The United States Department of Agriculture filed a formal complaint against Big Cats of Serenity Springs, DBA Serenity Springs Wildlife Center, on May 29, alleging a lengthy list of ongoing violations.It is not the first time the center in Calhan, Colorado, has come under fire from the feds.In April 2013, Serenity Springs applied for a Captive-Bred Wildlife Registration to be able to breed animals in their care. In November 2013, the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service denied the request, according to an article in the December issue of The New Falcon Herald.The NFH also published an article in the February 2014 issue, and reported that PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) had filed a complaint with the USDA, accusing the center of illegal and unethical handling of cubs.Nick Sculac is the owner of Serenity Springs, and Julie Walker is the director of operations. With each complaint, both have denied any wrongdoing on the part of the wildlife center.Attorneys for Serenity Springs sent an email to the NFH, in response to the allegations made in the May USDA complaint.Nick Sculac and Big Cats of Serenity Springs makes the following statement:ìSerenity Springs Wildlife Center is a nonprofit animal sanctuary dedicated to providing housing, food, and veterinary care for more than 100 exotic felines.† Many of the animals at the sanctuary have been rescued from other facilities or from individuals who mistakenly believed that a tiger or lion would make a good ìpet.ìNick Sculac has operated the facility and cared for these animals for more than 20 years. Nick often took these animals in when no one else would, and any suggestion that he has abused or neglected these animals is baseless.†The sanctuary is open to the public for tours every Saturday and Sunday, and anyone who is interested in touring the facility is invited to do so and see firsthand how well the animals are cared for.†ìSerenity Springs Wildlife Center and Nick Sculac maintain that the allegations in the USDAís complaint are unfounded and will defend against them vigorously.†Serenity Springs Wildlife Center and Nick Sculac have already requested a hearing on this matter and look forward to presenting their side of the story at that hearing.î†The USDA is also accusing Sculac of ìextorting or attempting to extort moneyî from people who had been injured by the animals. Sculac allegedly told the injured individuals that the USDA had fined the center thousands of dollars; and, unless he paid those fines, he would have to shut down and euthanize the animals. According to the USDA, the fines were ìnon-existent.îThe allegations also include failing to provide veterinary care, failing to adhere to the recommendations of attending veterinarians, refusing to provide USDA inspectors access to the facility, failing to handle young and infant animals in a careful, appropriate manner, failing to comply with identification and record-keeping requirements. Multiple animal deaths are included in the allegations as well.According to the USDA complaint, the center has been continuously warned not to exhibit exotic felids (big cats) in a way that allowed direct contact with the public, and not to transport infant exotic felids for use in photo shoots with the public. The Serenity Springs website advertises photo shoots with baby animals.Brittany Peet, deputy director of Captive Animal Law Enforcement at the PETA Foundation, said Serenity Springs is operating under the guise of an animal welfare, protective organization; when, in actuality, they are ìexploiting the catsî and not providing them with the ìmost basic care.îPeet said the USDA should shut down the center; however, the USDA has been slow to react to the numerous complaints and violations reported to them. The USDA is supposed to be protecting the animals and enforcing the AWA; but, she said, ìThey are failing to levy penalties.îAttorneys for Serenity Springs also wrote that Sculac and Serenity Springs have countered the accusations by filing a federal complaint against the USDA and the two inspectors responsible for the allegations listed in the USDA complaint. Serenity Springs is asserting in its complaint that USDA inspectors ìviolated the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution and USDAís own policies and procedures by forcibly entering the facility and conducting an unlawful search.î Further, according to the statement, ìThe USDA has (twice) unsuccessfully tried to get the suit dismissed,î adding that Sculac is looking forward to ìprevailing in that action.îAn attorney for the complainant office of the General Counsel USDA, Colleen Carroll, did not return phone calls and did not respond to an email inquiry.Editorís note: Dr. Melanie Marsden, listed as the primary veterinarian for Serenity Springs, did not respond to a call made to her office. The person who answered the phone said Marsden was in the day of the call and would receive the NFH phone request to answer questions concerning the USDA complaint against Serenity Springs.Timeline and descriptions of some allegationsThe following information was taken directly from the formal complaint filed by the United States Department of Agriculture against Big Cats of Serenity Springs. The complaint also lists numerous structural and cleanliness violations. These are a few of the allegations against Serenity Springs Wildlife Center ó the respondents in each citation.April 10, 2013: Respondents failed to notice or to communicate to the attending veterinarian that a tiger (Maverick) had a severe limp on his right foreleg, ambulated abnormally and would stumble and fall onto his shoulder when walking and appeared to be in pain. No veterinary care was sought. On subsequent inspections, as late as May, Maverickís condition had worsened, according to the complaint.April 10, 2013: Inspector finds a baby cougar coated in snow and her body was rigid. She was dead.May 6, 2013: Respondents failed to provide adequate veterinary care to a tiger (Baxter) that was exhibiting a pronounced limp in his right hind leg, and that leg was visibly swollen and non-weight-bearing, resulting in Baxter’s ambulating in a hopping manner, and then falling to the ground. Although respondents observed Baxter’s condition, respondents failed to convey this information to their attending veterinarian.Nov. 5, 2013: Respondents failed to provide adequate veterinary care to a tiger (Andy) that was observed to be limping on his right hind leg and in thin body condition Ö respondents had not communicated with their attending veterinarian about Andy or had Andy examined or evaluated by a veterinarian.Nov. 5, 2013: Respondents failed to provide adequate veterinary care to a tiger that was observed to have bilateral, whitish streaks on at least one cornea, and a laceration with dried blood on his left front paw Ö respondents did not have the tiger examined or evaluated by a veterinarian.Nov. 5, 2013: Respondents failed to provide adequate veterinary care to a wallaby with an injured left paw. According to respondents, Winston had been bitten by a dog almost a month earlier, but respondents had no records of having communicated with their attending veterinarian.Feb. 26, 2014: Respondents failed to provide adequate care to a tiger that was observed to have patchy hair loss and thickened skin on his right side from his neck to his hip Ö respondents had not observed this condition, communicated with their attending veterinarian about the tiger, or had him examined or evaluated by veterinarian.Sept.13, 2014: Respondents failed to provide adequate veterinary care to a tiger that was observed to have an abnormal gait on his right hind leg (which rotated inward when he ambulated) and to be in thin body condition Ö although respondents represented that they were aware that the tiger was thin, and had communicated this to their attending veterinarian, there were no records of either respondents’ observation or communication with their veterinarian. The gait had not been noticed, according to the USDA complaint.Nov. 2, 2013: Respondents (1) failed to handle infant tigers as carefully as possible, in a manner that does not cause trauma, overheating, excessive cooling, behavioral stress, physical harm, or unnecessary discomfort; (2) during exhibition, failed to handle infant tigers so that there was minimal risk of harm to the tigers and the public, with sufficient distance and/or barriers between the tigers and the public so as to ensure the safety of the tigers and the public; and (3) exhibited infant tigers for periods of time that were detrimental to their health and well-being. Specifically, respondents used infant (unweaned) tigers for “photo shoots,” wherein respondents permitted the public, including young children, to handle and to have direct contact with infant tigers, without any distance or barriers between the tigers and respondentsí customers.Sept.13, 2014: Cited again for the same type of violations as witnessed Nov. 2, 2013. One tiger, Milo, had been exposed to excessive public handling and exhibited for periods of time detrimental to his health and well-being. Milo was in front of the public between 10:25 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., without observable breaks, and absent any documentation of breaks. Milo was observed to be in distress.May 18, 2012: Respondents failed to remove food waste, bedding and dead animals from the enclosure housing a binturong (Chip), and failed to keep Chip’s enclosure clean.According to the complaint, respondents failed to provide officials with access to conduct Animal Welfare Act inspections of their facilities, animals and records on the following dates:Dec. 7, 2011March 20, 2013April 15, 2013May 7, 2013May 31, 2013June 20, 2014Aug. 27, 2014Jan. 8, 2015Feb. 18, 2015
