Proposition B won't solve 'puppy mill' problem

Prop B is a major step towards quelling Missouri's rampant puppy mill problem.

The author implies that Prop B will weaken existing animal welfare laws. This is FALSE. Section 7 of the law clearly states that Prop B is "in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare".

Under current ACFA regulations -- 23 pages of them -- trained animal handlers are required for inspections, and they must conduct measurements and calculations to verify compliance with the law.

The simplified provisions of Prop B allow a visual inspection, greatly improving the likelihood of identifying and prosecuting puppy mill operators by Missouri's woefully understaffed and underfunded inspectors.

The claims that breeders will be prosecuted "for a piece of kibble in a water bowl" or "a scratch on a painted surface" are ridiculous exaggerations of Section 5(2), which states that dogs must be provided with "potable water that is not frozen, and is free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants."

The author implies that Prop B criminalizes good breeders. It does not. Good breeders don't starve their dogs. Good breeders give their dogs water. Good breeders provide veterinary care for their pets-to-be. Good breeders don't keep their dogs in stacked wire cages where urine and feces drip down on the dogs below them.

That's what the extremist opponents of Prop B are really trying to defend -- the "right" to torture and abuse animals. It's disgusting. We have an obligation to care for the animals in our charge, an obligation that the puppy farming industry in Missouri has been allowed to ignore for far too long.

Prop B provides manageable, reasonable, enforceable provisions for the safety of Missouri's dogs.

It is supported by the Humane Society of Missouri, the Humane Society of Greater Kansas City, the Humane Society of Southwest Missouri, and over 100 other animal protection charities.

Vote YES on Prop B. It's time to stop the horror in Missouri.

Mr. Bob Baker the Director that is working on VOTE YES ON B, Bob Baker, former chief inspector (HSUS) and current consultant to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has a video on the ALF website. ALF is on the FBI's Terrorist Watch List! ALF is Animal Rights Liberation. This Proposition does nothing to stop animal cruelty. 23 pages in fact are clearer than the ONE page of "common sense" regs as Barbara Schmitz has been quoted to say. Here is an example, what may be common sense to you as having one piece of food in a water dish is not a big deal, to me might be. So if one inspector felt a piece of food was not debris and another felt it was and cited one kennel and the other was not cited, then how will you keep the same level of fairness? You won't. Current regs already are more specific. Alliance for truth has the current and proposed regs side by side for you to read. Many good small businesses in Missouri will have to go out of business if this passes. Why would we want to take away from the revenue from this state? Why would we want to pay more in Unemployment, lawsuits, and settlements? Where will they find jobs? What about the bad breeders that are currently and will continue to breed puppy mill puppies? How does this stop them? It doesn't. This only targets current law abiding breeders. The other issue is HSUS. They make millions while states and taxpayers pay for their aftermath of animal rights laws. You can google California, Ohio, Flordia, and many more. Many families have lost family farms and gone into bankruptcy. There goal is to end all animal agriculture. If keeping a dog in a clean cage is so cruel, then what is more cruel? Slaughter and meat consumption. Here are some quotes directly from HSUS. I would caution everyone to allow HSUS the power into Missouri. If you want tougher restrictions on kennel operations, write your legislation. How many letters have you written in the last five years demanding a change in puppy mills? "Join Compassion Over Killing and long-time farm animal campaigner and COK founder, Paul Shapiro (now with the Humane Society of the United States), for a free vegetarian meal and discussion of some of the progress being made to combat factory farming and what we can do to continue moving the ball forward for farm animals." " I don't want to see another cat or dog born." Wayne Pacelle, HSUS. "If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would." --

Wayne Pacelle. HSUS "Outreach Director" Josh Balk spoke about their end goal:

"It is needed for farm animals that we get people to eat more vegetarian meals ... We just have to reduce the number of animals that are raised for food. And we can do so by encouraging people to eat more vegetarian meals." "The Humane Society of the United States opposes the use of wild animals in circuses and other traveling acts." HSUS. Pretty scary stuff!! I will VOTE NO!!!!

That's me, MissouriMom, and thanks for the shout-out to my website.

For the record, I'm an enthusiastic donor to and volunteer for the Humane Society of the US (but not an employee, affiliate, or representative). I currently live in Southern California. I have a cat. I wear size 11-1/2 shoes. I hate tomatoes, enjoy cheeseburgers, and I'm ambivalent about oatmeal raisin cookies.

All of that is completely irrelevant to the merits of Prop B, though.

Did you have a criticism of the facts or the logic I presented?

You mentioned that current regs (e.g., ACFA) are "more specific" than Prop B. However, those regs have been largely unenforced for the reasons I outlined above. Fortunately, Prop B supplements and does not replace ACFA's requirements. It merely makes it easier for inspectors to verify compliance.

How will fairness be ensured, you ask. Inspectors are always called upon to use their common sense during inspections. Their citations are reviewed by a third party, and if action is to be taken, by an administrative judge with the respondent present. It's fair, and it works.

Good, small businesses will close their doors? Hardly. If one's business relies on depriving your animals of food, water, space, cleanliness, and veterinary care, that person belongs in jail. Don't cry to me because you can't get away with torturing the animals in your care.

However, if you are a responsible breeder, you're already following the requirements of Prop B. Responsible breeders feed and water their dogs. They provide them with veterinary care. They don't overbreed them. They don't overcrowd them. They don't raise hundreds of sickly dogs crammed shoulder-to-shoulder in stacked wire cages where feces and urine rain down on the puppies below.

If you're going to tell me that licensed breeders don't do that, I will direct you to the licensed breeders on the Humane Society's "Dirty Dozen" list of Missouri puppy mills. Tip of the freakin' iceberg.

I'm looking forward to an intelligent and adult discussion, preferably something more relevant and substantial than "I hates H$U$".

To say current laws are great is a bit of a stretch. Missouri is a magnet for bad operators because the current laws are too weak and/or too vague or complicated to be effectively enforced. Facilities with dozens of federal and state animal welfare violations remain licensed in Missouri to this day, and clearly the current laws have not done enough to stop puppy mill abuses. Facilities are licensed year after year after dogs have been documented living in filth, sometimes severely underweight or with untreated injuries. Prop B will establish a new set of clear, easily understood standards that will give law enforcement officials the tools to crack down on puppy mill cruelty. Moreover, Proposition B will criminalize a number of violations for which criminal sanctions are not currently available under Animal Care Facilities Act or the Missouri criminal code, including the failure to provide sufficiently large indoor enclosures; the failure to provide indoor enclosures that are unstacked and have solid floors; the failure to provide adequate rest between breeding cycles; and the failure to provide constant, unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area.

Read the act and decide for yourself - I am proud to say that my family and friends in Missouri will be voting YES on Prop B next Tuesday.

http://yesonpropb.com/about/read-act

I too take exception to calling Missouri the puppy mill capitol.

I am quite certain that Oklahoma can make a strong claim to that title, an we ain't gonner do nuthin bout it! Yeehaw!

I would say that Dr. Hagler is reluctant to condemn his own department and coworkers, and I can certainly understand that. That doesn't excuse the fact that licensed breeders have committed horrific violations, year after year after year, yet were not shut down by the State.

I agree with you that Missouri needs a substantial increase in the number of inspectors, and the funding for those inspectors. That's why the simplified inspections Prop B enables are desperately needed.

I've heard a few folks complain about how HSUS could have funded Missouri's inspectors -- as if they should be responsible for cleaning up after Missouri's poor appropriation of funds.

Can you please show me what statutes permit private charities to fund the operations of state regulatory agencies? I can't seem to find anything on the books that would make that legal.

HSUS *does* assist to the extent they are permitted: with massive rescues of animals from puppy mills, with anonymous hotlines and rewards for animal abuse tips, and a constant vigilance towards puppy mill cruelty. They cannot and should not replace state and USDA inspectors, however.

But, again, this is about protecting animals from cruelty, not about HSUS. I'm going to copy that to my clipboard, because I expect to be repeating it a lot in this conversation.

HEY ALL FOODIES OUT THERE. YOU NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS GOING ON. THE HSUS IS OUT TO TAKE ALL OF OUR BELOVED BBQ AWAY FROM US. THEY WANT TO END CONSUMPTION OF ALL MEAT, DAIRY, FISH AND EGG PRODUCTS FROM OUR DIET.

Where would family Friday night out at the steakhouse go? What would this county do if PitStop BBQ was gone and all that was left was BBQ soybean curd? YUCK!

My mom sure does love the seafood at the casino on Friday nights.... NO MORE.

What the HSUS is promoting is a radical VEGAN lifestyle. Where is that going to take us? Do you think that fancy high priced organic tofu is going to be the protein of choice for those people on welfare? Instead of limiting everyone's choices we need to be solving the hunger problem in the world. People need meat. Humans need meat. Even our pets need meat. You will kill a cat if it doesn't get meat in its diet!

Wake up folks this need to be stopped. I got my vote NO on Prop B sign in my front yard do you!

Ahhh, thank you Movaldude! I was getting worried that we'd have to discuss Prop B instead of screaming ignorant, irrelevant "HSUS wants to confiscate all your animals and take over the world with their evil vegan agenda" conspiracy theories.

Thank goodness you arrived to save us from intelligent discussion!

Mr.Schiff,

Have you even been to Missouri and seen for youself how things are done around here,heck for that matter do you even know where Missouri is?

If the answer is no to either question then don't worry bout us take care of your own out in Cali. you worry bout you we'll worry about us.

Hope you have a good day and a better one tomrrow.

This bill does nothing to stop those operating illegally!

Do you think if this passes they will now be scared and ,"turn themselves in"????

Costs to enforce these new laws and root out illegal operations will increase exponentially by the fact that revenue from legal operations is lost!

Quite a few veterinarians who provide critical services to the rest of the ag industry will be forced to move out of state as Missouri loses it's good,legal,taxpaying kennels. Veterinarians have already lost most of their horse business and they won't make it on cows alone!

When hell freezes over the animal rights movement may have the power to snatch our steaks, not before. That sort of hyperbole does nothing to further the discussion, and actually detracts from the credibility of those that resort to red herrings. Not that I am trying to take your red herrings away from you. That is another when hell freezes over thing.

At ptbamdb You ask why people out of state care about Missouri's puppy mills? Well you have those puppy mills to thank for that - where do you think those puppies go? They get shipped all over the country, and sold to unsuspecting families who then have to deal with the tragedy and heartache of losing a puppy to disease, or down the road paying thousands for medical bills for diseases and conditions that any responsible breeder tests for.

As someone who works at HSUS, I can tell you we are all for responsible pet ownership - we bring our dogs to the office, and many of us work with local rescues in addition to our jobs. (oh, and we eat whatever we want - what we eat is a personal choice, some of us are vegetarian, some of us are not, regardless we all work together everyday to stop the suffering of countless animals.)

With regards to unlicensed breeders, yes, it would indeed be pointless to have a bill that only targets those that are licensed. That is why Prop B will apply to all large-scale puppy mills, including both licensed and unlicensed facilities, and will establish common-sense standards for the proper care of dogs across the state. Prop B makes it a crime to house dogs in horrible conditions whether the owner is licensed or not, and ensures that dogs in such large-scale breeding facilities receive basic humane care.

With approximately 3,000 puppy mills in Missouri--half of them licensed and half of them unlicensed--as many as 200,000 dogs are confined for life in small wire cages and produce an estimated one million puppies a year. This is a serious problem in the state, and needs to be addressed.

Once again, we have extremists pushing ridiculous conspiracy theories instead of focusing on the issue at hand, which is THE MERITS OF PROP B.

I mentioned above that I'd hoped the discussion would rise above the level of "I hate HSUS", but apparently the only defense Prop B's opponents can muster are to attack HSUS on the basis of paranoid fantasies.

This is not about HSUS, as much as the tinfoil hat crowd would like it to be. (And I'm not going to debate the usual anti-HSUS nonsense here -- you can go to www.humanewatch.info to see why each of the myths and misquotes spouted above are false.)

This is about Prop B, and saving dogs from the squalor and misery of Missouri's puppy mill industry.

Prop B is supported by 150 Missouri vets and clinics -- the head of the MVMA does not speak for Missouri vets.

Prop B is supported by 109 animal protection charities, including the Humane Society of Missouri, the Humane Society of Southwest Missouri, Heartland Humane Society, the Missouri State Humane Association, the Humane Society of Greater Kansas City, the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, the ASPCA, and the American Humane Association.

Read the law at http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010peti...

It's short, it's crystal clear, and it's undeniably for the welfare of the mistreated animals in Missouri.

Vote YES on Prop B!

It isn't a "conspiracy theory" John, it is an ideology and you know that!

By the way your own insulting rhetoric using words such as extremists,paranoid fantasies,tinfoil hat crowd, do NOTHING to support your arguments. In fact it weakens it.

150 vets support it? There are thousands of vets who are against Proposition B and collectively they ARE the Missouri State Veterinary Asscociation.

If the Missouri Medical Association or the Missouri Association of Osteopathic Physicians and Surgeons went public with an announcement that they were against a certain bill we would listen, because THEY are the authority on the subject!

It is no different here!

oklahoma, whatever you consider disgusting practices is your emotions and opinion, and based on nothing scientific at all!

The laws are working. Proof of that is all the pictures and news articles about the bad ones getting shut down!

Admit it, you don't want regulation, you want elimination.

Regarding your post about poison eggs and poison meat, that really made me laugh. More people were affected or should I say infected with bacteria and parasites from produce(spinach,peanut butter,lettuce,etc)last year than from meat and eggs.

It may be more risky to be a vegan than an omnivore.

Propostion B is a punitive bill based on emotions without science and should be voted down!

ptb - since opponants to animal welfare are famous for taking quotes out of context, I reiterate, that Prop B targets BOTH licensed and unlicensed breeders.

THe laws are not working - proof is in the Dirty Dozen report, the recent lawsuit of an alleged puppy miller, and in the 190000 Missouri voters who agree this is an important and neccessary measure.

Now to answer Oklahama's rational questions, as they actually seem to want facts (which I appreciate!)

Prop B does not require any additional funding. In fact, one fiscal review done by the City of St. Louis indicated that it will actually save the City hundreds of thousands of dollars from the general fund by reducing the burden on the City to close down substandard facilities. Inspectors will have clear standards, and the money raised from licensing fees and fines from violators will help pay the costs of enforcing the law. The Missouri Department of Agriculture is already charged with inspecting these facilities. Prop B simply asks them to look for different standards of care when they do

Sorry about that Oklahoma, meant to also include answer to your question about stacked cages and breeding cycles. No, neither one is illegal under current law or under USDA regs.

Sarah. ( Miss HSUS ) and John ( person who runs the HSUS facebook page) LOL

pretty funny ..you deny every single quote that your fearless leaders crank out while even Wayne himself admits to the "one genration and out'.. and says he is more "nuanced" today.. what bull.. anyway.

Actually the head of the MVMA does speak for his organization just like Wayne speaks for yours.. 150 vets out of large agricultural state is not many so that leaves many more who OPPOSE Prop B

What is crystal clear is line 9 in your prop that states a domestic animal is any animal that lives in or NEAR a persons home.. how crystal clear is that?? what is "near" Define "domestic animal".. The people of the "show me " state are not as stupid as you think they are or even as you write they are in this column.

Even your last line John belies that this issue in NOT about dogs only but refers to "mistreated animals"

Where is the HSUS "ideal kennel" ? Where have you built that kennel with your millions? Where is your "ideal " chicken facility? Your beef ranch? Your hog farm? Why not SHOW us what you mean? after all Missouri is the "show me " state. I see no examples of any farm, ranch kennel or even SHELTER that has been built with HSUS dollars as a model for all to follow

As for Schiff. He is carefully using the Alinsky's Rule for Radicals techniques on everyone here.. insulting your intelligence when he cannot answer questions, calling you ignorant while Sarah uses the other technique of telling you how many in her office love dogs.. and eat meat.. ( not at any HSUS event .. Posted in Sayan magazine some time ago.. "All HSUS event will now be vegan" ) so I can imagine the looks you might get when make a run to Burger King for the double bacon cheeseburger and bring it back to you cubicle.

Now to the crux of the issue.. this in NOT about dogs.. it is about NUMBERS of dogs..it has NOTHING to do with the care they receive.. it has to do with limiting a persons ability to make a living. Mr Pacelle has stated that with 50 dogs a person "could" gross $100,000 per year. Mr Pacelle makes at least triple that amount of money but he wants to see Missourians be limited in their ability to earn a living no matter what their family size or needs. That 'could' shows that Mr. Pacelle ( who owns no pets) knows little to nothing about raising animals.. nor does he care..

This is a blatant power grab. Remember 50 is the MAXIMUM amount of animals .. own 10 and you are still subject to all of the language of Prop B.. as Patrick Kwan of the HSUS said.. 50 today then we will ratchet it down year by year..

By the way I was at an HSUS meeting the other day.. I know many of you here have children in the FFA and 4 H.. guess what the HSUS representative called your child.. a "Future Factory Farmer of America" and the crowd went wild... think about that in the voting booth.. if you do not think your food supply is at risk.. think again.. and no I am not wearing a tin foil hat.. I live in CA and have watched as care for chickens and their "offspring" ( eggs) have taken precedence over the children and families of this state.

I watch as farmers leave to state in droves unable to met the restrictions of HSUS driven food mandates.. don't let this happen to Missouri. Vote NO on Prop B and please tell your friends

Friends Don't let Friends Donate to the HSUS

Oklahoma reader, again Sarah gives you bad information. On the ballot itself are the costs. Can't remember the exact totals, but it is over 1/2 million plus 113,000 for the first year, with over 1/2 million per year after that. I tend to believe the ballot, although I think it is underestimated, than Sarah, who won't even admit to the LIE she told about Prop B affecting unlicensed breeders.

Vote NO on Prop B.

Yes Sarah I am suggesting that they are wrong.. Sarah why is their a numerical limit on how many intact dogs a person may keep but no limit on castrated dogs. Why are hunting dogs exempt? and which breeds will be considered "hunting dogs"?

John feel free to chime in if you know the answers or if you just want to insult someone.. we can take it as long as the questions are answered.

HumSarah thank you for attempting to answer my questions. I especially appreciate the link to the bill itself. It connotates that you respect my ability to read, and understand it, then make a rational decision.

Actually I have not decided whether I support this particular proposition, or not.

I am somewhat chagrined that I got no response of substance from those opposed to Prop B, even though I raised specific questions. One responder even had the audacity to assume that she knew my position, when I didn't even know myself. Also the stridency of the responses from opponents was off putting.

In answer to my legitimate questions I got the following answers from the proponents of each side of the issue. It may be instructive for those on each side to look at how they are responding.

First my entire comment, and questions:

PTB: Ain't buying that one. There are many necessary controls on egg factories, etc. I, and many others are concerned about poison eggs, and poison meat.

Once again, there are stronger arguments against Prop B. Stuff the scare tactics. There are a whole lot of folks out here in the hinterlands that are sick of screaming sky will fall comments from the left, and the right. Let me give you a little direction.

What will Prop B cost? Can we afford it? What would it cost to hire more inspectors? Why if they were hired, is the current law sufficient to allow them to assure compliance? Under the current law is it illegal to stack wire cages of dogs on top of each other? Under current law is it illegal to breed females over, and over with no recovery period?

In other words tout what is good about current law, and explain how you know that such disgusting practices as those I mentioned are illegal under current law. Can you do that?

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 11:38 AM

Now, the responses:

oklahoma, whatever you consider disgusting practices is your emotions and opinion, and based on nothing scientific at all!

The laws are working. Proof of that is all the pictures and news articles about the bad ones getting shut down!

Admit it, you don't want regulation, you want elimination.

Regarding your post about poison eggs and poison meat, that really made me laugh. More people were affected or should I say infected with bacteria and parasites from produce(spinach,peanut butter,lettuce,etc)last year than from meat and eggs.

It may be more risky to be a vegan than an omnivore.

Propostion B is a punitive bill based on emotions without science and should be voted down!

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 11:46 AM

ptb - since opponants to animal welfare are famous for taking quotes out of context, I reiterate, that Prop B targets BOTH licensed and unlicensed breeders.

THe laws are not working - proof is in the Dirty Dozen report, the recent lawsuit of an alleged puppy miller, and in the 190000 Missouri voters who agree this is an important and neccessary measure.

Now to answer Oklahama's rational questions, as they actually seem to want facts (which I appreciate!)

Prop B does not require any additional funding. In fact, one fiscal review done by the City of St. Louis indicated that it will actually save the City hundreds of thousands of dollars from the general fund by reducing the burden on the City to close down substandard facilities. Inspectors will have clear standards, and the money raised from licensing fees and fines from violators will help pay the costs of enforcing the law. The Missouri Department of Agriculture is already charged with inspecting these facilities. Prop B simply asks them to look for different standards of care when they do

-- Posted by humanesarah on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 11:52 AM

Oklahoma reader: I can and have spoken out about current regulations and many of the problems with Prop B, but you and the other Pro-Prop B'ers are not listening. You are ignoring anything substantial and continue with your rhetoric based entirely on emotions and misinformation. I understand why you all do this. It is because if Prop B had to rely on merits alone instead of emotions, it would fail miserably!

Vote NO on Prop B!

-- Posted by ptbamdb on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 11:59 AM

Sorry about that Oklahoma, meant to also include answer to your question about stacked cages and breeding cycles. No, neither one is illegal under current law or under USDA regs.

-- Posted by humanesarah on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 12:01 PM

Oklahoma reader, again Sarah gives you bad information. On the ballot itself are the costs. Can't remember the exact totals, but it is over 1/2 million plus 113,000 for the first year, with over 1/2 million per year after that. I tend to believe the ballot, although I think it is underestimated, than Sarah, who won't even admit to the LIE she told about Prop B affecting unlicensed breeders.

Vote NO on Prop B.

-- Posted by ptbamdb on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 12:21 PM

See what I mean?

It is an excellent question to ask why certain dogs are exempt - the reason, is because this is very specifically targeted to stop puppy mill cruelty. That is not to say that cruelty doesn't occur to dogs that are spayed or neutered, it is because this initiative is not intended to focus on that cruelty.

To prbrds; it is actually not like limiting the number of dogs a vet can treat - because the dogs don't live at the vets. (ALthough some people that have puppy mill survivors may beg to differ)

The arguement that somehow placing a cap on the number of dogs will demolish the breeding industry in Missouri is absurd.

The vast majority of breeding facilities in Missouri are already below or close to this limit, and will not be affected by the new law. The Missouri Department of Agriculture estimates that 36% of licensed breeders have more than 50 breeding dogs, while independent review of the inventory figures provided by licensed breeders found that only 18% had more than 50 adult dogs. So somewhere between two-thirds and four-fifths of all licensed breeders in the state already have fewer than 50 breeding dogs and will not need to make any changes in the number of dogs they have.

Oklahoma reader: You too may feel a bit 'strident" if your income and job that you love were being threatened by people who know nothing about you nor the care you give to your job and those in your care.

The idea perpetuated by the HSUS is that it is wrong to sell dogs for any reason and that it is impossible for a person ( even with employees) to care for a given number of dogs in a safe and healthy manner. (In this case 51 in other states other numbers have been proposed.. ask yourself why is that?) This is just not so. As proof see this bill that exempts "hunting dogs" Why? Because the HSUS is smart and did not want to raise the ire of the very strong lobby of the NRA in Missouri. Ask yourself, why would hunting dogs ( whatever they are) be exempt? Why is it ok under this bill to keep any number of "hunting dogs" intact but not others.? Political reasons no doubt but I also doubt you will get a straight answer to this question from John or Sarah.

Looking at from a financial point of view, this bill will cost taxpayers, cause people to lose jobs and put people who are already compliant except for the number of dogs they own out of business unless they relinquish their "excess' property to the state or otherwise eliminate the property. Does that sound familiar to you? Do you believe that the state has the right to set the limit on your property rights or the amount of money you can earn while being compliant with current law. Take a look at ex post facto and mens rea. This law supersedes each of these that have been the basis of law in our country for a couple of hundred years.

Let's take the emotion out of it. Legally dogs are property, there are laws that say how you can treat this property already on the books in this case, EXCEPT for the number of "pieces of property" you can own ( now remember .. emotion is gone.. just facts) Do you believe that state should limit your ability to make a living if you are in compliance with all other laws? Can you only sell so many cars, so much furniture, so many houses, so much lumber, so many bricks? PLEASE remember take the emotion away.. I know dogs are not bricks.. but the idea of limiting the amount of something is contrary to our reason for living in the USA and in a free country.

The HSUS has made no monetary contributions to back this bill up, no plan for funding increased inspectors, no plan for the floods of animals that will be forcefully confiscated by the state or else relinquished in other ways.. such as "euthanasia" aka killing. In fact when the tsunami of animals hits if this bill happens to pass you can bet the HSUS will use it to further line their already deep pockets. You see there is no limit on how much money they can make.. just a limit on others..

No on Prop B for so many reasons.

Friends Don't Let Friends Donate to the HSUS

I'm in favor of animal welfare, but I'm against Prop B. I read it. Looks all nice and everything, but what good is it without more enforcements? Where's the money for enforcement? is HSUS going to pitch in for that? I'm skeptical.

So if between two thirds and four fifths of breeders in Missouri already are liscensed and functioning at 50 dogs why the 2+ million dollar push for a limit law? Seems most of the rest of this law is much of the same that is already on the books.

Do any of you actually believe Oklahoma reader was ever on the fence about this issue?

Gimme a break........

Before I bring up something which is on my mind, let me first say that I live in Marshall, have pets, love animals, am not a member of any humane society, animal league or animal welfare group, eat less and less meat as I get older for various reasons I won't go into here, and have not decided how I will vote on Prop B. I need more information, not just the back-and-forth volleys I'm reading here. I plan to read the proposed law, talk to a couple of vets about it and then make a decision.

I'm sure I'll take several (many?) hits for this but I have not heard one single person talk about the following.

I tend to agree with whoever said something about the empty kennels. Why do we need to breed pets? Simply because people are vain and want a certain color or type of animal? There are millions of dogs and cats born in this country that never have the chance for a loving home or simply a regular meal or warm place to sleep. Why can't people have those animals for pets and not purebred ones? I just don't understand. Walk down any street in any city or town - you'll find the unwanted, unloved and stray ones. Same with country roads - they're dumped by the carloads by ignorant people who have no idea they've most likely just given their no-longer-wanted pet a death sentence. C'mon people, give these animals a chance. Don't breed more when there are so many "mutts" to choose from.

Sorry if I've offended those who make their living from being a breeder but this is how I feel. Here's the irony - many, many of those purebreds you breed and sell end up on the streets just like the others. How do I know? Because I come across them or they end up at my back door hungry, cold and sometimes injured and I take them - the stray purebreds and mutts alike - to the vet to be treated and vaccinated and spayed and neutered. If you could see some of their injuries and conditions, you'd understand my passion on this matter.

Just sign me an ordinary animal lover who does their best but is fighting a losing battle.

AnneH - Americans like freedom of choice and excellence.

Would you want to go to market and be told to buy what is available and be happy with it OR buy what you want?

most dogs in shelters and rescues are mutts. The result of irresponsible breeding by households who let their dogs run loose. Sure you can find some purebreds there, but 9 out of 10 will be mutts that are not suited for family pets for one reason or another.

It actually would be better to have more spay neuter laws than proposition B!

like2b,

I understand the problem is always going to be with us. That's what makes me so passionate about this. And that's why I believe we should take care of the ones already born and here, and not breeding more.

I understand that this will never, in my lifetime anyway, happen. This is something that's long been on my mind and I felt the need to at least make some people aware. And give them some food for thought.

AnneH - "I understand the problem is always going to be with us."

I don't believe that. If the money that people have donated to help with stray/needy animals hadn't been gleaned from the States and had been put in the hands of people who love their communities and animals think what could have already been accomplished.

AnneD, your argument about why breed when there are dogs in shelters, has been discussed at length many times. The fact is that some families just do not want someone's castoffs. They want a puppy of a certain type or breed. If the American puppy market was not there, they would be getting their puppy from overseas (where there is NO regulation). It is about supply and demand. Even if the supply is disrupted, the demand will still be there. It will just cost more to get the puppy they want.

There are many, many people who will give the shelter dogs a home. In fact, if the shelters didn't charge so much they would 'sell' more. If there were no puppies at all to sell, the shelters would be importing puppies to sell and in fact, some shelters do that right now. They take puppies and dogs from the streets in poor countries and sell them as rescue puppies. Several cases of rabies were brought into the US that way. Other unknown diseases were also introduced by imports.

Why not have a regulated, licensed market to raise something many families want to buy? In Missouri, we have 23 pages of strict regulations. The vast majority of licensed breeders are compliant and raise healthy, happy puppies.

Vote NO on Prop B.

"The fact is that some families just do not want someone's castoffs. They want a puppy of a certain type or breed."

ptbamdb, what a sad, sad way of looking at dogs and cats that aren't purebred - castoffs. The name reflects the problem.

I'm guessing that you are a breeder?

ptb says: "Yeah, Oklahoma reader, you would like the mother of your potential puppy to be able to choose to whelp outside in freezing weather. (constant unfettered access to outside). That is soooo intelligent! From your first post, everyone knew you were full of it. HSUS BS, that is"

Such ugly inane remarks ptb. How could you believe that I, or anyone else for that matter, wants puppies to whelp outside in freezing weather? Everyone knows I am full of it? So you speak for everyone? Good grief.

You are lucky that muzzles are just for dogs, otherwise cooler heads within your faction would have fitted you by now. You do them no favors.

Well said, Okey! that almost brought a tear to MY eye, although I must say, except for a few breeds of wild dogs in Africa and other remote parts of the world, all dogs even mutts are the product of genetic manipulation, and on a scientific level even the wild dogs are the product of nature's genetic manipulation.

I don't think it is revolting though. In fact quite a few dogs because they have been genetically "manipulated" have proved beneficial to the world, such as seeing eye dogs,drug dogs, dogs who can find a lost child in the woods,etc. ALL those and there are more are the product of genetic manipulation and done to serve OUR needs.

ps. that doesn't mean I agree with your "meat is poison" type statements!

This quote is from the article right here in the Missouri Democrat News(I used to live here by the way) itself, just so we don't get to far away from the actual subject at hand;

"Despite the commercials we have seen which feature a veterinarian, the 1,250 member Missouri Veterinary Association -- probably the one your local veterinarian belongs to it -- does not support Prop B."

Like2B, the MVMA is a trade group, and while it represents the interests of veterinarians as a group, it does not represent the political and philosophical views of all of Missouri's vets. And it would seem it does not speak for the majority of vets!

Yes on Prop B has over 150 endorsements from Missouri veterinarians, compared to the paltry 21 endorsements listed on the "Alliance for Truth" website. (I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that duplicating entries on that list was merely an error, not an attempt to inflate their numbers.)

That's a seven-to-one ratio of vets speaking out in favor of Prop B.

Like the article says, the Missouri Veterinary Association is 1250 strong, and it is not merely a "trade group". C'mon John is that the best you can do? Most vets are to busy saving animals lives,doing surgeries,etc. to spend their time cruising the internet looking to sign up.

Next time some human medical association takes a position that opposes yours, just look'em in the eye and tell them they are nothing but a "trade group". LOL....

AnneD: You are talking to somewho who grew up poor, on someone else's castoffs. I did not look at my yard sale wardrobe as something bad. Simply something someone else no longer wanted. I still shop at yard sales!

The dogs who are abandoned as you described in an earlier post were cast-offs, having nothing to do with being purebred or not. Again, not a bad word, just descriptive of unwanted and abandoned dogs.

You know I had no original intent of having very much to say on this subject. I was just trying to understand the issue.

However the in your face arrogance, and hubris of a few members of the anti-Prop B crowd stirred me up. I don't like to be called stupid, I don't like to be told I am full of ****, nor any of the rest of the insults delivered instead of answers to my legitimate questions.

Alternatively I appreciate that the Pro-Prop B crowd took the time to answer my questions, and provided links that helped me.

Hence forth I will be an advocate for Prop B because I can see no harm it does to dogs, and I see that some pretty nasty people are opposed to it. I would never run with that crowd. They are just another group of puppets being jerked around by the corporatocracy.

Go Prop B, I am convinced.

Exactly my thoughts on Okla Reader. LOL, knew the truth would come out eventuallly.

It's always puzzling to me why any human being cares more about animals than humans. So it's a good thing if some humans are worse off as long as some animals are better off? There is something wrong with that picture!

Now Barbara Schmitz is wanting an audit of disposal of deceased puppies?? I thought we were trying to "save the puppies?" Well more of Missouri Taxpayers money being put to good use with the help of HSUSBS!!!!!!

Smart dog just where were you whelped? I hope not on frozen ground. I also hope that you get extra kibbles in your water bowl. Hear tell one, or tuther is gonna be happenin dependin on the fate of Prop B. ;)

This is not the first time Ms. Gorrell's stand on HSUS has raised the roof. I'm not thrilled at the intrusion of folks from other states trying to tell Missourians what to do, whether it's Prop. B or any other issue we're voting on. We can do without input from Southern California, I know that for sure.

It's obvious to even the most casual observer that what's really needed is far stricter enforcement of existing laws. New laws, in some cases less comprehensive than the current statute, won't fix the problem. No surprise there.

Oh, I forgot to address ptbamdb's misinformation!

PT, please READ the bill. Prop B clearly excludes dogs under the age of six months in Sec. 5(1).

No dogs will freeze as a result of Prop B's provisions, but many thousands will be spared the cruelty of a premature death from exposure to the elements.

Smart Dog, I remarked on this very problem in an earlier post I made. Very sad situation and it sounds like you are doing what many do - doing what you can but overcome with more than you can handle.

If you're rural, call the Saline Animal League and they can advise you on possibilities about those dumped animals. Info is on their webpage.

http://salineanimalleague.org

smartdog: LOL If you live inside city limits the city will fine you if you try to feed a stray animal!!!!

Oh... speaking of horrors... I actually agree with Miss Marples on something.

Like almost EVERY law that is on the book enforcement of existing ones should be the priority. Take gun laws for instance.

Emotionally driven attempts to change laws to make a few extremists feel better about their selves is NOT a good way to develop common sense and EFFECTIVE rules and regulations and laws.

Will you please explain what the plan is for the thousands of dogs that will not be allowed in the "puppy mills" any longer because of the 50 dog limit? Honestly, I don't think the writers of Prob B thought through what the effects of the bill passing would be. Sounds like something HSUS would do; trying to make it look like they care about animals, but really they don't.