The USDA and APHIS oversee the AWA and the House and Senate Agriculture Committees have primary legislative jurisdiction over the Act.

[5][6] Although Congress discussed laboratory animal welfare in the early 1960s, there was not enough interest to pass legislation until articles published by Sports Illustrated and Life in 1965 and 1966, respectively, generated a public outcry.

The piece detailed the story of Pepper the Dalmatian, a dog that disappeared from the yard of the Lakavage family home in Pennsylvania.

9743 into the House of Representatives, a bill that would require dog and cat dealers, as well as the laboratories that purchased the animals to be licensed and inspected by the USDA.

As a result of these articles, the public lobbied Congress to pass a Federal law that would institute animal housing and care standards.

[5] There was increasing evidence that dogs and cats kept as pets were being stolen by dealers, taken across states lines, and resold to research institutions for scientific experimentation.

Marine mammals as a class (whales, porpoises, seals, and polar bears), for the most part, found protection under the passage of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (Public Law 92-522) of 1972, which prevented extinction or depletion from indiscriminate taking, including hunting, harassment, capture, and killing (permitted takings, including for subsistence and research purposes, must be accomplished humanely, with "the least degree of pain and suffering practicable to the animal").

Those found guilty of assaulting or killing Federal inspectors responsible for such tasks also faced additional sentencing.

The definition of animal was broadened to rid the law of the possible interpretation that dogs used for hunting, security, and breeding were not included in its protection.

[14] Under this law, it was not permitted for a single animal to be used in more than one major operative experiment, from which it was also allowed adequate time to recover as guided by a veterinarian with proper training.

[17] In 2013, "An Act to Amend the Animal Welfare Act to Modify the Definition of 'Exhibitor'," added an owner of a common, domesticated household pet who derives less than a substantial portion of income from a nonprimary source (as determined by the Secretary) for exhibiting an animal that exclusively resides at the residence of the pet owner, after stores, in section 2(h).

[19] The U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) requires businesses that either buy or sell warmblooded animals, exhibit them to the public, transport them commercially, or use them in teaching or experiments, must be licensed or registered.

If any facility does not meet federal standards when they apply for a license or registration, they can receive up to three inspections within a period 90 days to correct any problems.

Exhibitors include zoos, educational displays or exhibits, marine mammal shows, circuses, carnivals, and animal acts.

They make such inspections or investigations of any dealer, exhibitor, research facility, handler, carrier, or operator of an auction sale, to determine if they have violated provisions under this chapter.

If deficiencies are found, failure to correct them could result in fines, cease and desist orders, suspensions, confiscation of animals and loss of licensing.

Any person who knowingly fails to obey an order made by the Secretary of Agriculture is subject to a civil penalty of $1,500 for each offense.

[23] Any dealer, exhibitor, carrier, handler, auction operator, or research facility may seek a review of an order within 60 days at the United States Court of Appeals.

The USDA has increased enforcement of the law in recent years, targeting magicians who perform magic tricks with rabbits.

[25] In 2013, the USDA found that China Southern Airlines had improperly transported over a thousand monkeys without federal permission in insecure crates.

[26] In 1981, a graduate student and PETA member, Alex Pacheco, volunteered at a research center in Silver Spring, Maryland.

While Alex spent time at the research center, he noticed the inhumane treatment of the monkeys under the AWA and reported it to the police.

It might unleash a spate of private lawsuits that would impede advances made by medical [sic] science in the alleviation of human suffering.

In fact, we are persuaded that Congress intended that the independence of medical [sic] research be respected and that administrative enforcement govern the Animal Welfare Act.

[27]In 1998, a court case was argued on behalf of the Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Daniel Glickman (then the Secretary of Agriculture), for the inhumane treatment of a primate named Barney at a Long Island game farm park and zoo.

A man named Marc Jurnove had visited this park on a regular basis and noticed this primate had been neglected.

He filed suit against the USDA for failing to meet the minimum standards under the AWA and his allegations were supported by investigations.

Under USDA regulations, the museum is required to obtain a USDA exhibitor's license, give each cat a tag for identification purposes, provide additional resting surfaces within their existing enclosures, and introduce one of several specified improvements required to ensure the cats remain contained to the museum's grounds.

The museum challenged on several grounds the USDA's authority in the case, noting that the Hemingway cats do not have an effect on interstate commerce sufficient to merit federal regulation.

A database of violations, reports, and sanctions on behalf of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) can be found on the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service website.