite experience, it must be determined whether personnel he proposes to have care for the cougar will have adequate experience in cougar husbandry to ensure that the Commission's two concerns, public safety and humane treatment of the cougar, are appropriately served. In this connection, the Commission in its testimony at hearing through its agency representative, espoused the policy view or interpretation of the experience rule to the effect that persons with requisite experience should be on duty at the subject facility on a "full-time basis" or at least four hours per day. The language of the rule, however, does not provide that such personnel should be on duty on a full-time basis nor does it define what "full-time" means in any event. It does not provide a time-period standard delineating when experienced personnel should be on hand. Thus, starting from the premise that, as the Commission concedes, the applicant himself need not have the requisite experience, so long as personnel are available to a facility who do have the requisite experience, an examination must be made of the evidence and findings accordingly made concerning how much care on a typical day is required for a cougar kept in such a facility as Sasquatch Park, in order to satisfy the Commission's espoused concern regarding the animal's welfare. That examination will, in turn, demonstrate whether the Commission's espoused policy interpretation of the above rule experience requirement, in terms of a minimum of four hours per day presence by experienced personnel on the premises, is a reasonable interpretation and application of that rule, since the plain language of the rule itself does not require full-time presence of experienced personnel nor any other such time standard. The applicant has established an employment relationship with Mr. Spencer, the present owner of the cougar, whereby he will be the curator for the cougar when it is moved to Sasquatch Park. Mr. Spencer is licensed by the Commission to possess and own the cougar as a pet. He has been the owner and curator of this particular cougar for approximately five years. Mr. Spencer has agreed to provide his services on a 24-hour, on- call basis. For the first month or two, he would be present at the facility on almost a daily basis in order to make sure that the cougar becomes accustomed to his new owner and surroundings and does not become distressed at the absence of Mr. Spencer, to whom he has become emotionally attached. Mr. Spencer established, through his unrefuted testimony, that the actual time needed to be spent with the cougar is a maximum of 30 minutes per day, with an average of 15 minutes per day being appropriate. Any more time spent with the cougar, in direct contact, does not benefit the cougar; and it, indeed, might be detrimental to his emotional health. Mr. Spencer has agreed to be present at the facility on an almost daily basis in order to minister to the needs of the cougar for food, water, companionship, and to insure that Mr. Mattox becomes skilled at caring for the cougar. Mr. Spencer cares very much for the cougar and is keenly concerned in seeing that the cougar has a new home which is most beneficial to his welfare. He has investigated several possibilities and determined that Sasquatch Park is the best place for his cougar. As curator for the cougar, he wants the cougar close enough to his residence so that he can help care for him; and he has testified that he will continue to do so until he feels comfortable in gradually turning over the cougar's care to Mr. Mattox. There is no dispute that Mr. Spencer has more than ample experience to comply with the mandate of the above-referenced rule. Pauline Redding is also licensed to engage in the husbandry of a cougar as a personal pet. She is the owner and curator of the brother of the cougar in question. She houses her cougar in an enclosure in the yard of her home. She typically leaves home during the day to go to her job, and the cougar is left unattended for that entire period of time every working day. That arrangement comports with the requirements of the rule under which Ms. Redding is licensed to maintain the cougar as a personal pet. There is not a licensed person on the premises with her cougar "full-time" nor any other required time period. Ms. Redding, too, is well qualified and experienced in terms of the requirements of the rule, and in a practical sense, to adequately care for the cougar. She only lives five minutes away from the Sasquatch facility and is able and committed to assist Sasquatch at all times in insuring proper care for the cougar. Her employment experience also provides additional qualifications for her to engage in the husbandry of a cougar. She is employed as a veterinarian's assistant, technician and anesthesiologist. There is no dispute that both these persons are well qualified in terms of experience in directly caring for cougars to render them "qualified curators" of the cougar in question if he is placed at the Sasquatch Park facility. The testimony of Mr. Spencer, as well as that of Ms. Redding and to some extent that of Captain Thomas, establishes that cougars do not require the full-time presence of personnel experienced in their care or even four hours per day. In fact, the unrefuted testimony indicates that 15 to 30 minutes per day is adequate and that cougars only feed once or, at most, twice a day and get along very well if fed once per day, such as in the evening. Predators, such as cougars, typically feed, by nature, in the early morning or in the late afternoon and are lethargic during the warmer parts of the day. It is critical that an adequate supply of water be maintained at all times, and Sasquatch Park has an automatic watering device available for the cougar. Although its present personnel do not have direct experience in caring for cougars, they are well able to recognize when an animal is in need of medical attention and a veterinarian, Dr. Hill, is on 24-hour call, as the staff veterinarian for the facility. In summary, the unrefuted evidence establishes that cougars, such as Micah, do not need experienced personnel on the premises in their presence for even four hours per day or substantially less than that. It has been established that in order to meet the Commission's concern regarding the animal's welfare, experienced personnel need only be readily available on an on-call basis to insure that the cougar is properly cared for and that during the initial few days or weeks of the cougar's tenure at the Sasquatch Park facility, experienced personnel, such as Ms. Redding or Mr. Spencer, have daily contact with the cougar to insure that he is adequately cared for and that the facility, its owner and employees are being adequately trained in the care of the animal. In fact, it has been demonstrated that any additional contact with the cougar is not necessary to its welfare and, indeed, might be detrimental to it. Both Mr. Spencer and Ms. Redding have agreed to this arrangement, and it is practically capable of being fulfilled, especially with regard to Ms. Redding, because she only lives five minutes away from the facility and can visit the cougar and oversee its welfare on almost a daily basis. It has been demonstrated that, with the curatorship arrangements made by the applicant with Ms. Redding and Mr. Spencer, coupled with the applicant's own experience in maintaining and possessing many types of exotic and potentially dangerous animals, the Commission's interest in insuring the health and welfare of the cougar in question will be served by placing it at Sasquatch Park and that these arrangements most closely correlate with the evidence of record which establishes the manner and type of care a cougar needs on a daily basis when confined in such a facility. In this regard, somewhat parenthetically, it is noteworthy that the Commission's representative, in testifying in support of a four-hour-per-day standard for having experienced cougar husbandry personnel on the premises, also testified that that four hours per day for one year really equated to what was required, in his view, to train Mr. Mattox and establish him as the possessor of 1,000 hours minimum experience in cougar husbandry at the end of a year. Thus, that espoused "standard" actually is not really functionally related to the cougar's welfare or the interest of public safety. Finally, in assessing the Commission's stated concerns, it should be considered whether the cougar's present situation is preferable to that offered by Sasquatch Park. In Mr. Spencer's home, the cougar lives in a residence in the middle of a city, with many other people residing around it. Sasquatch, on the other hand, offers a rural, wooded setting which is sparsely populated, which equates to greater public safety in the unlikely event the cougar should escape. In Mr. Spencer's home, no one has been present for at least 9-1/2 hours per day, during the years he has kept the cougar. At Sasquatch, Mr. and Ms. Mattox live on the premises and are present with their employees everyday. Although Mr. Spencer and Ms. Redding were licensed under a different rule which concerns the keeping of Class II animals as personal pets, in assessing the level of care supposed to be provided the cougar, it is noteworthy that they obtained their licenses with absolutely no experience or training in the care of cougars. Mr. Mattox, on the other hand, has a Class I license; and the Commission has previously approved him for a Class II permit to keep a macaque, also an animal posing a potential threat to humans. Mr. Mattox has had years of experience in the husbandry of many exotic species. His practical qualifications, versus those of Mr. Spencer and Ms. Redding, are certainly substantial. Further, Sasquatch Park is a modern facility; and all cages and animal areas meet or exceed Commission requirements in terms of the animals' welfare and the safety of the viewing public. There is a staff veterinarian, who is on call on a 24- hour-a-day basis. With the arrangement with Ms. Redding, there will also be a curator available for the cougar, who has training in the veterinary care of animals, in addition to Dr. Hill. It has clearly been demonstrated that the Commission's interest in terms of public safety and the welfare of the animal in question will be well-served by placing the cougar at Sasquatch Park. It is, thus, found that the Commission's interpretation of the rule and the manner it seeks to apply that interpretation to the instant factual situation, established by the unrefuted evidence, is not reasonably related to the public safety or to the type, level and manner of care which is required for the cougar's well being, which two considerations are, as shown by the Commission's own witness, the primary intent of the subject experience rule. That being the case, the espoused interpretation by the Commission's witness of what is meant by the experience requirement in the rule is not reasonably related to the proven intent and purpose of the rule.
Recommendation Having considered the foregoing findings of fact, the evidence of record, the candor and demeanor of the witnesses and the pleadings and arguments of the parties it is therefore RECOMMENDED: That a Final Order be entered by the Respondent granting the application of the Petitioner, Leonard M. Mattox, for a Class II wildlife permit authorizing the possession and display of cougars at his Sasquatch Park facility. DONE and ENTERED this 13th day of November, 1990, in Tallahassee, Florida. P. MICHAEL RUFF Hearing Officer Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, FL 32399-1550 (904) 488-9675 Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 14th day of November, 1990. APPENDIX Petitioner's Proposed Findings of Fact The Petitioner filed no separately stated findings of fact but rather, filed a memorandum containing factual and legal argument inseparably intertwined. Thus, no separately stated discreet findings of fact are available to be specifically ruled upon, although the subject matter raised in each of the paragraphs of the Petitioner's memorandum have been dealt with and addressed in this recommended order. Respondent's Proposed Findings of Fact Accepted Accepted Rejected as subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter and as immaterial, inasmuch as the subject rule was amended during the pendency of this proceeding. See Turro v. DHRS, et al., 458 So.2d 345 (Fla. 1st DA 1984). Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter and in fact immaterial in light of the Commission's own interpretation of the meaning of the experience requirement of the subject rule. Accepted, but the first sentence is immaterial. Accepted. Accepted, but subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on this subject matter. Accepted. Accepted. Accepted, but the first sentence is immaterial and the proposed finding of fact is subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. Accepted only insofar as it demonstrates what the agency's interpretation of the subject experience requirement in the rule consists of, but otherwise subordinate to the Hearing Officer's findings of fact on the subject matter. COPIES FURNISHED: Colonel Robert H. Brantly Executive Director Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 James Antista, Esq. General Counsel Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 John C. Harrison, Esquire 12 Old Ferry Road Shalimar, FL 32579 James T. Knight, III, Esquire Assistant General Counsel Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission 620 S. Meridian Street Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600
The Issue The issues are whether the Correctional Certificate issued to the Respondent by the Criminal Justice Standards and Training Commission (the Commission), should be revoked or otherwise disciplined on charges stated in the Petitioner’s Amended Administrative Complaint,1/ FDLE case 40421.
Findings Of Fact The Respondent was certified as a correctional officer by the Commission on July 12, 2006. The parties stipulated that the Respondent holds Correctional Certificate 258546. (The Amended Administrative Complaint alleges he holds Correctional Certificate 25846.) On the afternoon of March 7, 2016, the Respondent was observed and videoed by a neighbor mistreating his dog. Specifically, the neighbor looked out her front window and saw the Respondent outside his house apparently bathing his dog, which was a large German shepherd. She could hear the Respondent’s nine-month-old child crying. She thought the child was standing behind a screen door. While she was watching, the dog got away from the Respondent and trotted toward the front door. The Respondent went after the dog, angrily grabbed it by the head and tail, lifted it off the ground several feet (to about waist-high), and slammed it down on the concrete walkway. He repeated the body slam and then brought the dog back to where he was washing it. At that point, the neighbor decided to video the Respondent and his dog with her cell phone. The video recording shows the Respondent pulling up on the dog’s tail and punching the dog in the side. Then, the Respondent shortened the dog’s leash by wrapping it several times around his hand until his hand was near the dog’s collar. Then, he flipped the dog over on its side by suddenly and violently jerking the leash and collar. After the neighbor witnessed the Respondent’s mistreatment of his dog, she reported him to the Polk County Sheriff’s office. A sheriff’s detective responded on March 21, 2016, and questioned the Respondent, who stated, “I guess I lost my temper that day.” The detective requested permission to remove the dog from the Respondent’s home to be examined by a veterinarian as part of an animal cruelty investigation, and placed in an animal shelter. The Respondent willingly surrendered the dog. The veterinarian who examined the dog found it to have soft tissue trauma at the base of its tail, but no fractures or broken bones. The veterinarian explained that a dog’s tail is an extension of its spine, and an injury at or near the base of the tail could have resulted from yanking the tail, or from lifting the dog by the tail, which is not designed to bear weight. The Respondent’s dog weighed about 77 pounds, and the tail would have been supporting about half the dog’s weight the way the Respondent was handling it. The veterinarian found that the dog had a temperature, and blood tests showed a high white blood cell count. Both symptoms are consistent with either inflammation from an injury, or an infection. The dog also had elevated kidney values, which could be consistent with an injury to the kidney, or with an infection. The veterinarian testified that she prescribed pain medication for the dog. The sheriff’s detective believed that antibiotics were prescribed. No other significant injuries to the dog were found, but the veterinarian recommended that the dog not be returned to its owner. The Respondent did not object. At the hearing, the Respondent testified that just prior to the incident, his dog had been acting aggressively toward his child and had bitten the Respondent in the hand. He testified that he hoped the dog would calm down if taken outside to be bathed. He claimed that the dog was growling and acting aggressively toward him. He testified that he was afraid for his child’s safety when the dog got away from him and ran toward the door. He testified that his child actually was standing behind a child’s gate at the door, not behind a screen door, as stated by his neighbor. The neighbor disputed that the dog was acting aggressively while she was watching. She testified that the dog trotted to the front door with its tail wagging when it got loose from its owner during the bath. The video recording showed that the dog was not acting aggressively but was submissive while being manhandled by the Respondent. The Respondent admits that the dog did not try to bite him during his manhandling of the dog, and no growling (or much sound at all) could be heard on the video recording. The Respondent’s claims about his dog’s aggression and his concerns about his daughter’s safety were not reported to the sheriff’s detective on March 21, 2016, or to anyone else before the hearing. Even if the neighbor was mistaken in thinking the Respondent’s child was standing behind a screen door, the rest of her unbiased testimony is credited as more worthy of belief than the Respondent’s self-serving testimony, to the extent of any conflict. Taken as a whole, the evidence was clear and convincing that the Respondent’s treatment of his dog was inhumane and unnecessary.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Commission find the Respondent guilty of failing to maintain good moral character by acts violating section 828.12(1); suspend his correctional certificate for 60 days, or until completion of a Commission-approved course in anger management, whichever is later; and, upon reinstatement of his certificate, place him on probation for one year, conditioned upon maintaining good moral character, as defined by rule 11B-27.0011(4)(b). DONE AND ENTERED this 4th day of October, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S J. LAWRENCE JOHNSTON Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 4th day of October, 2018.
