ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND, a non-
`profit corporation,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR
`RESCUED ANIMALS D/B/A TIGER
`CREEK ANIMAL SANCTUARY, a non-
`profit corporation; BRIAN WERNER
`FERRIS, an individual; & EMILY OWEN,
`an individual,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 1 of 26 PageID #: 1
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`TYLER DIVISION
`
`
`Civil Action No. _____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT AND
`REQUEST FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
`
`Plaintiff ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND (“ALDF” or “Plaintiff”), by and through its
`
`attorneys of record, files this, its Original Complaint and Request for Declaratory Relief and
`
`Permanent Injunction against Defendants, NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR RESCUED
`
`ANIMALS D/B/A TIGER CREEK ANIMAL SANCTUARY (“Tiger Creek”); BRIAN WERNER
`
`FERRIS, as an individual and in his capacity as founder and former director of Tiger Creek; and
`
`EMILY OWEN, as an individual and in her capacity as Chairman and Executive Director of Tiger
`
`Creek (collectively “Defendants”), and would respectfully show as follows:
`
`I. NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`Over the past five years, at least nine lions and tigers have died at Defendants’
`
`“sanctuary” for big cats. Through a careless approach to providing timely and adequate
`
`veterinary care, Defendants’ actions have eviscerated the big cats’ population at Tiger Creek
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`Page 1
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 2 of 26 PageID #: 2
`
`
`
`by a third. Among these deaths are a tiger who laid dying for days in his own waste without any
`
`veterinary intervention, a lion with gaping wounds who was forced to endure extensive and
`
`painful medical treatments to generate donations until his death, and immobile, dying cats
`
`stabbed repeatedly in their chest in a brutal form of euthanasia.
`
`2.
`
`Each death resulted from the haphazard management of Defendants Emily Owen
`
`or Brian Werner Ferris, the current and former Tiger Creek Directors who consistently ignored
`
`the pleas of dedicated employees seeking care for the injured and ill animals at Tiger Creek.
`
`Each death also resulted from Tiger Creek’s persistently understaffed operations.
`
`3.
`
`Despite their demonstrated inability to provide timely and adequate veterinary care
`
`for the dozens of big cats exhibited at their facility, Defendants have consistently added more
`
`animals over the past five years in a quest to generate public attention. The pursuit is without
`
`regard for Defendants’ ability to care for those animals. This includes two ring-tailed lemurs—
`
`a highly social and intelligent species—Defendants acquired with no plan for their care, leaving
`
`each to live in bird cages, alone, for years and without a sufficient Animal Welfare Act
`
`(“AWA”)-mandated enrichment plan to account for their complex psychological needs.
`
`4.
`
`The animals who remain alive—seventeen tigers, two lions, two ring-tailed lemurs,
`
`and a number of pumas, servals, and bobcats—suffer from the conditions of their confinement.
`
`Defendants’ inadequate staffing has caused sparse and randomly-implemented enrichment,
`
`unsafe diets, and improper sanitation that has significantly disrupted each animal’s normal
`
`behavioral patterns. Several animals chewed their tails off from stress and disruptions to their
`
`species-specific behaviors that Defendants’ conditions of confinement have created.
`
`5.
`
`Defendants’ care of the animals contravenes generally-accepted practices for the
`
`conditions of captive animals, are contrary to the AWA’s terms, and have actually injured,
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 2
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 3 of 26 PageID #: 3
`
`
`
`wounded, and harmed the lions, tigers, ring-tailed lemurs, and members of other endangered or
`
`threatened species captive at Tiger Creek. The care has additionally harassed each of these
`
`animals by significantly disrupting their normal behavioral patterns. This case challenges these
`
`conditions under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”) and seeks to enjoin Defendants from
`
`continued violations of the Act.
`
`PLAINTIFF
`
`II. PARTIES
`
`6.
`
`ANIMAL LEGAL DEFENSE FUND is a national non-profit organization
`
`headquartered in Cotati, California with over 300,000 members and supporters. ALDF pursues
`
`its mission of protecting the lives and advancing the interests of animals by advocating for the
`
`protection of endangered and threatened animals. ALDF frequently focuses on animal
`
`husbandry practices and the confinement of animals used for entertainment and exhibition
`
`purposes. ALDF has expended significant organizational resources on advocacy and public
`
`education efforts to improve the welfare of animals—including members of threatened and
`
`endangered species—that are held in captivity. ALDF is entitled to bring a citizen suit under
`
`the ESA. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1540(g), 1532(13).
`
`7.
`
`ALDF brings this action on behalf of its members pursuant to the citizen-suit
`
`provision of the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g). Several ALDF members have visited and worked
`
`at Tiger Creek, where they observed, had daily interactions with, and developed aesthetic and
`
`emotional connections to the animals there, including the tigers, lions, ring-tailed lemurs,
`
`pumas, servals, and bobcats. These members became distressed and upset due to the animal
`
`mistreatment and suffering that they witnessed. The inhumane and inadequate conditions
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 3
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 4 of 26 PageID #: 4
`
`
`
`prevent ALDF members who worked at Tiger Creek from viewing and enjoying the animals
`
`kept there, both during and after their employment at Tiger Creek.
`
`8.
`
`Because ALDF’s members appreciate and are attached to the particular animals at
`
`Tiger Creek and are concerned about their welfare, they wish to observe the animals in humane
`
`conditions and, likewise, are injured by seeing them in inhumane, harmful conditions. If the
`
`animals at Tiger Creek were transferred to a sanctuary or other place where they were no longer
`
`mistreated and where they lived in humane conditions, ALDF’s members would visit the
`
`animals. Similarly, if the Court ordered Tiger Creek to improve the conditions in which the
`
`animals are kept at Tiger Creek such that the animals are living in safe, humane, and ESA-
`
`compliant conditions, then members of ALDF would visit the animals at Tiger Creek without
`
`aesthetic injury.
`
`9.
`
`ALDF and its members seek to guard their interests in protecting the lives of and
`
`advancing the interests of the endangered and threatened animals located at Tiger Creek.
`
`Further, both ALDF and its members have been, and will continue to be, harmed by Defendants’
`
`“take,” transfer, and other violations of the ESA against the endangered and/or threatened
`
`animals through Defendants’ operation and management of Tiger Creek. Neither the claims
`
`asserted by ALDF, nor the relief it requests, require the participation of its individual members.
`
`DEFENDANTS
`
`10.
`
`NATIONAL FOUNDATION FOR RESCUED ANIMALS D/B/A TIGER CREEK
`
`ANIMAL SANCTUARY is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization located at 17552 Farm to
`
`Market Road 14, Tyler, Texas 75706. Tiger Creek has its principal place of business in Texas.
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 4
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 5 of 26 PageID #: 5
`
`
`
`11.
`
`BRIAN WERNER FERRIS, in his individual capacity and in his capacity as
`
`founder and a former director of Tiger Creek, is, upon information and belief, a citizen and
`
`resident of Tyler, Texas.
`
`12.
`
`EMILY OWEN, in her individual capacity and in her capacity as Chairman and
`
`Executive Director of Tiger Creek, is, upon information and belief, a citizen and resident of
`
`Tyler, Texas.
`
`III. JURISDICTION & VENUE
`
`13.
`
`The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over these claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1331 because this Complaint states claims arising under federal law. Specifically, the
`
`Complaint alleges violations of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531 et. seq.
`
`14.
`
`Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201–02, the Court is authorized to provide declaratory
`
`relief. The ESA’s citizen-suit provision further authorizes the Court to enjoin violations of the
`
`ESA and its implementing regulations. See 16 U.S.C. § 1540.
`
`15.
`
`Plaintiff provided Defendants and the Secretary of the Interior (“Secretary”) notice
`
`of its intent to sue Defendants on January 10, 2022 via email, first class mail, and certified
`
`return receipt requested mail at least sixty (60) days in advance of this Complaint, as required
`
`by the ESA. 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(2)(A)(i); see also Exhibit A, a true and correct copy of
`
`ALDF’s Notice of Intent Letter to Defendants, which is specifically incorporated herein by
`
`reference. The violations identified in the Notice Letter continue to occur and are reasonably
`
`likely to continue to occur. On information and belief, Defendants have not applied for any
`
`permit to lawfully take or transfer interstate members of federally-listed species, nor have
`
`Defendants taken any action to remedy or prevent continued violations of the ESA. The
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 5
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 6 of 26 PageID #: 6
`
`
`
`Secretary has not initiated an action to impose a penalty under 16 U.S.C. § 1540(a), and the
`
`United States has not taken any action to prevent continued violations of the ESA.
`
`16.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants because they are
`
`each residents of the State of Texas. Defendant Tiger Creek has its principal place of business
`
`in Tyler, Texas. Defendants Brian Werner Ferris and Emily Owen are residents of Texas.
`
`17.
`
`Venue of this action in this Court and district is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1391(b)(1), (2). The Defendants are all residents of the Eastern District of Texas and a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims occurred in this
`
`district. In addition, Plaintiff may bring suit in this judicial district because the violations of the
`
`ESA occurred in the Eastern District of Texas. See 16 U.S.C. § 1540(g)(3)(A).
`
`IV. STATUTORY & REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
`
`18.
`
`The ESA protects federally endangered and threatened species in “the most
`
`comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any
`
`nation.” Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Hill, 437 U.S. 153, 180 (1978). The ESA establishes a scheme
`
`under which any species defined as “endangered” or “threatened” is protected from various
`
`private and governmental activities that will or may jeopardize its continued existence.
`
`19.
`
`Agencies implementing the ESA, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
`
`(“FWS”), decide whether to list species as “threatened” or “endangered” under the ESA. See
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1533(a). Once a species is designated as such, it receives the ESA’s protections.
`
`See Shields v. Norton, 289 F.3d 832, 834 (5th Cir. 2002).
`
`20.
`
`Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the “take” of any endangered or threatened species.
`
`16 U.S.C. § 1538(a); 50 C.F.R. § 17.31(a). “The ESA expansively defines the term ‘take’ as ‘to
`
`harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 6
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 7 of 26 PageID #: 7
`
`
`
`in any such conduct.’” Hill v. Coggins, 867 F.3d 499, 508 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting 16 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1532(19)). Congress intended for “take” to be defined “in the broadest possible manner to
`
`include every conceivable way in which a person can ‘take’ or attempt to ‘take’ any fish or
`
`wildlife.” Animal Welfare Inst. v. Beech Ridge Energy LLC, 675 F. Supp. 2d 540, 561 (D. Md.
`
`2009) (quoting S. Rep. No. 93-307, at 7 (1973)).
`
`21.
`
`The FWS has issued regulations regarding some of the terms composing the
`
`definition of “take.” 50 C.F.R. § 17.3. The agency defines “harm” as “an act which actually
`
`kills or injures wildlife.” Id. The agency also defines “harass” as “an intentional or negligent
`
`act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an
`
`extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited
`
`to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.” Id.
`
`22.
`
`The ESA’s “take” prohibition generally applies to members of listed species living
`
`in the wild and in captivity. See, e.g., Graham v. San Antonio Zoological Soc’y, 261 F. Supp.
`
`3d 711, 741 (W.D. Tex. 2017); Proposed Amendment to the Endangered Species Act, 79 Fed.
`
`Reg. 4313, 4317 (Jan. 27, 2014) (codified at 50 C.F.R. pt. 224).
`
`23.
`
`The ESA further makes it unlawful for any person to “deliver, receive, carry,
`
`transport, or ship in interstate or foreign commerce, by any means whatsoever and in the course
`
`of a commercial activity, any [endangered or threatened] species” absent a valid permit. 16
`
`U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1). The ESA defines “commercial activity” as “all activities of industry and
`
`trade, including, but not limited to, the buying or selling of commodities and activities
`
`conducted for the purpose of facilitating such buying and selling: [p]rovided, however, [t]hat it
`
`does not include exhibition of commodities by museums or similar cultural or historical
`
`organizations.” 16 U.S.C. §1532(2). In order to engage in transfer activities prohibited by 16
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 7
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 8 of 26 PageID #: 8
`
`
`
`U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1), parties must apply for a permit with the Secretary pursuant to the
`
`requirements of 16 U.S.C. § 1539.
`
`24.
`
`Defendants violating the ESA risk civil and criminal penalties. 16 U.S.C.
`
`§§ 1540(a)–(b). The ESA allows private parties to bring civil enforcement actions sixty (60)
`
`days after providing adequate notice of the violations to both the violator and the Secretary. Id.
`
`§ 1540(g). A court that finds violations of the ESA “take” prohibition has the authority to order
`
`the removal and relocation of animals at issue to other, more protective facilities. Kuehl v.
`
`Sellner, 887 F.3d 845, 854 (8th Cir. 2018).
`
`V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`25.
`
`Tiger Creek is a self-described “sanctuary” located in Tyler, Texas that exhibits
`
`dozens of big cats and other animals to members of the public, who pay an admission fee to view
`
`them. Tiger Creek also solicits donations from members of the public, but receives a 0 out of 5
`
`charity score from Charity Navigator, an independent charity ranking agency that bases its
`
`ranking on charity operations including a charity’s accountability and transparency, as well as
`
`the health of its finances.
`
`26.
`
`Tiger Creek currently possesses seventeen tigers, two lions, and two ring-tailed
`
`lemurs, each of which are listed as “endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA. 50 C.F.R. §
`
`17.11. Tiger Creek additionally possesses pumas, servals, and bobcats believed to be
`
`“endangered” or “threatened” under the ESA. 50 C.F.R. § 17.11.
`
`27.
`
`Tiger Creek is known for its big cats—particularly lions and tigers—who are
`
`featured as the main attraction of the facility and whose biographies are distributed in books,
`
`fundraising emails, and advertising campaigns seeking donations from the public for their care.
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 8
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 9 of 26 PageID #: 9
`
`
`
`28.
`
`Defendants’ veterinary care, confinement, husbandry, and exhibition activities
`
`injure, wound, harm, harass, and kill the animals at Tiger Creek. They have already caused or
`
`contributed to the harassment, injury, wounding, and/or killing of at least nine big cats in the
`
`past five years. Defendants’ activities are not generally accepted practices, not compliant with
`
`the AWA, and are likely to result in injury to the animals it continues to keep.
`
`Lack of Timely & Adequate Veterinary Care
`
`29.
`
`Over the past five years, Defendants have delayed providing timely and adequate
`
`veterinary care to sick and/or injured animals. Animals have frequently suffered and died as a
`
`result of Defendants’ refusal to authorize timely or appropriate veterinary care for the animals.
`
`The denial of timely and adequate veterinary care—including a lack of appropriate and timely
`
`palliative care or euthanasia—has led to each of the endangered and threatened animals’ harm,
`
`wounding, and harassment in a manner likely to cause or that has already caused injury.
`
`30.
`
`For example, in November 2017, a male tiger named Tibor lost consciousness and
`
`could no longer move. For 48 hours, Tibor remained immobile in his enclosure, eventually
`
`passing away after spending hours in the rain, laying on his side and in his own urine, shaking.
`
`Defendants failed to provide Tibor with any veterinary care in the 48 hours he laid immobile up
`
`to his death.
`
`31.
`
`In early 2018, a tiger named Lexie became ill and experienced a decline in her
`
`mobility. Eventually, Lexie was observed laying on her side and began urinating where she lay.
`
`Her prolonged immobility in urine-soaked hay caused wounds to fester on her legs. Lexie
`
`received no veterinary care for her condition until approximately a week before her death.
`
`32.
`
`Scrunches, a geriatric female lion, developed mobility issues in October 2018 that
`
`were brought to the attention of Tiger Creek. By December 2018, she had to be hand-fed. No
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 9
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 10 of 26 PageID #: 10
`
`
`
`veterinarian was called to examine Scrunches until her euthanasia, which occurred at the end of
`
`January 2019. She was euthanized only after she was seen dragging her back legs around her
`
`enclosure, unable to walk.
`
`33.
`
`In July 2018, a male tiger named Greg began to have sandy feces and was observed
`
`licking the sand in his enclosure. Despite Defendants knowing that his health was abnormal, no
`
`veterinary care was arranged until September 2018, only after he developed a distended abdomen
`
`and had refused food for several weeks. Greg was euthanized on October 2, 2018.
`
`34.
`
`In June 2019, keepers first observed that a tiger named Kumari was showing signs
`
`of illness, including a swollen abdominal area. Kumari did not receive any veterinary care for at
`
`least two months. On September 19, 2019, Tiger Creek staff observed Kumari eating dirt. By
`
`this time, her abdomen had doubled in size. At that point, Defendants finally brought Kumari in
`
`for an ultrasound. On September 24, 2019, Kumari underwent an ovariohysterectomy.
`
`Immediately after surgery, Defendants left Kumari in her transfer crate in the maintenance
`
`building for over twelve hours. Kumari died, still locked inside her transfer cage, waiting to be
`
`put back in her enclosure.
`
`35.
`
`In late 2019, Defendants moved a serval named Simba to a small, off-exhibit
`
`enclosure. Shortly after, Simba stopped eating and appeared lethargic. Defendants refused to
`
`allow Simba to be seen by a veterinarian. Simba spent the next two days vomiting and was
`
`observed over the proceeding days as appearing severely dehydrated and largely immobile. Upon
`
`information and belief, Simba eventually died without veterinary intervention. On information
`
`and belief, Defendants failed to provide Simba with timely and appropriate veterinary care,
`
`resulting in his injury and ultimately his death.
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 10
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 11 of 26 PageID #: 11
`
`
`
`36.
`
`These examples are just some of the endangered or threatened animals harmed,
`
`wounded, harassed, and killed by Defendants’ denial of timely and adequate veterinary care.
`
`37.
`
`In addition, Defendants have failed to provide veterinary care by a veterinarian with
`
`expertise in treating the endangered and threatened animals kept there. The inadequate care has
`
`led to and continues to cause harm, injury, wounding, and harassment to endangered and
`
`threatened animals.
`
`38.
`
`For example, in May 2017, a puma named Coco began limping. For two weeks the
`
`limp continued to grow worse before Tiger Creek called its attending veterinarian to examine
`
`Coco. It was determined that Coco had a fractured leg, but two more weeks went by before he
`
`received surgery that ultimately failed. Within the next few months, Coco underwent a second
`
`surgery by another veterinarian to fix his leg; however, that surgery was also unsuccessful.
`
`Coco’s leg was amputated in August 2017. A few months later, Coco started to show signs that
`
`his other front leg was injured and by March 2018, Coco could not walk without a limp. By June
`
`2019, Coco would drag his remaining front leg to try to move around his enclosure. Four days
`
`elapsed where Coco was predominantly immobile until he was eventually euthanized. Upon
`
`information and belief, the cause of Coco’s fractured leg was never determined. Thus,
`
`Defendants’ inadequate veterinary care led to Coco’s painful injuries, poor quality of life, and
`
`ultimately his death.
`
`39.
`
`On August 20, 2018, Tiger Creek’s attending veterinarian euthanized a tiger named
`
`Sierra by stabbing Sierra repeatedly with anesthetics directly into her chest. Sierra immediately
`
`started twitching and convulsing, but did not die for approximately five minutes in a slow and
`
`protracted death.
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 11
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 12 of 26 PageID #: 12
`
`
`
`40.
`
`In December 2019, Nati, a two-year old female tiger, developed a cyst
`
`approximately the size of a quarter on her lower abdomen. Defendants refused to provide Nati
`
`with timely veterinary care and the cyst continued to grow until it burst open on December 24,
`
`2019. Tiger Creek’s attending veterinarian did not attend to Nati in person and advised
`
`Defendants to use “hydrotherapy,” which consisted of hosing down the affected area with water
`
`each day, and prescribed an antibiotic. Over the proceeding weeks, Nati’s wound grew to the
`
`size of a dinner plate. A veterinarian saw Nati once during this time period, but the veterinarian
`
`did not stitch the wound. It was not until January 16, 2020—nearly a month after her cyst burst
`
`open—that Nati’s wounds were stitched by the veterinarian, and only because the attending
`
`veterinarian was already visiting Tiger Creek to observe another animal.
`
`41.
`
`Tiger Creek’s attending veterinarian has also blindly prescribed medications and
`
`treatment plans for animals over text message without first knowing what species of animal she
`
`was treating.
`
`42.
`
`The seventeen tigers, two lions, four bobcats, three pumas, two ring-tailed lemurs
`
`and one serval that remain at Tiger Creek are subject to the risk of continued injury, wounding,
`
`harm, harassment, and death as a result of Defendants untimely and inadequate veterinary care.
`
`43.
`
`Defendants continue to deny endangered and threatened animals appropriate
`
`veterinary care. On April 8, 2021, the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) noted
`
`in its inspection report a “critical” non-compliance item for Tiger Creek’s failure to provide
`
`“[a]ccurate and timely communications with a veterinarian” in treating a serval named Dakari,
`
`where the USDA inspector “felt the animal should have received veterinary care sooner than [the
`
`serval] did.” See Exhibit B a true and correct copy of the USDA’s Inspection with Non-
`
`Compliant Items dated April 8, 2021, which is specifically incorporated herein by reference.
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 12
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 13 of 26 PageID #: 13
`
`
`
`44.
`
`In December 2021, the USDA issued a Letter of Official Warning notifying Tiger
`
`Creek that the failure to timely communicate with a veterinarian regarding the serval’s care
`
`constituted an alleged AWA violation. See Exhibit C a true and correct copy of the USDA’s
`
`Official Warning Letter of December 9, 2021, which is specifically incorporated herein by
`
`reference. An Official Warning alerts the recipient facility that the USDA “has evidence” the
`
`facility committed a violation of the AWA and warns that any further infractions may result in
`
`more serious consequences, such as a civil penalty or criminal prosecution.
`
`Unsafe and Unsanitary Environment
`
`45.
`
`Tiger Creek has failed, and continues to fail, to keep the animals’ enclosures free
`
`of feces and pests, which places the animals’ health and welfare at risk and directly inhibits
`
`their ability to engage in normal behavioral patterns.
`
`46.
`
`Inadequate supervision and an understaffed animal care team have caused animals’
`
`enclosures to accumulate feces and waste. Lean staffing means enclosures housing endangered
`
`and threatened animals go without disinfection for weeks.
`
`47. Maggots have shown up on some of the animals’ food trays. Animals have also
`
`suffered from flea infestations.
`
`48.
`
`Visitors have noted that the animals are kept in filthy conditions and the facility
`
`reeks of urine. Visitors have also noted animal enclosures are filled with “ashy” feces, which
`
`indicates that those feces have been in the enclosure for extended periods.
`
`49.
`
`In August 2021, the USDA found Tiger Creek had failed to remove excessive
`
`accumulation of feces, hair, and debris in one of the bobcat enclosures for ten days. See Exhibit
`
`D a true and correct copy of the USDA’s Inspection Report with Non-Compliant Items dated
`
`August 24, 2021, which is specifically incorporated herein by reference.
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 13
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 14 of 26 PageID #: 14
`
`
`
`50.
`Animals’ pools similarly go uncleaned for days, creating unsanitary conditions for
`the tigers to escape from the over 100-degree summer heat. In August 2021, the USDA also
`
`found several pools in Tiger Creek’s animal enclosures appeared to be “a very dark greenish
`
`color” and posed a health hazard to the animals. See Exhibit D.
`
`51.
`
`Defendants have exposed lions, tigers, and ring-tailed lemurs to heightened risk of
`
`injury and illness by failing to implement appropriate COVID-19 protocols.
`
`52.
`
`For example, in December 2020 Defendants allowed tiger cub Sitaara to be handled
`
`by COVID-19 infected humans without protective equipment or other safety measures to
`
`protect her from injury. This occurred despite the fact that all felids—especially cubs who have
`
`vulnerable immune systems—are susceptible to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-
`
`19 in humans.
`
`53.
`
`Similarly, Defendants have failed to implement protective measures when handling
`
`at-risk primates such as ring-tailed lemurs, who have been observed interacting with unmasked
`
`employees during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite the risk of virus transmission.
`
`54.
`
`Defendants similarly house endangered and threatened animals in unsafe
`
`conditions by failing to supervise employees who pose a danger to the animals. For example,
`
`Tiger Creek’s former head of animal care doused a young lion named Max with an entire bottle
`
`of pure vinegar. The vinegar poured down Max’s face and eyes caused Max to scream out.
`
`Tiger Creek ultimately did not fire the employee for the incident, and the employee remained
`
`head of animal care.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 14
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 15 of 26 PageID #: 15
`
`
`
`Inadequate Nutrition Protocols
`
`55.
`
`Defendants have denied endangered and threatened animals an adequate and
`
`appropriate diet, thus interfering with their normal feeding behaviors and resulting in injury and
`
`the risk of further injury to endangered or threatened animals.
`
`56.
`
`Defendants have failed to provide food sufficient to meet the species-specific
`
`nutritional requirements of the animals. They have also failed to provide food in a safe manner
`
`for the animals to avoid injury.
`
`57.
`
`For example, in 2016, Defendants began using donated emu meat that was shipped
`
`to Tiger Creek on a flatbed truck that did not have refrigeration. Consequently, the meat was
`
`sometimes hot and partially cooked when it arrived. The emu meat was combined with ground
`
`beef and when fed to the animals, many of them sorted out the emu meat and left it untouched.
`
`This meant that fifteen to twenty big cats had leftover diets for multiple weeks.
`
`58. When this new diet did not work, Defendants began a fasting schedule for the big
`
`cats that stretched out their food portions. On this schedule, Amir—a 475-pound tiger—went
`
`from being fed sixteen pounds of food each day for five days a week to sixteen pounds of food
`
`per week. Upon information and belief, Defendants implemented such diets in order to save
`
`money on food purchases.
`
`59.
`
`In 2017, Defendants began feeding big cats Tyson chicken pieces with bones. In
`
`March 2017, a lion named Max needed emergency surgery for a stomach blockage attributed
`
`to chicken bones. Defendants’ practice of feeding chicken to the large felids, such as tigers and
`
`lions, increases the risk of their injury. Industry guidelines discourage feeding large felids high
`
`percentages of poultry because the resulting diet may be nutritionally imbalanced and can cause
`
`serious illness and injury.
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 15
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 16 of 26 PageID #: 16
`
`
`
`60. Multiple animals have experienced significant health issues from the diet they
`
`receive at Tiger Creek, such as blockages, bloody stool, and choking.
`
`Inadequate Enrichment & Lack of Species-Appropriate Enclosures
`
`61.
`
`Defendants fail to provide adequate shelter that resembles the animals’ natural
`
`habitats or enrichment that enables the animals to exhibit behaviors they would engage in when
`
`in the wild. Captive environments that do not offer large felids, such as lions and tigers, or
`
`primates, such as ring-tailed lemurs, the opportunity to engage in natural behaviors have a
`
`detrimental effect on the animals’ physical and psychological well-being.
`
`62.
`
`General animal husbandry practices require that any exhibitor who chooses to keep
`
`captive animals must provide adequate shelter and enrichment that resembles their natural
`
`habitat. See PETA v. Tri-State Zoological Park of W. Maryland, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 3d 404, 414
`
`(D. Md. 2019), aff’d, 843 F. App’x 493 (4th Cir. 2021). Tiger Creek’s barren living conditions
`
`harm and harass all of its endangered and threatened animals and amount to “take” under the
`
`ESA. See id.; see also 16 U.S.C. § 1538(a)(1)(B).
`
`63.
`
`For example, tigers are one of the largest living carnivores and their territories range
`
`from 27 to 32 square miles for females and 103 to 114 square miles for males. Tigers are long-
`
`ranging species, known to travel over 400 miles to reach tigers in other areas. Tigers are also
`
`avid swimmers and can swim up to eighteen miles in a day. Large enclosures with a pool with
`
`clean water are essential for tigers—they reduce stress and promote naturalistic behavior. The
`
`industry group Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ (“AZA”) Tiger Care Manual—which
`
`presents a compilation of knowledge based on the current science, practice, and technology of
`
`animal management—says that all tiger exhibits should include relatively large, complex
`
`outdoor space.
`
`PLAINTIFF ALDF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`Page 16
`
`

`

`Case 6:22-cv-00097-JDK Document 1 Filed 03/15/22 Page 17 of 26 PageID #: 17
`
`
`
`64.
`
`Lions typically demand similarly complex enclosures to account for their natural
`
`behaviors. Lions’ home ranges vary by location from 8–17 square miles to over 800 square
`
`miles. Lions travel up to 8 miles a day. Lions are very social, with females and cubs living in
`
`prides averaging 4–6 adult females, and up to 8 males who hold lifelong alliance with the pride.
`
`The AZA manual sets a minimum of 10,000 square feet for lion enclosures.
`
`65.
`
`Given their natural behaviors, captive felids, such as tigers and lions, have
`
`pa