The Issue The issue in the case is whether the allegations of the Administrative Complaint are true, and if so, what penalty should be imposed.
Findings Of Fact At all time material to this case, the Respondent was licensed as a veterinarian in the State of Florida, license no. VM0004187. The Respondent worked as a veterinarian at Animal Hospital Hyde Park, a combination animal hospital and kennel facility. The facility encompassed approximately 5,000 square feet, and was located at 800 West Kennedy Street, Tampa, Florida. During the Respondent's tenure at Animal Hospital Hyde Park, another veterinarian, Marianne Keim, owned the facility. Ms. Keim operated a boarding business, a grooming center, and a veterinary clinic, all located within Animal Hospital Hyde Park. There is no evidence that the Respondent had an ownership interest in Animal Hospital Hyde Park. The Petitioner presented testimony suggesting that the Respondent was the "responsible veterinarian" for Animal Hospital Hyde Park, and as such was responsible for the actions of all facility employees. The testimony is not supported by the greater weight of the evidence and is rejected. There is no evidence that the Respondent was responsible for the operation of the facility. There is no evidence that the Respondent presented himself to the public or to facility staff as a veterinarian generally responsible for boarded animals. The evidence establishes that the Respondent provided veterinary services by appointment only for animals brought to the facility. The Respondent also provided veterinary services by appointment on a "house call" basis. There is no evidence that the Respondent generally provided routine medical services to animals being boarded. Boarded animals received medical treatment from the Respondent only when an animal owner, after being advised by kennel staff of a medical problem, gave approval for the Respondent to treat the identified problem. After receipt of the authorization, kennel staff would take the ill animal to the Respondent's examination room. After receiving the medical attention, the animal would be returned by kennel staff to the boarding area. On February 9, 1996, the Respondent examined two dogs, Casey and Chloe, owned by Mr. and Mrs. Robert Yuill. The Yuills had moved to the Tampa area in January of 1996. The apartment facility where the Yuills lived did not permit large animals inside the housing units. At the time the Respondent met Mr. Yuill, the dogs had been living in the back of Mr. Yuill's Ford truck for three to four weeks. The Respondent examined the animals on February 9, 1996. Both dogs were overweight. At the February 9 examination, Chloe had an ear infection. The Respondent offered to medically treat the infection. Mr. Yuill declined, noting that he had appropriate medication remaining from the animal's former veterinarian. At the February 9 examination, Casey had a foot problem. The Respondent suggested Epsom salt soaks, and subsequently treated the foot with an antibiotic. There is no evidence that the February 9 examination and medical treatment provided at that time, or as follow-up care for problems identified during that examination, was inappropriate or failed to meet acceptable standards of care. From March 23, 1996, to August 12, 1996, the Yuill dogs were boarded at Hyde Park Animal Hospital. Upon admission to the kennel, the dogs remained overweight. The Yuills advised the kennel staff that the dogs were to receive food specifically designed to promote weight loss. The Yuills provided the food to the kennel. In April of 1996, the Respondent performed a successful spay surgery on Chloe, complicated only by the dog's obesity. There is no evidence that the spay surgery or any related follow- up was inappropriate or failed to meet acceptable standards of care. The Yuills took the dogs from the kennel for the Memorial Day weekend. The Yuills testified that the animals were dirty, ungroomed, appeared lethargic, and were infested with fleas. Nonetheless, they returned the animals to the facility at the close of the weekend. The Yuills testified that they advised Ms. Keim of the situation when the animals were returned to the kennel at the end of the Memorial Day weekend. Ms. Keim denies that the dogs were not in acceptable condition upon their release for the weekend, and denies being advised of any problem. From Memorial Day weekend until August 10, 1996, the Yuill dogs remained in the kennel facility, unvisited by the Yuills. The Yuills testified that they refrained from visiting the animals after Ms. Keim advised them that family visits were resulting in psychological and behavioral problems for the animals. Ms. Keim denies that she ever advised the Yuills to refrain from visiting the animals. On August 10, 1996, the Yuills came to remove the dogs after being advised that Ms. Keim was closing the facility. Prior to releasing the animals, Marianne Keim weighed Chloe at 54.5 pounds. Casey was too heavy for Ms. Keim to lift and was not weighed. According to Ms. Keim's testimony, the Yuills owed a balance of approximately $1,300 at the time the dogs were removed from the facility. Ms. Keim asserted at the hearing that the bill remains unpaid. The Yuills dispute her recollection. Shortly after retrieving the dogs from the Animal Hospital Hyde Park, the Yuills contacted the Board of Veterinary Medicine and was advised to take the animals for examination by Dr. Jerry Alan Greene at the Academy Animal Hospital. Dr. Greene examined the animals on August 13, 1996. Dr. Greene photographed the dogs and performed a number of tests at the expense of the Petitioner. According to the tests, there was an indication that the dogs had hookworms, but there was no other indication of disease or other illness. Blood test results provided no indication of illness. Hookworms can occur when an animal comes into contact with fecal material from another animal. There is no evidence that hookworms resulted from any negligence or poor medical practice by the Respondent. Dr. Greene stated that Ms. Yuill had remarked on Chloe's thirst and possible dehydration. There is no evidence that the dog was dehydrated. Dr. Greene testified that Chloe had otitis externa, an ear infection. According to Dr. Greene's testimony, Chloe's weight upon examination was 46 pounds. Dr. Greene opined that the dog was grossly underweight. The Respondent presented the testimony of Dr. Richard Goldston. The testimony of Dr. Goldston is credited. Based on his review of the photographs, including bone structure and coat of the animal, Dr. Goldston opined that the dog, though perhaps thin, was of a healthy weight. The dog's coat appeared to be healthy. No bones were observed to protrude from the dog's frame. Chloe also had an ailment identified as an "acral lick granuloma," on her lower leg. The condition, a swollen reddish lump generally surrounded by saliva-stained skin, results from excessive licking of an area. There was credible testimony that the licking behavior can initially result from boredom. Although an acral lick granuloma can be visually identified upon examination, there is no debilitation such as limping that would draw attention to the animal. The condition does not result in pain or discomfort to the animal, other than itching. The itching results in further licking, which aggravates the condition. There is no evidence that the Respondent was aware of the granuloma. There is no evidence that boarding staff advised him or sought approval from the Yuills to have the condition treated. According to Dr. Greene's testimony, Casey remained overweight and had a slight foot problem. He advised the Yuills to treat the problem area with Epsom salt soaks. Several boarding kennel employees testified at the hearing. All were very familiar with Casey and Chloe, noting that their familiarity was related to the dogs long-term boarding status. According to the boarding employees, the dogs were healthy and energetic while at the kennel.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is recommended that the Department of Business and Professional Regulation enter a Final Order DISMISSING the Administrative Complaint filed in this case. DONE AND ENTERED this 29th day of March, 1999, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. WILLIAM F. QUATTLEBAUM 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 29th day of March, 1999. COPIES FURNISHED: Paul F. Kirsch, Esquire Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 Charles E. Lykes, Jr., Esquire 501 South Fort Harrison Avenue, Suite 101 Clearwater, Florida 33756 William Woodyard, General Counsel Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792 John Currie, Executive Director Board of Veterinary Medicine Department of Business and Professional Regulation 1940 North Monroe Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0792
The Issue The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Imperial Embassy Condominium Four, Inc. ("Imperial"), discriminated against Petitioner, Barbara Porter ("Porter"), on the basis of her purported disability in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petition for Relief filed by Barbara Porter in its entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 17th day of February, 2012, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 17th day of February, 2012.
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 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 The issue in this case is whether Respondent, Zion's Hope, Inc., d/b/a Holy Land Experience (hereinafter "HLE"), discriminated against Petitioners, James Gantz and Bette Gantz, by refusing Petitioners entry into HLE due to the Gantzes's disability, i.e., being hard of hearing and requiring the service of hearing ear dogs.
Findings Of Fact Zion's Hope, Inc., is a Florida not-for-profit corporation formed in 1989. It is a religious entity with a Section 501(c)3 designation under the U.S. Tax Code as a bona fide charitable organization. HLE is a privately-owned religious theme park operated by Zion's Hope. Religious services are conducted at HLE seven days a week. HLE is located at 4655 Vineland Road, Orlando, Florida. The public, upon payment of an admission fee, is invited into HLE on a daily basis. James and Bette Gantz are an elderly married couple who reside for part of each year in North Port, Florida. Both James and Bette are hard of hearing and have suffered from this affliction for many years. James and Bette each have a certified hearing ear dog which accompanies them almost everywhere they go. The dogs were present at the final hearing. On March 19, 2010, James and Bette accompanied by their service dogs and Bette's sister, Lois Wilcox, decided to visit HLE. Upon arrival, they were told that the HLE parking lot was full, but that additional parking was available across the street. James dropped off Bette, the dogs, and Lois in front of the HLE entrance, then went to park the car across the street. When Bette, Lois, and the dogs approached the ticket window to purchase admission into HLE, they talked to one of the employees about the service dogs to make sure the dogs could accompany them inside. The employee opted to call her superior, Jane Wilcox (no relation to Lois), to make a determination about the dogs. Jane Wilcox testified that she approached Bette and Lois in the lobby area, i.e., an enclosed area akin to a hotel lobby, which housed the ticket windows. Bette and Lois said they were never inside a building at HLE; rather, the discussions that occurred happened outside on the sidewalk area. It seems most likely from the evidence that the conversation commenced inside the lobby and then continued outside. Jane Wilcox did a cursory examination of the dogs and decided they did not appear to be service dogs. She also determined that the dogs appeared to be "frisky" in nature and were not like other service dogs she had seen. It was her practice to make a determination as to whether an animal was a service animal or not by asking reasonable questions. This is the way she handles each of the 100 or so cases a year in which guests show up with animals. Jane Wilcox has not had any formal training from the Commission or other regulatory entity regarding service dogs. She was given on-the-job training by her predecessor and has studied written materials on the subject. Her experience in this area is somewhat extensive during her three and a-half year tenure at HLE. After Jane Wilcox made an initial visual determination that the dogs appeared to be pets, Bette attempted to advise her that the dogs were certified and had certification documents on the capes they were wearing. Bette and James had taken the dogs into numerous other businesses and had been asked many times for proof of the dogs' certification. Thus, they kept the certification documents on the dogs at all times. Jane Wilcox refused to look at the certification documents because she has been provided bogus certification documents on occasion. That being the case, she did not put any stock in documents that were presented to her by guests. Rather, it was her normal practice to ask questions of the owners and to visually examine the animals. Based on the answers and her observation, Jane Wilcox would come to a conclusion about the animal in question. The discussion between Jane Wilcox and Bette became somewhat heated once Jane Wilcox made her initial determination about the dogs. Bette was talking loudly, but she is prone to do that because of her hearing impairment. Jane Wilcox viewed Bette as being very excited and possibly offended by the refusal to admit the dogs into HLE. After a few moments, Jane Wilcox determined that communication with Bette had broken down to the point that further conversation was useless. At that point, she called for security assistance.1/ It appears that the matter could have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction had the conversation not degenerated into a contentious debate between the parties. However, it is impossible to ascertain from the facts submitted whether one party or the other was more responsible for the verbal melee. Therefore, no finding can be made as to that point. The security officer who arrived took Bette and Lois to his small security building, where they were joined by James. The security officer said that Jane Wilcox was within her rights to refuse their admission into HLE with the service dogs. He advised them that there was a facility nearby that would care for the dogs while the guests were at HLE. The security officer allegedly told the Gantzes that HLE was a private facility and not subject to federal or state law regarding disabled persons. He also supposedly said that HLE considers dogs like those belonging to the Gantzes as pets, rather than service animals. According to Bette, this "colored" security officer would not listen to her or allow her to talk. A Caucasian guard, however, allegedly told Bette that maybe the dogs should be allowed into HLE, but he was overruled by the first guard. The Gantzes then asked the security officer to call the local (Orlando) police, which he did. When the police officer arrived, he advised the Gantzes that he could not force HLE to admit the dogs, but that he would write up a report. The report written by the police officer indicates that "security officer Santis" called in the request for assistance. It is not clear from the evidence at final hearing which of the two aforementioned security officers was Santis. The incident narrative in the police report simply states: Contact was made with all parties. 'Gantz' were acc[ompanied] by certified service dogs for hearing along with proper documentation. Upon Mngt request to leave, did so without incident. The Gantzes and Lois Wilcox opted not to board the dogs at the nearby facility. Rather, they left HLE and, ultimately, filed a complaint against Zion's Hope with the Commission. HLE does have a policy of admitting service animals inside the attraction. However, as a private religious facility, it does not believe that it has to do so, i.e., it does not believe it is governed by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Of the 100 or so service animals appearing for admission each year, about 70 percent of them are admitted. The others are boarded or the owners opt not to enter HLE. HLE does have a strict policy disallowing pets from admission to the park. Inasmuch as Jane Wilcox found the animals with the Gantzes to be pets, they were denied admission on that basis.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered by the Florida Commission on Human Relations dismissing the Petitions for Relief filed by James Gantz and Bette Gantz in their entirety. DONE AND ENTERED this 31st day of March, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S R. BRUCE MCKIBBEN 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 31st day of March, 2011.
The Issue Whether Respondents discriminated and retaliated against Petitioner because of her disability, in violation of the Florida Fair Housing Act; and, if so, the relief to which Petitioner is entitled. More specifically, the issues raised in this case are (1) whether Petitioner’s dog was a “service animal” pursuant to section 413.08, Florida Statutes (2018)1/; (2) whether Respondents took adverse action against Petitioner because of her disability; and (3) whether Respondents retaliated against Petitioner by not renewing her lease after she filed a housing discrimination complaint.
Findings Of Fact The parties stipulated at the final hearing that Petitioner suffers from anxiety and neck issues; and she qualifies as a person who is disabled for the purposes of the Florida FHA. Parties and Property Respondent Pelican Bay is a residential community owned and operated by Sun Homes. Respondent Cheryl Merrifield is the manager of Pelican Bay and an employee of Sun Homes. On June 24, 2016, Petitioner entered into a Manufactured Home Option to Purchase Agreement with Sun Homes (Agreement). The Agreement gave Petitioner a two-year period to lease the manufactured home located on Lot 56 of the Pelican Bay residential community. The Agreement allows the purchase of the home, but not the Lot in Pelican Bay. The Agreement contained a “rent to own” component which also allowed Petitioner to be credited 50% of her first year’s lease payments, and 25% of her second year’s lease payments towards the purchase of the manufactured home. Under the terms of the Agreement, after the first two years, the Petitioner would not accrue any credits toward the purchase of the home. The Agreement clearly anticipated that if Petitioner was to exercise the option to purchase, she would do so within two years. The Agreement refers to separate “Home Lease” and “Site Lease” agreements, but neither was admitted into evidence. Petitioner moved into the property in July 2016 with her five-pound Chihuahua, Buttons. At the time she moved into Pelican Bay, Petitioner informed Respondents she suffered from anxiety and needed Buttons for psychological and emotional support. As a result Pelican Bay waived the pet deposit and fees for Button. Petitioner claims she was discriminated against because she had a service dog and cites the following incidents: (1) in July 2016, she was prohibited from bringing Buttons into the Pelican Bay Clubhouse (Clubhouse) during a Fourth of July neighborhood party; (2) in November 2016, she was told that Buttons could not be in the kitchen or on the furniture in the Clubhouse and must be on a leash and controlled at all times during a Thanksgiving event; and (3) she was harassed by her neighbors and Pelican Bay staff for having the dog in the pool area. Petitioner also alleges she was retaliated against for filing a housing discrimination complaint when Pelican Bay did not renew her lease in July 2018. Respondents dispute Petitioner’s version of the facts and deny that their actions were discriminatory. Buttons As an initial matter, there is a factual dispute as to whether Buttons is a “service animal” for the purposes of the Florida FHA. Although it is unclear when Buttons became her service animal, Petitioner had Buttons as a pet prior to being prescribed a service animal for her anxiety by her psychologist, Dr. Donna Marks. Dr. Marks is certified in addiction therapy, psychoanalysis, and Gestalt psychology. She has no training in orthopedics or treating back and neck injuries. Dr. Marks has been treating Petitioner for anxiety intermittently since 2009. In 2014, Petitioner began regular twice a week therapy sessions with Dr. Marks. Thereafter, Dr. Marks prescribed a “psychological service animal” for Petitioner’s anxiety disorder. In a letter dated January 21, 2016, to allow Buttons to ride on an airplane, Dr. Marks wrote: Ms. Taylor has been seen by me and I am familiar with her history and with function limitations and needs imposed by an anxiety order. In order to help alleviate these difficulties and to enhance her ability to function independently, I have prescribed Ms. Taylor to obtain a psychological service animal. The presence of this animal is necessary for her emotional health because it will mitigate the symptoms she experiences and a preferable alterative to medication. (emphasis added). Later, after Petitioner moved into Pelican Bay, Dr. Marks changed her prescription for Petitioner from a “psychological service animal” to a “service animal.” Although no written prescription of this change was admitted into evidence, Dr. Marks claimed she made this change due to Petitioner’s neck and back surgeries. On cross-examination, however, Dr. Marks admitted she altered the prescription for Petitioner’s convenience. Petitioner had reported to her that she was having difficulty at Pelican Bay and was not allowed to take Buttons to neighborhood events. Dr. Marks felt a “service animal” would have more access than an “emotional support animal.” When asked what service Buttons provides or tasks Buttons performs for Petitioner, both Petitioner and Dr. Marks testified Buttons calms Petitioner and keeps her from becoming anxious. In addition, Petitioner testified she has difficulty turning her neck and needs Buttons to warn Petitioner when people are approaching and warn people not to come to close to her. Buttons does this by barking. Buttons did not go through any professional training to learn to keep Petitioner calm or how to bark. Dr. Marks was not involved in training Buttons, made no recommendations on how Buttons should be trained, and did not know of a training protocol for teaching animals anxiety-reducing techniques or conduct. Petitioner claimed she trained Buttons by giving it treats when it behaved the way she wanted, but admits she did not follow any specialized training program. Buttons is registered with the United States Animal Registry (USAR) as an “Emotional Support Dog” and a “Service Dog.” Based on her USAR identification and letters from Dr. Marks, Buttons has been allowed to accompany Petitioner at restaurants, the hospital, and on airplanes. Petitioner, however, provided no evidence of the requirements for registering Buttons with the USAR registry. For example, there was no evidence of an USAR application or questionnaire; nor was there evidence Buttons had been evaluated or tested by USAR as part of the registration process.3/ As explained below, the undersigned finds Buttons is not a “service dog” for purposes of the Florida FHA. Fourth of July In early July 2016, a Fourth of July potluck celebration was held in the Clubhouse. When Petitioner arrived at the Clubhouse with her potluck contribution she was told by Reni Thompson that she could not bring Buttons into the area where the food was being served. Upon hearing this, Petitioner immediately left the Clubhouse and did not participate in the event. The uncontroverted evidence established the celebration was not sponsored by Pelican Bay, nor was staff in attendance. Instead it was arranged by the Pelican Bay Home Owner’s Association (HOA). Although Petitioner testified Ms. Thompson told her she was an HOA board member, Ms. Merrifield testified Ms. Thompson was not on the HOA board, nor was Ms. Thompson a Pelican Bay employee. Other than Petitioner’s hearsay there is no evidence that Ms. Thompson was a board member. Moreover, the HOA was not affiliated with or managed by Pelican Bay, nor were its board members employees of Pelican Bay. As such, any conduct by Ms. Thompson cannot be imputed onto Pelican Bay. Regardless, when Ms. Merrifield received Petitioner’s complaint about what had occurred at the Fourth of July incident, she immediately arranged a meeting with Petitioner. Ms. Merrifield also met separately with Ms. Thompson to inform Ms. Thompson that Petitioner should be allowed in the Clubhouse with Buttons. The undersigned finds Respondents are not liable for Ms. Thompson’s conduct, and took corrective measures once it learned of the incident. Thanksgiving Restrictions on Buttons On November 1, 2017, Ms. Merrifield sent an email titled “Thanksgiving Dinner Nov. 23” to the residents of Pelican Bay. That email stated as follows: Attached to this email is what Sandy Weidner is posting in the Clubhouse today. If anyone is interested please go and sign up. She also has a list of what will be needed if anyone wants to help with the side dishes. The email then listed the side dishes that were needed and contact information for Sandy Weidner for any questions. The evidence established the event was not sponsored by Pelican Bay (although it was contributing the turkey) and Ms. Weidner was not a Pelican Bay employee. Instead of contacting Ms. Weidner, Petitioner emailed Ms. Merrifield and asked, Cheryl, Is this an Event that Buttons, “My Service Dog” and I will be welcomed to without anyone rejecting us or harassment?” Ms. Merrifield replied, In response to your request we understand your dog is an emotional support animal. It may be with you in the clubhouse. It may not go in the kitchen, it may not be put on furniture. It must be on a leash and controlled at all times. It is unclear whether this response deterred Petitioner from attending the Thanksgiving event. Nonetheless, the undersigned finds Ms. Merrifield’s actions did not constitute a violation of the Florida FHA. Pool Incidents In July 2017, Pelican Bay staff received a complaint from residents that Buttons was in the community pool, in violation of the community pool rules. Later, Ms. Merrifield spoke to Petitioner who admitted she had taken Buttons in the pool. Ms. Merrifield told Petitioner Buttons was not allowed inside the pool and should not be left in the pool area unrestrained. Petitioner later researched the issue and agreed she would not take Buttons in the pool in the future. In August 2017, Josephine Hillier, a Sun Homes employee, received another complaint from residents that Buttons was in the pool. When Ms. Hillier investigated the complaint she did not see the dog in the pool, but did find Petitioner with Buttons in the pool area. At the time, Petitioner denied Buttons was in the pool and claimed Ms. Hillier’s questioning was harassment in violation of housing discrimination laws. At the hearing, Petitioner testified that after researching and learning Buttons could not be in the pool, she continued to sit in the pool with Buttons on her shoulder. Petitioner did not consider this to be a violation of the pool rules as long as Buttons was not in the water. She also allowed Buttons to sit on the pool furniture unrestrained while she was in the pool, because her veterinarian told her Buttons was too small for a leash. Regardless, Pelican Bay took no further action against Petitioner regarding Buttons being in the pool. Petitioner complains Respondents repeatedly questioned her about Buttons being in the pool. Ms. Merrifield testified she was aware of two complaints of Petitioner letting Buttons in the pool; Ms. Hillier testified she was aware of two complaints about Buttons being in the pool, one of which she investigated. The undersigned finds that although Petitioner may have been approached by residents with complaints about Buttons, Respondents only spoke with her about Buttons being in the pool twice. The undersigned finds Pelican Bay’s conduct in questioning Petitioner about Buttons being in the pool, and warning her Buttons must be restrained did not constitute harassment. As explained below, this was justified under the circumstances. Non-Renewal of Purchase Agreement On March 20, 2018, Sun Homes sent an unsigned form letter to Petitioner stating her lease would not be renewed and that she would be required to vacate the property on or before June 30, 2018. Petitioner believes she received this letter because she filed a complaint of housing discrimination. The Agreement allowing the option to purchase the home anticipates a lease period of two years, although a longer period is not prohibited. Respondents asked Petitioner after the first year if she was planning to exercise her option to buy the home. At that time, June 2017, she declined because she felt it was too expensive and did not make financial sense. Petitioner did not take any steps toward exercising her option to purchase the home at the end of the second year because she was recovering from neck and back surgeries, her son was living with her, and she was not financially able to purchase it. Ms. Merrifield testified that it was common business practice to not allow renters to remain in Pelican Bay for more than two years. Sun Homes’ business model was to sell the manufactured homes; it was not interested in long-term rental relationships. The evidence established Petitioner was not the only resident that received the form non-renewal letter. The renters in the homes on Lot 48 and Lot 30 also received similar letters. Ms. Merrifield was unaware of whether these other residents had disabilities, but neither had made any kind of housing complaints. Based on the evidence and testimony presented at the final hearing, Petitioner did not demonstrate, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Respondents discriminated against her based on her disability or retaliated in violation of the FHA.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Florida Commission on Human Relations issue a final order finding that Respondents, Pelican Bay Communities, LLC, and Cheryl Merrifield, did not commit a discriminatory housing practice against Petitioner, Paula C. Taylor, and dismiss her Petition for Relief. DONE AND ENTERED this 14th day of November, 2018, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S HETAL DESAI 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 14th day of November, 2018.
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 Whether Respondent established that this case meets the criteria for the revocation of Petitioner’s Class I, Class II, and III captive wildlife permits, pursuant to Florida Administrative Code Rule 68A-5.004 and Chapter 372, Florida Statutes (2007).
Findings Of Fact Petitioner Oltz is the owner of Pangaea Productions, which she operates along with a related not-for-profit corporate entity, Wild Animal World. The businesses provide wildlife shows and exhibits, and care for the animals. Oltz became a volunteer at Pangaea in 1996, then an investor when she became partners with Grant Kemmerer after buying the interest of his previous partner, Thomas Batchelor, in November 1997. Oltz was first licensed, as she remembered, in 1999. Oltz is now and has been since 2001, the sole owner of Pangaea Productions. Respondent Commission is the state agency that issued Oltz licenses and/or permits, including a Class I license, pursuant to which she exhibited a leopard; a Class II license that authorized her to exhibit, among others, monkeys, servals, and cougars (also referred to as panthers); and a Class III license to exhibit animals that include a scorpion, an alligator, an albino Burmese python, a parrot, a porcupine, a fox, and an anteater. The categories of wildlife are established based on how dangerous each group is in Florida Administrative Code Rule 68A-6.002 (1). Respondent Commission seeks to revoke Oltz's licenses to possess, exhibit, and sell captive wildlife in all classes due to incidents that occurred in the years listed below under circumstances that will be described in more detail in the findings of fact that follow: 2006 Class II cougar attack on four-year old Aisha Elgazzar when Oltz was the animal handler; 2006 Escape of a Class II serval cat during a show that Oltz was conducting; 2001 Class I leopard attack on seven-year old Matthew Tully when Oltz was the exhibitor in charge of the leopard; 1999 Escape of a Class II serval cat from Oltz's home when she had no permit or required precautions. 1998 Class II cougar attack on five-year old Holly Moynahan while Oltz was the handler; 1998 Class II cougar attack on eight-year old Victor Parades while another employee of Pangaea Productions was the handler ; and 1998 Class II cougar bite of animal handler Kimberly Royal, another Pangaea employee. The Commission has issued over 5,000 Class I, II and III permits, approximately 300 in Class I, 4,000 in Class III, leaving the remainder of about 700 in Class II. From 2001 through 2005, 32 injuries to members of the public, and 58 to owners or handlers, or a total of 90 injuries were reported to the Commission. Of the 32 injuries to the public, 18 were caused by Class III, 8 by Class II, and 4 by Class I animals (including the 2001 leopard attack on Matthew Tully). Typically, Oltz’s wildlife shows begin with her showing and allowing people, usually children, to touch or pet the Class III animals. There have been no incidents, bites or other injuries from the Class III wildlife. Lieutenant Patrick Reynolds of the Commission implied in his testimony that Oltz had allowed a Class III large yellow python to escape into her neighbor's tree farm. His testimony that he received notice that the python was in the nursery on the border by Oltz's property, that the python had been given by the farmer to a friend by the time Reynolds got there, and given to another person by the time he contacted the farmer's friend is rejected in light of the absence of corroborating evidence, his apparent lack of impartiality in dealings with Oltz, and the animosity that has developed between the two of them over the years. Contradicting Reynolds, Captain John West, also a Commission staff person, testified that he was not aware of any Class III injuries and/or incidents involving Oltz. Before Oltz displayed the Class II cats, she warned her audiences that the next animal would be bigger and stronger, that they would not be allowed to touch it, and that they must remain seated, and stay calm and quiet. On November 18, 2006, Oltz displayed wildlife at a birthday party for a seven-year-old at the home of Francisco Unanue in Coral Gables, Florida. Approximately 40 children attended, many with their parents. Oltz had previously notified the homeowner of the requirement of shade for the animals and a tent had been set up on the edge of a swimming pool, which she also used as a barrier to prevent Oltz and the animals from being approached from behind since this was not a swimming party and no one was swimming. After each animal was taken out and showed to the audience, it was returned to its cage. The cages were stacked on either side of Oltz with the pool behind her. Following the typical sequence for her shows and after her warnings, Oltz took Georgia, a 60-pound cougar in a complete body harness on a leash, out of a cage. While Oltz was talking to and facing the audience, she admitted that she knew the cat was focusing its attention on something behind her but, assuming it was a float in the pool or some other object, she continued to face the audience and talk about the cougar. Four-year-old, Aisha Elgazzar came from behind the cages along the edge of the pool. The cat had been focused on Aisha and attacked her, causing injuries to her eye, cheek and ear that required stitches. Other adults at the party intervened to hit the cougar assist Oltz by pulling the cougar away from the child. Although Oltz testified that she tried to use cages to create barricade behind her and to keep audiences at least ten feet from the animals, based on measurements taken at the Unanues' home during his investigation and the videotape of the wildlife show at the birthday party, which was viewed during the hearing, Lieutenant Reynolds' opinion is credible that there was a twelve inch space between the kennels stacked three high and the pool, and that the some in the audience were as close as four feet in front of the show. Otlz pointed out that the videotape shows Aisha on her father's lap earlier during the show and implied that he should have kept her there. The videotape also shows Aisha and at least one other child on a glider near the other end of the pool during the wildlife show, but Oltz never looked behind her. After the November 2006 attack, Oltz received an order requiring her to suspend showing Class II animals and to surrender the cougar involved for euthanasia so that its brain could be examined to determine whether it had rabies. In an attempt to avoid the possibility of the seizure of Georgia, Oltz kept the cat with her at all times, and argued that testing Georgia approximately two weeks after the incident was pointless since Georgia had been vaccinated against rabies and that rabies shots for the child had to have started within 48 hours of the bite, if in fact infected. According to Oltz, the warrant to seize the cat was prompted by revenge and pressure from the injured child’s father. There was credible evidence that the health department might reasonably have issued the warrant to avoid having the child unnecessarily continue a series of rabies shots. There was also expert testimony that rabies shots developed for dogs and cats have, as far as has been documented, effective in preventing rabies in captive wildlife and the vaccination of captive wildlife is prudent. It is, however, an "off-label" use, meaning officially not approved having not been specifically developed for use on captive wildlife. On October 31, 2006, while Oltz was displaying a serval cat at a south Florida resort, an inflatable Halloween decoration behind her began collapsing and falling towards her. The frightened serval jumped out of her arms, Oltz let go of the leash, and the cat escaped. The cat was captured approximately seven weeks later. As a result of the incident, Oltz was charged and acquitted of a criminal offense for permitting the serval to escape. On December 8, 2001, Oltz was hired to exhibit animals at a Broward County park. She placed a one-year-old, 50 pound leopard in a corner that had shelter and what she believed were adequate barriers on two sides, bushes on one and a fence on the other. The leopard was in a full body harness chained to a post. Although she was the handler responsible for the leopard, Oltz turned her attention to another trainer who was handling a lemur to suggest how he might accommodate the wishes of a photographer to photograph the lemur in a tree. While Oltz was distracted, seven-year-old Matthew Tully came through the bushes and was bitten on his head by the leopard. As part of a plea bargain to settle criminal charges, Oltz surrendered her Class I license to the Broward County Court. While Oltz testified that her Class I license was permanently revoked, the evidence did not indicate that it was ever surrendered to the licensing agency for the state, the Commission, but she is not requesting, in this proceeding, nor and does not seek to possess a Class I license or permit. Although the cat that attacked Matthew was a leopard named China, Oltz reported falsely that it was a serval for fear of having to give up the leopard. She admitted that she tried to persuade her former partner, Kemmerer, who had moved to Pennsylvania, to say that the leopard was with him. Kemmerer reported her attempt to get the animal out of Florida to Reynolds. Oltz's other apparent motivation for making the false report that it was a serval rather than a leopard was that, at the time, she did not have enough property under lease to meet the size requirements for keeping a Class I animal. Oltz pled nolo contendere to making a false report and to other charges stemming from her negligence in the incident. Oltz testified that she booked the engagement that led to Matthew's injuries through an agent whom she had used before and whom she blames for knowing that the particular exhibit he requested was not suitable for an event like a company family picnic. She testified that the agent used her as a last minute substitute for petting zoo that canceled. Nevertheless, Oltz made a conscious decision to proceed with the exhibit even after she personally saw that it was inappropriate for the venue. She testified that it was her plan to compensate for the danger by limiting the time the animals were out of their cages. In October 1999, a serval cat named Foster escaped from Oltz’s home and was recovered after a couple of hours. She blames the escape on a visitor to her home who left the door open. Although Oltz testified that Kemmerer, who held all the licenses at that time, was living with her, she conceded that Kemmerer had a separate address-of-record, and that the escape was from her address-of-record. Oltz had not obtained, until after the incident, a personal pet license to keep Foster in her home rather than at the ranch area where the wildlife animals were allowed to be kept under the licenses. Only after the escape did she obtain the required license, and comply with the requirement to have a separate room for the serval with bars on the window, and a door with an automatic locking mechanism. In March 1998, Kimberly Royal, a handler who had worked for Pangaea Productions for four years, was bitten by Shasta, a cougar, and her finger was severed and surgically reattached. Oltz believes that the handler was at fault and should not have stuck her finger into the cage to scratch the cat and that handlers are not expected to have the same protections as members of the public. Commission witnesses agree that a higher duty of care is owed to the general public than to handlers and other employees, although they too should be protected from the negligence of others and incidents affecting employees must also be reported. There is no evidence that Oltz or Pangaea were responsible for Royal's injury. In May 1998, Randal Wilson, a handler for Pangaea Productions, with the consent of her then co-owner, Kemmerer, according to Oltz, allowed public contact with the same cougar that had bitten Royal, Shasta. The cougar bit Victor Parades, an eight-year-old, who with his parents was allowed to enter a barricade to take a picture standing behind the cat. Victor darted in front of the cougar towards his two or three-year-old sister, who had been barred because of her young age from the photo shoot, when he saw her climbing over the barricade. The cougar attacked Victor, biting into his thigh requiring emergency room stitching to close the wound. Wilson was also bitten on the hand trying to stop the cat. According to Reynolds, Kemmerer said he was out-of-town and denied that he made the decision to use Shasta around children after she had previously bitten a handler. Reynolds believed Kemmerer, not Oltz, who testified that she would have preferred to have Wilson use Scuffy, a cat that was more appropriate for use around children. She did not indicate that she made her preference known at the time, and in fact said that she was still learning the business, that Kemmerer was in charge and, therefore, that he is to blame. The Commission subsequently changed its rules so that photo shoots with dangerous animals are allowed only with contracted professionals, not with members of the general public. On December 23, 1998, Oltz was the handler at a wildlife show for a birthday party for a young child when five- year-old Holly Moynahan was attacked by the cougar, Chase. Oltz testified that Holly's mother dropped her off at the party and that she, Oltz, did know that her mother was not present. Holly, she testified in deposition, was unaccounted for when everyone sat down. Holly came from behind the kennels, between the kennels and some bushes. The cat, reportedly, jumped on Holly's back and its teeth sliced open her scalp from her head to the base of her neck. Subsequent criminal charges were resolved in a settlement agreement. For a probationary period of one year, Oltz was required to use a portable fence as a barrier between wild cats and the public. The judge required that the barrier be approved by Lieutenant Reynolds. There was a dispute between Oltz and Reynolds over the adequacy of the barriers she proposed to use. Reynolds testified that the barriers that he did not approve were a free- standing portable dog kennel approximately 30 inches tall and one made out of white PVC pipe with plastic ties. Ultimately, he approved one made with metal panels equipped with stanchions, that he believes was made to comply with his requirements, at the direction of Kemmerer not Oltz. Oltz testified that Reynolds deliberately held up approval of a barrier. The approved barrier was used for the year during which there were no injuries, then discontinued. Reynolds said the use of the barrier was to be continued, based on a policy set by Kemmerer before he left Pangaea, but that Oltz changed the policy. Oltz said the requirement was applicable only during the probationary period and that barriers give a false sense of security, as she said was later shown in a subsequent incident involving injuries to Victor Parades. Oltz testified that it is preferable to have a second trainer to watch what is happening behind the main trainer, but she only made that preference optional for her clients, offering lower prices if only one rather than two handlers attended a show. In 2007, for example, she testified that only 30 shows were booked at the higher cost for two trainers. In the same incident in 1998, Oltz was charged by the USDA of mishandling the lemur for agreeing to place the lemur in a tree. According to Oltz, the lemur was not mishandled and she only entered a consent agreement with the USDA to avoid a personal fine of up to $65,000 and another fine against Pangaea for up to $50,000. Instead, she entered into the agreement and paid a $5,000 fine. Oltz testified that Pangaea Productions had an audience of 191,632 people at public and private events in 1997, with no incidents of bites or escapes. In 1998, it had an audience of 41,417 at private shows and 186,150 at public shows or exhibitions, or a total of 227,567 people. That was the same year that Oltz says the handler was injured at her own fault and that the Victor Parades' injuries by the same cat that injured Royal, were Kemmerer's fault. It is also the year that Oltz was sentenced to probation, after being the sole handler when a cougar injured five-year old Holly. Inexplicably, Oltz testified that she was not licensed until, she believed, 1999. In 1999, when the serval cat, Foster, escaped from Oltz’s home for only a couple of hours due to what Oltz claimed was a visitor's negligence, 38,872 private attendees and 175,200 public attendees, or a total of 214,072 people saw Pangaea Productions shows and exhibits, with no injuries. In 2000, total attendance was 205,000 with no injuries to the public. That was during the time that Oltz was required to use a court- ordered barricade. In 2001, when Oltz took complete control of the business, 209,462 people attended shows and exhibits, and the leopard attacked Matthew Tully while she was the exhibitor in charge of the leopard. During 2002, one park discontinued the use of Pangaea Productions shows and exhibits due to the negative press related to Matthews's injuries. In 2002, the total number of people who attended shows and exhibits was 64,738, with no incidents of bites or escapes. In 2003, 47,197 people attended shows and exhibits, with no adverse incidents. In 2004, 44,995 people attended exhibits or shows with no attacks or bites. In 2005, 48,848 people attended the shows and exhibits with no injuries. In 2006, the total number of people attending shows or exhibits was 53,526, when Oltz handled the cougar that attacked Aisha Elgazzar, and the serval escaped on Halloween. After the cougar attack in November 2006, Oltz has continued to do shows with only Class III animals. As of the date of the hearing in 2007, she had conducted 312 shows with a total attendance of approximately 20,000, with no bites, injuries, or escapes. Over the years, Oltz has had an audiences of 1,307,326 people with four injuries to the public, or three one millionths of a percent of attendees injured. Oltz currently owns a spot nose guenon monkey, a vervet monkey, three serval cats, and two panthers, or a total of seven Class II animals; and 39 mammals, alligators, and snakes that are Class III wildlife. Oltz earns a salary of $35,000 a year, from approximately $200,000 a year in gross receipts to Pangaea Productions. She is a high school graduate, who also took psychology and mathematics classes at a community college. Oltz believes her business will be adversely affected by not having a cougar in the exhibits and shows, but that a serval could be substitute of and that the financial impact also could be mitigated by the use of monkeys, the second most frequently requested animal after the cougar. Oltz also asserted that at least five other competing businesses exhibit captive wildlife, including cougars, the animal most requested for the shows, and that her shows are safer because all of the animals she uses are hand raised and vaccinated for rabies. None of her animals has ever been found to have any diseases. By using the same animals over and over in shows, in contrast to some of her competitors, Oltz asserted that her animals learn the routine and behave better. Oltz’s animals are kept in larger than required cages, designed to resemble their native habitats and are subject to random inspections at least every four months by USDA. The concrete floors of the cages are sterilized weekly. Only after Hurricanes Katrina and Wilma did the Commission find unsafe damaged older wooden cages at Oltz's facility. The Commission has never had issues concerning the sanitation or cleanliness at current Pangaea location In response to Oltz's assertion that the Commission unfairly and arbitrarily targets her and overlooks violations by her competitors, Lieutenant Reynolds testified that she has had a lot more incidents than her competitors. One competitor is Batchelor, the former Pangaea partner from whom Oltz bought her interest, who reportedly had three bites from 1997 or 1998 to 2005. Reynolds investigated Batchelor for a cougar bite around 1997 to 1998, and a lemur bite in 2004, both to the members of the public. Reynolds believes that Batchelor now uses a stage and barricades for his shows but conceded that Batchelor probably does not carry a stage to birthday parties. In 2005, Batchelor was cited for improperly securing a cage after a ringtail lemur escaped and bit a worker at his ranch. Although Reynolds testified that he once "camped out at the State Attorney's Office" trying to get Batchelor prosecuted criminally, the Commission has not taken any action to restrict, suspend or revoke any licenses held by Batchelor. Another competitor is Vanishing Species, operated by Jeffrey and Barbara Harrod, in Broward County. Lieutenant Reynolds initially testified that he has not investigated nor heard of incidents involving that company that resulted in injuries to the public. On cross-examination, Reynolds did remember investigating when a Siberian tiger bit Mr. Harrod himself. Captain West recalled investigating the biting and scratching of a three-year-old, during a photo shoot, by the Harrods' monkey, for which they received a warning in February 2000. Eight months later, a five-year-old child was bitten on the chest while petting a cougar owned by Vanishing Species. A recommendation for non-renewal of the Harrod's license was, according to Captain West, forwarded to the administrative staff in Tallahassee, but their license was, nevertheless, renewed. Otlz testified that Lieutenant Reynolds overlooked violations by the Metro Zoo. Reynolds testified that after a tiger killed a handler at the Zoo, the final finding was that it was "handler error." Metro Zoo has had incidents that Reynolds considers not unusual for large wildlife facilities, including a kangaroo bite, and elephant that threw a handler against a rock resulting in broken collar bones, ribs and bruised spleen, and an orangutan that broke a veterinarian's arm. Despite Oltz's allegations and Reynold's discrepancies and claim of lack of memory, the record supports that conclusion that Oltz has had more incidents than her competitors. Even excluding the handler's bite and the Parades' attack where she was not the handler and blames Kemmerer for selecting the wrong cougar, her situation is distinguishable from that of her competitors. First, the attacks on the Elgazzar, Tully and Moynahan children were serious and resulted from the same negligent failure to pay adequate attention to the surroundings, and to her failure to take reasonable safeguards, including the use of barricades or another person to observe what was happening behind her. Second, Oltz blatantly and deliberately violated the law by identifying a different cat in the most recent attack and by keeping a serval as a pet without the proper permit and precautions. It is also a matter of great concern, if not an aggravating circumstance, that Oltz blames others: (1) when she failed to, at least give her opinion, about the appropriate cat to use; (2) when she did not refuse to display animals in what she knew to be an improper venue with children, (3) when she had not obtained the proper permit or installed the required precautions for keeping a Class II animal in her home, (4) when she suggested that the injuries to a child occurred because her mother dropped her off at a birthday party and that a father was at fault for not keeping his child on his lap throughout her show. Her attitude and priorities, as well as her disregard for the law, will be troublesome for the Commission, especially if Reynolds in the investigator assigned to her area and if she continues to have a captive wildlife permit.
Recommendation Based upon the foregoing Findings of Facts found and Conclusions of Law reached, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that a final order be entered which revokes Class I and II captive wildlife permits and/or licenses issued to Corrine Oltz and/or to any related business entities. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of October, 2007, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S ELEANOR M. HUNTER 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 10th day of October, 2007. COPIES FURNISHED: Stanley M. Warden, Esquire Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 Alan S. Ross, Esquire Robbins, Tunkey, Ross, Amsel, Raben Waxman & English, P.A. 2250 Southwest 3rd Avenue, 4th Floor Miami, Florida 33129 Ken D. Haddad, Executive Director Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1600 James V. Antista, General Counsel Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Farris Bryant Building 620 South Meridian Street Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1050
