North Bay Butchers, LLC: Non-Compliance to Humane Livestock Handling in 2025 (USDA)

313.16(a)(1)

On August September 3, 2025 I CSI REDACTED was verifying stunning effectiveness when I found the following noncompliance. North Bay Butchers slaughter beef with large horns with a rifle to ensure the animal is unconscious. Establishment owner REDACTED was shooting the beef in the first outside pen. At approximately 0745 hours a horned beef failed to be rendered unconscious after the first shot. After the first shot was taken I stepped away from behind the MSU and saw the beef standing, Mr. REDACTED (who was standing beside Mr. REDACTED) signaled for me to step back, I proceeded to step behind the MSU again while they took a second shot. The animal was standing facing the direction of the shooter after the first shot was taken. Mr. REDACTED acted immediately and applied a second shot within 10 seconds, rendering the animal unconscious. The knock box was tagged with US Reject tag No. B26819404. Both owners were notified that beef knocking would be halted. The head was skinned and two shots were visible. The first shot was to the left of the midline of the skull, the second shot was on the midline. The tag was removed from the knock box at approximately 0854 hours. This is noncompliant according to 9 CFR 313.16(a)(1) This finding is linked to the following noncompliance QEI2011070821N/1 issued 07/21/25 for the same root cause that had occurred in the last ninety days.

313.15(a)(1)

On July 22, 2025 I CSI REDACTED was verifying HATS category, stunning effectiveness when I saw the following noncompliance. Mr. REDACTED was knocking goats in pen using the captive bolt gun while I observed outside the pen, when the third goat knocked required two shots before being rendered unconscious. At this establishment they knock goats in the pens to avoid any escaping through the knock box. The goat was being restrained by Mr. REDACTED by corning inside of the pen. The first attempt was taken at approximately 0528 hours and I heard the captive bolt audibly go off, the goat didn’t fall to the ground but proceeded to walk away from Mr. REDACTED to the other goats, no vocalization was heard. Mr. REDACTED proceeded to take apart the captive bolt to see if the round had fired. After a moment I asked Mr. REDACTED if he would be trying again as the first attempt didn’t work render the goat unconscious. About a minute after the first attempt at approximately 0529 hours, Mr. REDACTED proceeded with the second attempt, to which the goat fell and didn’t show signs of consciousness. After the goat was bled I examined the head and saw what appeared to be two slightly overlapping circles. The goat pen was tagged with U.S. Rejected tag No. 21592367, Mr. REDACTED was notified that no more goats would be slaughtered until further notice. I notified Dr. REDACTED who inspected the head upon her arrival and a two knock holes next to each other. At approximately 0615 hours Mr. REDACTED had finished conducting maintenance on the captive bolt, both Mr. REDACTED and Mr. REDACTED fired practice shots to a beef head from yesterday’s slaughter. They fired approximately 5 rounds, all of which were penetrating. This is noncompliant according to 9CFR 313.15(a)(1)

313.16(a)(1),313.1

At approximately 0734 hours I heard a rattling noise coming from the outside pens. When I checked, a horned steer, previously held in the second pen pushed its way into the first pen through a small opening between the two. I notified REDACTED who was inside of the MSU of my findings, to which he grabbed the rifle and walked towards the pens. I remained in the MSU when I heard the first shot, I walked to the pens and saw the beef on the ground. The first shot was taken at approximately 0735 and the beef began to flop its head and want to return onto an upright position, no clear visualization of the eyes and no vocalization was heard. The beef proceeded to stand, wobbling in place while looking towards REDACTED. REDACTED said to “watch out” so I returned to the MSU while he took another shot. In less than a minute the second shot was fired and the beef collapsed. After skinning the head, the first shot was taken two inches from the left eye projected 45 degrees from the midline of the skull, no exit opening was found. The second shot was between the center of the upper eyelids and the center of the horns and was effective in rendering the beef unconscious. The fencing between the two pens has approximately 3 loose bars and the hog wire fencing is peeling into pen 1, causing an opening where livestock can move. At approximately 1123, while inside the MSU REDACTED and REDACTED were notified by establishment employees that one of the beef from pen 1 had escaped and was standing calmly outside of the pen eating feed. I stepped out of the MSU along with Mr. REDACTED and Mr. REDACTED and saw the beef outside the pen from the northwest side of the MSU. The beef was shot by Mr. REDACTED and was rendered unconscious by the first shot. After bleeding the beef, both owners examined the pen to see where it had escaped. There were a few more loose bars on the fence of pen 1. Mr. REDACTED and Mr. REDACTED were notified of the forthcoming noncompliance. This is noncompliant according to 9CFR 313.1 and 313.16(a)(1)

313.2

On June 8th, 2025 at approximately 1115 hours, I, CSI REDACTED was conducting my odd hours inspection when I found the following noncompliance. There were 9 lambs being kept on site in the covered pens with no available water. At the time of my findings there was no employee on site I could notify, Mr. REDACTED was notified via text message of my findings. He then notified me at approximately 1215 hours that the lambs had water. This is noncompliant according to 9CFR 313.2

313.2

On December 2, 2024 I CSI REDACTED was conducting a humane handling task when I noticed the following noncompliance. While I was conducting antemortem inspection I saw that two pigs in the covered pen closest to the cattle restrainer, didn’t have water. The container that holds the water was empty. I let co-owner of the establishment, REDACTED know of my findings and they proceeded to fill the container shortly after. This noncompliance is linked to NR # QEI1415123302N which was documented for the same root cause. This is noncompliant according to CFR 9 313.2(e)

313.2

On December 1, 2024 I CSI REDACTED , was conducting my odd hours inspection when I noticed the following noncompliance. At approximately 1300 hours I was conducting my odd hours inspection at North Bay butchers when I noticed one of the covered pens, closest to cattle restrainer, contained two pigs and no available water. Along with the two pigs inside the pen, there was a black plastic container on its side, these containers are typically used to provide water for the animals being held in the pen. Co-owner of the establishment, REDACTED was on the premises so I showed him my findings and asked if he could refill the container with water. Mr. REDACTEDrefilled the container in my presence. This is noncompliant according to CFR 9 313.2(e)

313.30(a)(1),313.30(b)(2)

On November 4th, 2024 at approximately 0928 I, Dr. REDACTED SPHV and CSI REDACTED saw the following noncompliance while observing HATS category VIII Stunning Effectiveness. A large sow was driven into the establishment’s unloading alley. The establishment closed part of the alley off with a gate leaving an area of about 6 feet x 6 feet for the sow to walk freely in. While she was facing a corner of the alleyway, Mr. REDACTED, establishment co-owner approached the sow with the electric stunner and placed it around her neck behind her head. The sow jolted and Mr. REDACTED lost contact with the sow. She fell on her left side and let out a loud squeal. Mr. REDACTED immediately applied a second head stun with the electric stunner and rendered the sow unconscious. Mr. REDACTED then applied an electric chest stun and Mr. REDACTED, establishment co-owner used a captive bolt to apply a safety stun to her head. I informed Mr. REDACTED that I would be taking a regulatory control action, and the swine knock box was tagged with US Rejected tag No. B21592381. After the establishment provided acceptable written corrective actions, US Rejected tag No. B21592381 was removed at 1250 hours. This is noncompliant with 9 CFR 313.30 (a)(1) and 9 CFR 313.30(b)(2).