[Masthead] Mostly Cloudy ~ 52°F  
High: 73°F ~ Low: 47°F
Wednesday, Apr. 23, 2014

Proposition B won't solve 'puppy mill' problem

Posted Tuesday, October 26, 2010, at 9:53 AM

At first glance, Proposition B looks like a good idea.

Who wants dogs raised in a "puppy mill," trapped in a cage its whole life without adequate care?

I sure don't.

But the problem is, Prop B is unnecessary. It seems to lump all dog breeders into one category -- criminal.

In fact, if passed by Missouri voters on Nov. 2, it will probably do little to curb the "puppy mill" problem in the state.

Instead, Prop B would mean that many properly licensed and inspected dog breeders would be shut down.

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.

In fact they have stated: "The ballot being proposed for this November would completely shut down our state's properly operated, inspected and licensed facilities that have over fifty breeding dogs. We see this proposal as unfair and misguided. These properly and humanely operated facilities are providing families with pets under the guidance of extensive current regulations enforced by state government."

That statement points out one of the biggest problems with Prop B -- it would limit the number of dogs that breeders can have to 50.

That means that no matter how good the breeder is, or how many employees they have caring for the animals, they would be illegal if they had more than 50 breeding animals.

As I was told by a local veterinarian, it really isn't the number of animals that a breeder has, but the care they are given.

As the veterinary group points out we already have laws which would protect against real "puppy mills." The problem is not with the laws already on the books. Instead it is with the number of inspectors we have to enforce the laws and sniff out the illegal breeders.

Prop B will not help with the funding problem. It will not add inspectors.

As the Missouri Veterinary Association wrote: "We believe a better approach would involve legislation that reviews the current breeder regulations, and that would increase needed resources for inspection of unlicensed breeders. These actions will actually target the real problem and not punish responsible breeders who are working carefully within the law."

In some cases our current laws are stricter than this law.

For instance, Prop B requires that dogs only be fed one meal a day, while the current law requires dogs be fed twice a day. (My dog sure wouldn't like it if I reduced her feeding schedule.)

If passed, Proposition B would create a misdemeanor crime of cruelty for a breeder to have a piece of dog food in a water bowl (I used to have a dog that liked his food this way and put it in there himself), a cobweb in a corner (I'm pretty sure my own bedroom wouldn't pass this test) or a scratch on a painted surface etc. (again, I'm pretty sure my house would flunk this stringent test).

A big problem with Prop B is the sponsor. The Humane Society of the United States, a powerful, big-moneyed Washington D.C.-based animal rights group.

Although their commercials seem to imply that your donations will go to direct animal care, their own tax records show this isn't the case. (Humanewatch.org)

In fact, in April of this year the non-profit charity watchdog Charity Navigator downgraded the HSUS' charity rating to three stars and a rating of 51.57, as the money they spent on fundraising doubled, while the money they spent on programs declined in 2008.

Ironically, PETA now has a higher rating than HSUS.

The Alliance for Truth, an organization fighting against Prop B has stated that the real agenda of HSUS is to shutdown all purebred breeders in our state.

"HSUS has introduced Prop B as a means of eliminating the legal, licensed professional dog breeders in Missouri, according to the Department of Agriculture. No current licensed breeder can comply with the regulations put forth in Prop B, no matter how clean and well-run the facility.

Cost-prohibitive space requirements coupled with misdemeanor crimes for the most minor of issue will eliminate the legal industry in Missouri.

Only unlicensed, substandard breeders will be left to produce puppies while continuing to hide from state laws."

So far HSUS has spent over $2 million to promote Prop B, even though our own veterinarians, the people who really are here working with breeders and pet owners in our state, are against it.

I can't help but wonder what is in it for HSUS? Is it more publicity, more donations (to not go to shelters) or as some suggest: Is Prop B a stepping stone to go after livestock farmers in the state?

I really don't know the exact reason, but one thing I do know is that the obscene amount of money being spent to promote an unneeded law could have spayed, neutered and cared for an untold number of dogs and cats already in shelters. Or that money could have funded a large number of new inspectors to find the real "puppy mills."

Although, groups against the proposition don't have the money to compete with HSUS and its "factory fundraising" machine, I hope voters in the "Show-me" state look past the slick ads.


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

Press Release

Now a person can experience the many aspects and workings of a puppy mill almost as if they were standing amidst the cages, listening to the barks. There's a terrific new and involved piece of fiction on the market entitled "A Cold Breed." It focuses on the vivid discovery, investigation, and shutdown of a realistic puppy mill. The storyline is fresh; the characters are rich; the gamut of emotions become real. A portion of every purchase is donated to the ASPCA. Swing by the author's site for good information at caseyoryan.com or stop into the author's blog at caseyoryan.blogspot.com. Thank You for your consideration.

-- Posted by Casey O'Ryan on Tue, Nov 30, 2010, at 12:38 AM

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.

-- Posted by FFA-Aggie on Fri, Nov 5, 2010, at 10:02 PM

What is wrong with considering a stray a cast off?

Why cant people have different OPINIONs about what type of dog or cat or pet that they want? Why is it somehow up to HSUS to determine what I want or my children want in a pet? Why do I need to accept a stray animal or one from a shelter where you DO NOT know what the temperment of those animals are and one that you did not raise from a pup.

The fact of the matter is that this movement by HSUS is designed to take away our FREEDOM of choice and freedom of self determination.

Just another example of NANNYSTATISM

-- Posted by mrxray on Mon, Nov 1, 2010, at 1:28 AM

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.

-- Posted by mrxray on Mon, Nov 1, 2010, at 1:15 AM

as for the kibble in the water bowl. I too had a dog that would take his dry food and put it into his water bowl.... THEN HE ATE IT The HORROR.

My father talked of eating popcorn soup in the 30s... where you take popped popcorn and put it in a bowl of milk... then let it get soggy and then he ate it... often he tried to get me to taste his when he made some while I was a kid.

Or... omg!!! my CHILDREN.. I am abusing them because I allow them to eat soggy cereal... but after trying to get them to eat it before the cruch is no more I get so tired and just let them eat it soggy.

-- Posted by mrxray on Mon, Nov 1, 2010, at 1:13 AM

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

-- Posted by mrxray on Mon, Nov 1, 2010, at 1:09 AM

LOL I will have to vote no for prop B. The law is pointless as it is not really addressing the problem of "illegal" puppy mills, you know the ones that ALREADY are operating OUTSIDE the current laws and it would ONLY work to make it more costly and add great amounts of red tape for those functioning LEGALLY and within the current laws and who care for their animals properly.

However, this argument from the supporters of Prop B, particularly those from outside the State of Missouri make me laugh when they try to state that the agenda of HSUS and its desire to eliminate domestic animals and consumption of meat is irrelevant, a red herring or evil rhetoric is disingenious at best.

The whole liberal play book is being used here... if you dont agree with them you are vile or irrelevant or your opinions are stupid or just plain old wrong.

How about the HSUS just being upfrong an honest about their bigger agenda and see where that gets them instead of being like a typical politician and hiding their real agenda from the public?

Do we really need a SMALL group of people trying to push THEIR opinions about the rest of us wanting to eat a steak every day onto us?

I, for one, am tired of the small radical loud mouthed extremist groups trying to make THEIR opinions mine...

If you cannot stand up for your REAL agenda using logic and honesty, then something is WRONG with your agenda!!

-- Posted by mrxray on Mon, Nov 1, 2010, at 1:08 AM

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

-- Posted by AnneD on Fri, Oct 29, 2010, at 12:11 PM

Mr. Schiff,

As a rural resident, I would like to encourage you to do something positive for my community.

Get city folks to stop dumping their unwanted pets in the country or give me a viable alternative in dealing with them.

We get several starving, beaten-up, tick and flea infested dogs that show up at our house every year. All farmers do. Somehow the city dwellers seem to think their domesticated pets can survive in the wild. They can't. Coyotes have a feild day with them as they become prey.

Are you fixing that problem which actually concerns me more than how dog breeders treat their stock?

We adopt the occassional dog or cat who seems people freindly, but for every one of those there are 3 starved pit bulls or other mean dogs with a bad attitude. I am forced to 'dispose' of these animals on my own as the animal shelter funded by the City of Marshall will not take strays from rural folks.

The classic was the starved pit bull who dropped a litter of puppies on our back patio at Christmas. Mean, vicious, female dog at my back door. Guess what had to happen.

My question is, what is the HSUS doing to help me out? Are you building shelters? Are you contributing to shelters and asking them to take all unwanted pets? Will you send me your phone number and come and get them when I call?

I didn't think so, so thanks for nothing.

-- Posted by Smart Dog on Fri, Oct 29, 2010, at 8:46 AM

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.

-- Posted by John Doppler Schiff on Fri, Oct 29, 2010, at 4:44 AM

Miss Marple, I'm sorry you resent the "intrusion" of the 49 other states into Missouri's puppy mill industry. I'm sure South Carolina resented the intrusion of other states into their slave trade, too.

There is no such thing as a local injustice. What you do in Missouri affects the rest of our nation as well.

However, I do agree that stronger enforcement of animal welfare laws is needed. Prop B will facilitate that with its straightforward, sensible, easily verified requirements.

Vote YES on Prop B!

-- Posted by John Doppler Schiff on Fri, Oct 29, 2010, at 4:38 AM

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.

-- Posted by Miss Marple on Thu, Oct 28, 2010, at 6:06 PM

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.

-- Posted by Miss Marple on Thu, Oct 28, 2010, at 6:00 PM

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. ;)

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Thu, Oct 28, 2010, at 1:41 PM

Who'da thought our Marcia was such a lightening rod! What a hoot!

Beware the vegans run amuck!

And to you HSUS folks, I abuse a quote Charlton Heston, who I didn't even like or agree with. "You will have to pry my steaks from my cold, dead hands." LOL

I'm just curious, where do you stand on fish? Is it not ok to eat amphibians and reptiles, or just mammals? How 'bout them avian creatures, chickens and the like? Sheesh.

Are you aware that there are still entire cultures of people on this planet that hunt to eat? Are you spending millions to get them to take up a nuts and berries diet?

But to my point. You folks want to chip in some of those millions of dollars you are fleecing the public for to actually pay for the entire budget for an agency to enforce the rules we already have and then come back and preach your sermons.

Put your money where your mouth is (refraining from further puns regarding what comes next) and get out of politics and into real live shelters and animal care.

-- Posted by Smart Dog on Thu, Oct 28, 2010, at 12:21 PM

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!!!!!!

-- Posted by MissouriMom on Thu, Oct 28, 2010, at 12:33 AM

Oklahoma Reader says: "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?"

Yes, Prop B is ugly. Unfettered access can very easily result in the pupppies being whelped outside in freezing weather. Ugly FACTS about a poorly written, totally unscientific proposition which will have DEVASTATING consequences for dogs and puppies!! Temperatures not allowed to be above 85 degrees. That is DEADLY and will KILL newborn pups that need temperatures over 90 degrees. Then there are the dogs over 50. Will they be sent to a shelter to be KILLED? Or will they KILL the wonderful shelter mutts to make room for the more saleable purebreds?

A vote for Prop B could be a death sentence for some precious newborn puppies.

-- Posted by ptbamdb on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 9:15 PM

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!

-- Posted by ptbamdb on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 8:52 PM

I am glad so many people have taken the time to comment. Thank you.

AnneD brought up an issue that I considered adding in my column, but did not since it was already long.

You are right that there are many strays and unwanted dogs and cats that end up in shelters. It is a shame and I have adopted from the shelter more than once. I grew up with a wonderful mutt named Schuyla, whose pedigree was something like: "mother part terrier and father tall enough to jump the fence."

However, in all my times at shelters, I have seen very few purebred dogs. I think the reason is two fold: 1) A responsible breeder would take and want the dog back if for some reason it wasn't a right fit for a family and 2)When you pick out a purebred dog you have a better idea of what you are getting.

I think many people get rid of and dump dogs because they turn out bigger or more hyper than they expected.(Looking a the size of a puppy's paws may help indicate size, but it is hardly scientific.)

With a little research on purebred dogs that is easily avoided.

As a border collie owner, I know all their quirks, the intense almost-obsessive personality, and the hyper activity. Our dogs would be miserable as an inside dog and I would hate to see the mess they would make of someone's home. But here in the country, with cattle (and cats) to chase, as well as a number of people who will play catch, they are a great fit for our family.

So in response AnneD, I don't want "puppy mills" but I also wouldn't want a world without purebred dogs and all the charactistics that make each breed unique.

As for strays, more people adopting might help a little, but I think the real key is responsible pet ownership which includes spaying and neutering.

Like I said in my article, the money spent on advertising for Prop B could have been better used to solve that problem.

-- Posted by Marcia Gorrell on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 8:42 PM

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.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 8:30 PM

Once again it seems absurd for taxpayers to pay for unemployment, court costs, settlements, care, and placement of dogs for a less than 1% complaint rate! 0.12% in 3 years! HSUS has lied to manipulate good people into donating money to use in manipulating propaganda to make Missouri look like the puppy mill capital of the world! I would bet and I will check, that based on number of puppies sold, Missouri is not the worst!

-- Posted by MissouriMom on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 7:34 PM

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.

-- Posted by ptbamdb on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 7:29 PM

Oklahoma, you've completely exposed your position. er, a , I thought you were "undecided" ha ha..

by the way, aren't humans "animals"??

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 6:50 PM

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....

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 6:48 PM

Cut to the chase/bottom line: Those against Prop B aren't arguing animal welfare. They are arguing human welfare.

Animals won't be worse off if Prop B passes. Some humans may be.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 6:36 PM

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.

-- Posted by John Doppler Schiff on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 6:16 PM

Just makin a point like2b. I too am aware that with domestication of species comes manipulation of species. I am not nearly so troubled by those who do so for more milk, or more meat, or in other ways to further basic needs of we humans.

I am repulsed at so much that has gone on particularly to satisfy vain whims.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 5:52 PM

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."

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 5:47 PM

Even a little lap dog that is real small serves to provide love,company and companionship to those who are stuck in the big cities, the elderly, shut-ins, and children. Even the little lap dog has been known to save lives!

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 5:42 PM

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!

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 5:40 PM

AnneD. your compassion, and calmness are a ray of sunshine in this storm of screaming name calling.

It is revolting what we humans have done to canines to satisy our vanities.

We have manipulated them to the point that we proudly show dogs that can barely breath, whose very anatomy has been twisted with Frankensteinian delight, all to pander to those with monumental egos, or who must have something differently en vogue. The shame of it all.

I have always taken the "cast offs" as they are derisively referred to by some posting here. I have found them remarkably sturdy, long lived, and lovingly devoted. Intelligent as well. These castoffs are often genetically advantaged, having escaped the devilishly damaging programming with which purebreds have been afflicted.

The undertone of some who have been posting does indicate that they may care a whole lot more about their own needs, and wants than the welfare of the animals that they pretend to espouse.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 5:29 PM

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.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 4:48 PM
Eric Crump/Editor:
The comment you're responding to has been deleted.

Even if she is, that will not change the fact that over 20 million people get a dog each year, most of them purebreds, and most do not end up in shelters.

Most dogs that end up in shelters are mutts. Not that they are bad, that's all I had growing up and they were great dogs! Even so, unless you change the way America thinks, you can't change how they act and they will keep buying dogs even if Missoure shuts down every kennel in the state. Don't you agree with this?

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 4:07 PM

"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?

-- Posted by AnneD on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 3:49 PM

Sarah.. how and why was the number 50 chosen by the HSUS? What basis did you have for this arbitrary number? why is the number different in other states where you have introduced the same measures?

-- Posted by aliceinlalaland on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 3:30 PM

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.

-- Posted by ptbamdb on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 3:26 PM

AnneH - Freedom of Choice.

-- Posted by Prbrds on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 3:25 PM

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.

-- Posted by Prbrds on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 3:20 PM

Prbrds, you said "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?"

I live in Marshall, a small town. I'm pretty accustomed to having to buy what's available. [said with tongue in cheek]

Seriously, that's my point.. "buying". Why buy when there are so many unwanted ones that can be had for free?

(Free being perhaps a misnomer because pet ownership comes with many responsibilities such as providing them good vet attention and quality food)

-- Posted by AnneD on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 3:16 PM

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.

-- Posted by AnneD on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 3:10 PM

I heard the Vote yes Prop B commerical today. I decided to look up the breeders. Two of them run Breed rescues one seems to reside in Missouir Cecily Barker I can not tell where she lives but she runs save our setters and it is out of Tenn. Dr Melanie Mercer practices Vet. Medicine in Texas. So you have two rescues cal...ling themsleves breeders and a vet practicing outside the state calling herself a missouir resident

Cecily Barker http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1... http://www.saveoursetters.org/CloudGA200... she is president of save our setters

http://www.saveoursetters.org/

Bev Stubart http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=U... Runs Irish Wolfhound Rescue

http://www.welovepets.net/Staff/mercer.h... Dr Melanie Mercer out of Texas

-- Posted by joana on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 3:09 PM

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!

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 3:06 PM

AnneD,

The problem you mention is always going to be with us. My sister lives in another country(an island country in fact) that I doubt even has one kennel. Every dog has to be imported and quarantened for something like 30 to 60 days. However, there are mutt dogs running around everywhere, many in packs. I know, I've been there. You don't see purebreds out on the street though!

I guess I'm saying kennels are not the problem, and by the way, this bill won't eliminate the demand for dogs in America. People will simply get them from somewhere else.

Better to have licensed,legal,monitored,taxpaying kennels that have an actual findable address listed with the government than a whole country of back yard breeders where the mutts come from!

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 3:02 PM

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?

-- Posted by Prbrds on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 3:02 PM

Exerpt from the article's link you posted: by Nancy Kraus Womack,"Wayne Pacelle is a strict vegan that converted to the animal 'rights' position after reading Peter Singers "animal liberation".

And who is Peter Singer? What does he believe?

Here is an example of what he believes,I am listing a quote directly from him, and NOT out of context;"Christianity is our foe. If animal rights is to succeed, we must destroy the Judeo-Christian religious tradition." - Peter Singer (father of the animal rights movement) [The Deweese Report, November 1998]

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 2:54 PM

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.

-- Posted by AnneD on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 2:51 PM

want the whole story.. get a cup of coffee read this and watch out.. it may blow your hair back.. oh my what a tangled web we weave..

http://firsttuesdaypress.blogspot.com/20...

No on Prop B

Friends Don't Let Friends Donate to the HSUS

-- Posted by aliceinlalaland on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 12:48 PM

VERY CONCISE ARTICLE ALICE, THANKS FOR POSTING IT!

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 2:48 PM

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

Gimme a break........

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 2:46 PM

very good question Prbrds

Oklahoma reader. What in the current law do you see ( I assume you have read the current law) that is not covered in Prop b besides the number of animals one can keep and the number of litters that a ***** may have in any given time. Please note that many veterinarians recommend that young ******* have sequential litters and then are spayed. It si truly sad that this proposition is in the hands of people who know nothing about animal husbandry or biology. It is like having the taxi driver deliver your baby BY CHOICE

-- Posted by aliceinlalaland on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 2:39 PM

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.

-- Posted by Prbrds on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 2:27 PM

The thing is that enforcement costs, no matter what law is being enforced. Why not have a better law to enforce, even if no more enforcement is done because of a lack of funds?

I would prefer that dogs like mine, or a dog that became mine, would at least have a chance, if inspectors come around, of being assured care in a manner that I consider minimally necessary.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 2:14 PM

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.

-- Posted by taxedpayer on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 2:03 PM

I have now read the proposition. I kept in mind as I read it would I want any less than it mandates, for my own dog, a dog that I board occasionally. My answer after reading it was absolutely not.

Take a couple of minutes, read the proposition, then ask yourself, would I allow any less of those who care for my dog? http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010peti...

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 1:54 PM

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

-- Posted by aliceinlalaland on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 1:46 PM

All I have to say is - Marcia, another well written article! I am a big pet lover and think puppy mills are despicable!!! If I only went by political advertising and didn't know the facts I would probably vote Yes for Prop B. But being an informed voter is an important responsibility and I believe with the research I've done on my own, along with the obvious research you've done with this article, I will be voting NO on Prop B. I'm glad you are helping to get the truth about Prop B out there to the citizens of the State of Missouri. I am afraid that all the 'Vote Yes on Prop B' advertising playing on people's sympathies and love for animals and their lack of real research on the subject before voting may cause this Proposition to pass when, at least in my opinion, it's not needed. Missouri already has laws to cover things like puppy mills but there really aren't the funds in an already stretched budget to have enough authorities out there to enforce those laws. Additionally, I believe that this issue is before the voters of Missouri and if you live in the State of Missouri you have every right to chime in on this discussion whether you support or oppose Prop B. However, if this issue doesn't effect you directly because you don't live here you should worry about what goes on in your own backyard and keep your point of view out of ours.

-- Posted by Typesetter on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 1:42 PM

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.

-- Posted by humanesarah on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 1:42 PM

The 50 dog limit is like telling Vets - you can only treat X amount of customers and charge X amounts of money to keep cost down. That will help all animals and their care. Government knows what is needed. If the economy changes and supply prices go higher . . . well, that's the way it goes, take a hit for the team.

Maybe if we reduce the amount limit in the future ALL dog breeding will become a "hobby" not a living and the people who love working with dogs can get an outside job too or (teeheehee) quit breeding.

We don't need full time professionals working with animals, do we?

-- Posted by Prbrds on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 1:36 PM

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?

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 1:27 PM

Oklahoma Reader, you do not listen to any response of substance from those opposed. I gave you corrected information from the lies Sarah told about costs of Prop B. Exposed the LIE that Prop B affects unlicensed, illegal breeders. Told you why 'unfettered access' is a bad idea. You listened only to what would support a yes-vote. So, if you are at your polling booth in Oklahoma, don't look for Prop B just yet. It will probably hit Oklahoma next year. By then, you just might learn enough from Missouri's experience to vote NO on Prop B.

-- Posted by ptbamdb on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 1:22 PM

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.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 1:00 PM

Unfortunately, Prop B is a very deceptive, cleverly crafted (by HSUS lawyers) LIE designed to destroy the dog breeding industry in Missouri. Purposely titled with buzz-words (puppymill, cruelty) Prop B is intended to prejudice voters for a quick yes-vote. It will work just as planned for a lot of voters, which is not the way a 'good' bill is intended to become law. The 'basic' requirements that are redundant to state law, are placed there to prejudice voters to believe that dogs are not being fed, watered, etc. HSUS relies heavily on the uninformed and misled voter. The additional 'modest reform' is what will kill the dog industry. Arbitrary limits on property ownership and income potential, cost-prohibitive revamping of entire kennels, 'unfettered access' to outside that will kill newborns & young puppies, etc. All this without any studies done or input from veterinarians. All this because dogs are being mistreated in puppymills? I think not! Prop B will NOT affect dogs kept in poor conditions in illegal unlicensed kennels! Vote NO on Prop B.

-- Posted by ptbamdb on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 12:55 PM

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.

-- Posted by aliceinlalaland on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 12:51 PM

want the whole story.. get a cup of coffee read this and watch out.. it may blow your hair back.. oh my what a tangled web we weave..

http://firsttuesdaypress.blogspot.com/20...

No on Prop B

Friends Don't Let Friends Donate to the HSUS

-- Posted by aliceinlalaland on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 12:48 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

Actually John doesn't run the HSUS facebook page. I do along with several other employees.

You don't have to donate to HSUS to vote YES. HSUS isn't the only one pushing for a YES vote - ASPCA, The Humane Society of Missouri, American Humane Association - are you suggesting that all of them are wrong as well?

I recommend that those on the fence read the act for yourself, and make a decision based on that. Personally, I think after reading it you will vote Yes, but again, make your own choice: http://yesonpropb.com/about/read-act

-- Posted by humanesarah on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 12:18 PM

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

-- Posted by aliceinlalaland on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 12:14 PM

LOL @ Sarah. "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."

Saying it all day long DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE. I repeat, how does Prop B target unlicensed breeders? THEY HAVE TO BECOME LICENSED BEFORE PROP B AFFECTS THEM AT ALL!! Your response is so typical of the HSUS crowd! I have taken a quote out of context? Wow!

Reminds me of HSUS-worker-bee Barbara Schmitz when asked where the model kennel is that HSUS based their new law on. To date, she has just ignored the question entirely. I, too want to see this model kennel that HSUS MUST have built to denounce the current kennel-designs, see their production and cost-related records of a Prop B compliant operation.

Way too many unanswered questions on Prop B. Vote NO on Prop B!

-- Posted by ptbamdb on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 12:14 PM

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: 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

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

John Schiff, Don't know why you keep bragging about the 150 vets who support Prop B. That is just 5 percent or so of the licensed vets in Missouri. I would venture to say that most of those vets who support Prop B are the ones employed by rescues, shelters, humane societies, or are HSUS-trained. There may be a few who have just been honestly duped by HSUS OR there could even be more like the one on the commercial (with the two supposed dog-breeders) who lives in Canton Texas, works in Dallas Texas, yet claims to be a Missouri Vet. Hmmmm. Well she does work with no-kill shelters in Missouri and Texas. So technically......But I sure wouldn't want to rely on her expertise about breeding kennels!!

Wonder why HSUS couldn't find a legitimate veterinarian with a legitimate practice here in Missouri to do a commercial? Oh, that's right. All the legitimate veterinarians are AGAINST Prop B!!! They are intelligent enough to know that Prop B is badly-written law and will KILL PUPPIES and KILL the legitimate dog breeding industry and related small businesses in Missouri! They care about Missouri!

Vote NO on Prop B.

-- Posted by ptbamdb on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 11:51 AM

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: 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

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!

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

Oh please Sarah. You are so HSUS-programmed I guess you believe the HSUS BS you are spouting. I have to take issue with the LIE that Prop B targets the unlicensed breeders. The state of Missouri demands all kennels with more than 10 females be state licensed NOW. Operation Bark Alert is in operation NOW, shutting down those illegal breeders without licenses as soon as they are found. The 'busts' you see on the news are the result of Bark Alert, shutting down illegal breeders!

Prop B is NOT a separate law that carries licensing provisions.....so illegal breeders cannot JUST comply with Prop B to become legal (even if they wanted to). They have to be licensed and comply with the CURRENT state law FIRST, before Prop B would even affect them. Prop B is ONLY for licensed breeders. The unlicensed breeders cannot become Prop B licensed!! They MUST be STATE LICENSED before Prop B comes into play AT ALL. What about my statements are not true?

As you said yourself, "it would be pointless to have a bill that targets only those that are licensed". PROP B IS A POINTLESS BILL!!! In fact, humaneSarah says so!! Yes, the Sarah who works for the HSUS!!

Vote NO on this Pointless bill Prop B!!

-- Posted by ptbamdb on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 11:19 AM

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!

-- Posted by John Doppler Schiff on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 10:57 AM

Oklahoma reader, HSUS takes away our chosen food supply by incrementally making it more expensive to buy. As HSUS makes it more costly to raise the animals for food (by limits, demands, and regulations), the price of meat, eggs, milk will rise accordingly at the supermarket, and the less we will buy. For example, Californians WILL be eating fewer and more expensive eggs due to HSUS' interference in the poultry industry. As HSUS takes over control of other states and their agriculture industries, our food choices will be dwindling as meat products become more expensive. HSUS intends to price us out of our preferred diet. If you are rich, you will be able to continue buying those delicious steaks. Sorry, slightly off-topic, but HSUS is coming soon to Missouri's agribusiness. Vote NO on Prop B.

-- Posted by ptbamdb on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 10:48 AM

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.

-- Posted by humanesarah on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 10:46 AM

Do you wonder why the loudest, most prolific voices in this dogfight over Prop B come to you directly from the HSUS or from out-of-state HSUS supporters? Follow the money! HSUS does not waste their millions on such things as direct care for dogs and cats (even though their emotional, pitiful commercials lead you to believe that). They are a factory fund-raising, political lobbying animal rights (NOT ANIMAL WELFARE) radical vegan organization with very specific goals. These goals have nothing to do with better care of animals, but with the elimination of the USE of all animals (yes, even as 'captive' pets!).

HSUS does not want cleaner, larger cages for our breeding dogs......they want EMPTY cages! Prop B was designed by the HSUS to destroy the legitimate dog breeding industry in Missouri, not to 'prevent cruelty in puppy mills'. Say NO to HSUS and NO on Prop B!!

-- Posted by ptbamdb on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 10:24 AM

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.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 10:22 AM

"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." John Doppler Shiff says.

The HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES does have connecting agendas!!

Wayne Pacelle, head of the Humane Society of the United States has publically stated his ideologies for the world to see. He can't refute this statement he made;

We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...

One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals.

They are creations of human selective breeding.

(Animal People News, May 1, 1993)

Of course, he says, 'That was in the past, a long time ago'

Well, this wasn't so long ago! Here is an excerpt, (with citations) that Wayne Pacelle made in an interview revealing HIS IDEOLOGIES haven't changed at all, only his strategies have changed:

"And though his organization still does plenty for cats and dogs, Pacelle has made farm animals a top priority over the past four years.

Nine billion animals are killed for food every year, and most of them are confined in intensive conditions, he told his staff members not long after he was appointed president of the organization in 2004.

It is the greatest abuse of animals that occurs on this planet.

By MAGGIE JONES

Published: October 24, 2008 New York Times

So, Wayne(a strict vegetarian) says 9 billion animals are killed for food every year and it is one of the greatest abuses of animals on the planet. That pretty much says everything about what his agenda's will be for those of us involved in livestock agriculture, and here's a clue,"He's painted a big fat target on those of you who raise cattle,pigs,sheep,chickens,etc because YOU ARE NEXT!!

Vote NO on Proposition B!!

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 9:38 AM

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!

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 9:24 AM

The Missouri State Veterinarians Association is 100% AGAINST Proposition B.

Their position is that it is a bad bill that will do more harm than good.

There are a few vets who are for it, but there are thousands who are on the record as being against it.

I trust our veterinarians.

They are doctors and it is said it is easier to become a medical doctor for humans than it is for animals.

We trust them to care for the health of our animals.

We should trust them on this one.

Proposition B is a bad bill that should be voted down. The Humane Society should have got together with the Missouri State Veterinarians and got a bill worded that is actually workable and beneficial for DOGS.

Now it is time to vote it down, get with the veterinarians of the state and come back with something better!

-- Posted by like2b_onree on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 9:10 AM

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.

-- Posted by midniterebel on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 8:05 AM

My point is you and HSUS use manipulative propoganda tacticks that are not factual. With exaggeration of the cruel care of puppies, the health conditions reported (which conditions are unknown)and unknown facts of where the purchased puppies with the health conditions if at all were from licensed breeders, have aided and caused the misrepresentation of the breeders of our state as puppy millers. To support in the taking of jobs and their source of providing for their families and put our state in more of an economic downfall for 0.12% of complaints of "health and/or genetic conditions" is absurd!! Just proves that there is another motive. As for me I will VOTE NO!!!!

-- Posted by MissouriMom on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 3:04 AM

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!

-- Posted by John Doppler Schiff on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 11:52 PM

I'm sure Dr. Hagler knows exactly what the status and effectiveness of his organization are. I'm also sure he's familiar with the expression "you don't poop where you eat", and he's been less than fully candid about the shortcomings of his underfunded department. (I wish to make it EXTREMELY clear that I am not criticizing Dr. Hagler, who I do not know personally, or accusing him of any wrongdoing whatsoever. If I'm accusing him of anything, it's intelligent public relations.)

Interesting statistics, MM, but I'm not sure what you're trying to demonstrate. I'm certain you're not suggesting that (a) a quarter million diseased puppies is an insignificant number, or that (b) that number represents the entirety of the sickly dogs churned out by Missouri puppy mills and irresponsible breeders.

Spell it out for me... what's your point?

-- Posted by John Doppler Schiff on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 11:47 PM

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!

-- Posted by movaldude on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 11:22 PM

Unfortunately, that didn't answer my question. Again, are you saying that Mr. Hagler does not know the current status and effectiveness of a department that is under his direction? Do you know, besides what the BBB reported, how many letters and complaints over the years were written to legislators, from Missouri residents or outside of Missouri, demanding new laws in Missouri? The BBB Report states 352 complaints in 3 years with a total of 90, 000 puppies being sold a year x 3 years = 270,000 which is 0.12% of puppies sold in Missouri have reported "health and/or genetic conditions?"

-- Posted by MissouriMom on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 10:54 PM

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.

-- Posted by John Doppler Schiff on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 10:14 PM

I don't hide that I work at the HSUS - I'm proud of where I work, and the work that we do. Hence I have posted under my normal username and my full name in many places, unlike certain Missouri vets and others who astroturf, or comment under names that hide their identity. But I understand if they are scared to own up to their comments. Additionally, I'm very happy to say that I have a lot of family in Missouri and am proud that they will be voting yes. Unfortunately, Missouri's puppy mills have effected people across the nation, as a result of them shipping puppies to places as far away as CA. Everyone has a stake in Prop B. And you can thank Missouri's puppy millers for that.

-- Posted by humanesarah on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 10:03 PM

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!

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 9:57 PM

Sarah that doesn't live in Missouri and works for HSUS, glad to see you here! I didn't say current law is great, Dr. John Hagler, Director of the Department of Agriculture made that statement. Are you saying that Mr. Hagler does not know the current status and effectiveness of a department that is under his direction?

-- Posted by MissouriMom on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 9:10 PM

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

-- Posted by humanesarah on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 8:41 PM

See if you lived in Missouri you would know the current laws could be enforced if we had funds for more USDA agents. I mean the amount of this election spent by HSUS have been over 3million, that could have hired a few more inspectors for a few more years. This was reported in the AP today, Mr.Hagler and Gov. Nixon started this last year. Gov. Nixon is opposed to Prop B.

"The department started Operation Bark Alert, a hotline to target unlicensed and substandard breeders, and also added two new inspectors. Since then, Missouri issued about 366 more breeder violations than the previous year, according to the department.

There are also about 350 fewer breeders now in Missouri than there were before January 2009, and the state has rescued about 3,700 dogs, the department said.

"There's a lot of rhetoric flying around," Hagler said. "We have an exceptional program."

Hagler also took exception to calling Missouri the "puppy mill capital."

"I think that's an unfortunate label that again has much to do with the fact that we started tracking before anybody else. We've kept a program intact longer than anyone else," he said.

Hagler, who said he and the department don't take positions on ballot measures, said the current animal welfare laws in Missouri are "great."

-- Posted by MissouriMom on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 8:20 PM

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$U$".

-- Posted by John Doppler Schiff on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 7:56 PM

John Doppler Schiff, just a question, do you even live in Missouri? You wouldn't happen to be the webmaster of HumaneWatch.Info??? The site that supports HSUS???????

-- Posted by MissouriMom on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 6:38 PM

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!!!!

-- Posted by MissouriMom on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 5:57 PM

Marsha was your kibble in the water bowl comment based on the wording of Sec. 5(2)?

Tell me it ain't so.

-- Posted by Oklahoma Reader on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 5:36 PM

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.

-- Posted by John Doppler Schiff on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 4:41 PM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Semi View
MARCIA GORRELL
Recent posts
Archives
Blog RSS feed [Feed icon]
Comments RSS feed [Feed icon]
Login