Missouri is the 24th State

24thstate Tip Line

  • If you have the goods, we have the audience. Send in your political tips to pm@24thstate.com.

    Anonymity is guaranteed as long as you request it and I don't have to go to jail to keep it.

    Sending in a tip is no guarantee it will be published. Tips may be verified and are subject to editorial control.

Missouri Calendar

« Statement From Missouri Veterinary Medical Association Against Prop B | Main | James Carville Mistakenly Calls Robin Carnahan A Rat »

10/06/2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Yeah, this bill is crap. Try to get us conservatives some info on Prop A if you can. I am confused by it and was just hit up by a union goon to vote NO on it. Of course he also wanted me to vote liberal (D) in all the other races as well so I'm thinking Yes on A is the way to go. I looked into it a little but any direction on that would be helpful.

With regards to mills that close, the HSUS has set up a fund to provide treatment and placement for dogs from puppy mills that close or downsize due to the passage of Proposition B. The fact is that current Missouri regulations concerning puppy mills are complicated, vague, and confusing. As a result, it is difficult for law enforcement officers to identify and prosecute violations. The problem is not just a lack of enforcement, but the lack of good, clear legal standards that facilitate enforcement. Under existing law, you need a tape measure, a calculator, and animal handlers to determine if the space requirements are being violated. At puppy mills in Missouri, dogs are crammed into small and filthy cages, denied veterinary care, exposed to extremes of heat and cold, and given no exercise or human affection. These puppy mills are cruel and the way these dogs are treated is wrong. Prop B will stop puppy mill abuses by establishing common sense standards for the proper care of dogs. The Humane Society of Missouri and more than 100 Missouri veterinarians urge a “YES” vote on Prop B. I would encourage anyone with doubts to read the Dirty Dozen report, to show what those opposing Proposition B are really protecting. http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2010/10/missouri_dirty_dozen_100610.html

Here is what the HSUS is after.. in their own words:
"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US,

and to those that think the HSUS folks love dogs..:
“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne Pacelle CEO HSUS

think they want 'good breeders' to continue?? Read this:

When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.” Wayne Pacelle CEO, HSUS

take this to heart.. they do...NO ON PROP B

Wow, there are so many things wrong with your writing.

Even without a special fund from the HSUS, humane societies and other organizations are dedicated to helping these dogs. The Missouri Humane society has always stepped up to help, and works with Humane Societies in other states if room is at a premium.

Proposition B will be enforced by the USDA, as other animal legislation is. Except now the USDA will have a law with actual teeth. And once the puppy mills are closed down, the USDA agents won't be as burdened and can do a more thorough job with the remaining breeders.

Many of the licensed breeders treat their dogs abysmally--did you think this only happens with illegal puppy mills? You did read the Dirty Dozen report, didn't you?

You wrote less people will buy dogs. You seemed to imply that dogs from groups like the Humane Society are somehow dangerous, or something. Are you kidding anyone with that?

There are many good, reputable breeders for people who want a pedigree purebred dog. In fact, people will have a safer time buying a dog knowing that the puppy mill days are numbered.

But there are so many good dogs available at the shelters.

Your implication that small dogs are going to be shoved out into the snow, I ask again, seriously? I mean, really, seriously?

Oh and then there's the dog pack thing...


Oh and PS?

I don't work for the Humane Society. I just love dogs, and hate to see any mistreated.

It's also embarrassing being the puppy mill capital of the country. I'd like the country to see that Missourians care for dogs.

I also dislike lies, smears, misleading info, and use of innuendo, which I'm seeing a lot from anti-prop B people.

Sorry, Department of Agriculture, not USDA.

Arg, typos, Missouri Department of Agriculture.

I'm betting there weill be a lot more than 140,000 "excess" dogs breeders won't be able to keep if Prop B passes.

I'm not criticizing the calculations here, just pointing out that they assume, for statistical purposes, that 200,000 dogs are now evenly distributed among licensed breeders, and that post-Prop B, 1200 licensed breeders will EACH have the maximum of 50 dogs.

In fact, there are many licensed breeders who now have a lot fewer than 50 dogs and there is no reason to expect that they are going to want to increase their numbers - much less that they would be able to afford to do so.

Add in the dogs owned by people who will be forced out of business (and hiring employees and paying taxes on sales and income) and there will be substantially more than 140,000 "surplus" dogs to be redistributed by local shelters and rescues.

Hiring more inspectors does no good if the laws are such that repeat offenders aren't easily shut down. Hiring inspectors does no good, when even "good" breeding facilities have hundreds of adult dogs, each getting little or no personal attention, no access to outdoor activity, no play, not affection, and being forced to have litter after litter of puppies.

The whole concept of dog factory farms is repugnant, and no number of inspectors will change this.

Do you think it is acceptable that a dog be kept in a wire cage, day in and day out, with no attention, no affection, no kind words, no outdoor activity, no play, nothing but a continuous life of cage and continuous litters of puppies?

Do you think this is a good life for a dog?

“They instead want to add vague regulation that by the statements of veterinarians is actually worse for the dogs, and applies to all breeds equally.”

Speaking of vague. It is the opinion of the veterinarians who ALREADY support your cause that the bill is bad because (insert reason). In case you were unaware, and I suspect that know full well, Prop B enjoys support from veterinarians too. Your statement is as vague as it is misleading, much like the majority of your smear attacks on Proposition B.

Jim,
I suppose then that all of the comments against Prop B are generated randomly by people who happen upon the blog? Or, is your group, like any competent one, organized enough to share information? People who work for the HSUS don’t have to explain what they are doing? Who has demanded an explanation of you? No one is confusing reputable breeders, with non reputable breeders.


This bill has a very real purpose. The laws on the books are insufficient. As those who support the bill, and there are many of us, understand is that what is needed are good common sense guidelines. The bill allots for greater enforcement, but overall it simply clarifies regulations making them simpler to understand and abide by and thus enforce. With respect to the Chihuahua comment, the bill says tat dogs should have “access to” the outside, not be kept there exclusively. It also details what temperature the dog’s enclosure should be kept at. It is possible to have a kennel structure that allows a dog access to the outside via a doggy door of some variety but also contains an enclosed sheltered part. The reduction of the number of animals to be kept is to be completed over a year’s time. Shelters in Missouri adopt out hundreds (some thousands) of dogs a year. If fewer dogs are available through retailers or they cost more because of increasing costs in managing the breeding facilities then it is reasonable to assume an increase in adoptions as well. You also assume that Missouri will alone bare the burden of the animals liberated from the puppy mills as a result of this bill. Animal rights groups and shelters and rescues are amazing in their dedication and ingenuity. All the time animals are shipped from one location to another to avoid euthanasia when there is a space for them somewhere. Am I saying that NO dogs will be euthanized as a result? I don’t know, but I suspect there will a far greater response around the country when this passes then you or even I can imagine. Puppy mill raids constantly overrun shelters across Missouri with dogs, when we reduce the number of dogs in those situations, as well as the number of unaltered animals being introduced in the population (shelters typically mandatorily alter) then there will be a reduction in the number of surplus animals.
If a breeder has so many dogs that they cannot afford daily rations of food, water, and a contact with a veterinarian once a year, then they are not taking adequate care of their animals.

Alice Smith,
Shall we characterize the sum of the beliefs of your entire organization by two quotes? Would you chose to be defined by words of people you’ve never met who, while sharing a very specific interest and passion, also have very different experiences and motivations guiding their actions. You show a remarkable lack of insight and a frightening ability to stereotype and label. Are you able to think beyond the sound bytes, video clips and single sentence quotations fed to you by your media outlet of choice?

The vast majority of breeding facilities in Missouri are already below or close to this limit of 50 dogs, 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.

Moreover, Prop B limits only the number of sexually intact adult dogs used for breeding, and imposes absolutely no limit on the total number of dogs a person can own. A breeder can keep as many dogs as they want over the limit of 50, as long as those excess dogs are pets and not used for breeding. There is a network of animal shelters and rescue groups prepared to remove and re-home dogs from the small number of large-scale puppy mills that have more than 50 breeding dogs, should mill owners request assistance with placement. Since puppy mills have one year to comply with the new law before it takes effect, transports and adoptions can be managed over a long period of time; animal shelters or rescue groups won’t be flooded simultaneously.

Lastly, your idea that newborns will freeze is also wrong. Prop B only applies to dogs over 6 months of age, and would not require that non-weaned puppies have unfettered outdoor access or be housed within the new temperature parameters. Further, upper respiratory illnesses are not caused by fresh air. More often in the extreme confinement conditions typical of large-scale puppy mills, respiratory illnesses are caused by poor ventilation and the repeated circulation of airborne disease molecules. The idea that providing fresh air will be detrimental to the health of dogs is absurd as anyone who lets their dog play outside will understand.

Sarah! Imagine you being here! Finally two days later you get me an answer!!! You do work for HSUS!

HSUS will take and care for the dogs the breeders have to get rid of to come into compliance, if I read that right??? Well, that is a part of their business and I think HSUS should have to purchase the dogs from the breeder.

Gloria.. I am not an "organization" so yes anything I say .. you can believe it.. and Yes when candidates run for office we have to believe what they tell us ..don't we.. that is how we make our decisions.. when a company stands for something.. and the people who own or run the company make a statement are we to assume they are lying to us?.. would you like even more quotes?/ there are hundreds of quotes from Pacelle and his minions..
as for having a frightening ability to sterotype and label.. no one does it better than the HSUS.. Just take a look at their ads on Tv.. their begging for just $19.00 per month to help the poor kitties and doggies..to stop the "puppy mills" and 'factory farms".. and whatever else they can think of to drag the last dollar from unsuspecting little old ladies.. a more deceptive group was never formed...than those at the HSUS and look at how many people they have duped.. you included..less that 1% of their funds go to actually helping shelters and even less to direct care of animals.. they should be ashamed and so should anyone who supports their agendas.. oh and by the way.. it was THREE quotes..

www.humanewatch.org for the real story.. NO ON PROP B

“Animals for the most part just need to be left alone." Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, Los Angeles Times, July 19, 2008

"Pet ownership is an absolutely abysmal situation brought about by human manipulation." Ingrid Newkirk, national director, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PeTA),

"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. . One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle,CEO HSUS

"The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration." Michael W. Fox, Scientific Director and former Vice President, The Humane Society of the United States

"... nothing is more important than promoting veganism." Paul Shapiro, who heads HSUS' anti-Factory Farm Campaign

Here is another good one for you that I haven't quite connected all the dots! Cole County Judge Jon Beetem was the judge who presided over hearings and suit the pet breeders association brought against Carnahan using the vocabulary of puppy mills, he ruled nothing wrong with the proposition right?? Well in August he was the same Judge that ruled not to stop the law on sexual businesses, said businesses would suffer economic loss. I don't even have a comment for this one!!!!

Wow. This post is pretty vile. Of all the things I thought people would be able to agree on, the ending of puppy mills was pretty high on my list. Do you really hate dogs that much? Your objections above are disingenuous and cold-hearted. I don't get it. Why do you hate animals?

Nothing in Prop B would bring about dead or starved animals, or wild packs of dogs, or not "enough" pets for people, especially considering how many dogs are in shelters and pounds right now that need a good home--perfectly gentle yellow Labs, pugs, beagles, all types of dogs without a family, that can be adopted today.

Your stating that Chihuahuas will freeze to death and reputable dog breeders will be forced into bankruptcy is just so blatantly untrue, just such total lies. Why would you write things like that? What do you gain from this? Do you really believe such nonsense?

But maybe I misjudge you. Can you please provide an alternative to Prop B for ending puppy mills? Perhaps you ARE in favor of ending puppy mills, and have suggestions for how to do it.

[Sarah from HSUS said] "Moreover, Prop B limits only the number of sexually intact adult dogs used for breeding, and imposes absolutely no limit on the total number of dogs a person can own. A breeder can keep as many dogs as they want over the limit of 50, as long as those excess dogs are pets and not used for breeding."

You seem to be asserting that there can be no such thing as a sexually intact dog that is not used for breeding, and that a dog that IS used for breeding, or that could be, cannot be considered a pet. I'll bet you really know that neither is true. But how convenient to imply that the only reason for having a sexually intact dog is to breed it, and that owners who have them breed them compulsively. In fact, of course, whether a dog is a pet is not determined by its reproductive status; and many people have intact dogs that they have not bred and may never breed.

While this little exercise in semantics does not shed much light on the critical flaws in Prop B, it does serve to show how animal rights proponents use carefully chosen words to manipulate the public's perception of the target of unnecessary laws - in this case, dog breeders and their not-quite-as-evil-cousins: people that own dogs that haven't been spayed/neutered.

Oh, where to start?

Regarding Prop B being a "gateway law" for The HSUS to end animal agribusiness...

As someone who supports animal rights and would love to see the end of animal farming, I can tell you sincerely that The HSUS does NOT share my opinion. They are an animal welfare organization that supports humane treatment of animals - including dogs, cats, and, yes, cows. It is my opinion that using animals for food is inherently cruel (unnecessary killing = cruel, in my view). However, this is NOT the opinion of The HSUS.

But on to the real point here: I think a lot of people are against Prop B, not because they've read the bill and decided it isn't good for the animals, but because they are against HSUS and animal rights. Taking political stances based on the transitive property (I don't like A, and A likes B; Therefore I don't like B) is a dangerous thing to do. Before forming an opinion, I'd encourage everyone to read the bill's language, read information from sources you initially agree with, and then - most importantly - read from sources you initially DISAGREE with. If any one of us are to learn/grow in our lives, this is the only way. Surrounding ourselves with yes-men will keep us stagnant and ignorant.

Yes on Prop B!

NO ON PROP B!!!

Clause 9 Reads:
"Pet" shall be defined as any domestic animal kept on or near the owners home.

Why would a bill concerning dogs and indeed, only mentions dogs have a clause right in the middle of it stating "Domestic animals"? There is nothing in this law that will help or hurt our current laws, which are the strictest in the country. Our problem is NOT the law but the enforcement.

Currently Chapter 273 requires fresh water every 8 hours: This prop: every 24hours.

Current Chapter 273 Clean cages twice a day: prop B : clean once a day.

HSUS is NOT to be trusted they have not ONE clinic of care center for animals anywhere in the US. They are STRICTLY a lobbying tool with offices only in Washington DC. The poor people that donate money to them have no idea they are not rescuing a single animal by doing so. This is NOT your neighborhood Humane Society that actually does something useful, no affilliation whatsoever.

Where this bill takes us is one step closer to classifying cows as pets and harassing farmers to have their livestock micro-chipped and raising the price of your meats and produce to the point where we are all vegans. HSUS would like to see the Department of agriculture as an annex of PETA.


BEWARE HSUS and PETA.


200,000 dogs at MO Breeders according to H$U$.org?

18% of 1200 Breeders is 216 Breeders. If the remaining 984 Breeders did have 50 dogs, that's 49,200 dogs. That means the 216 Breeders have the remaining 150,800 dogs.

That means at the 216 Breeders the average is 698 dogs. 700 dogs.

Riiigghhhtt!

You really want to stick with that math?

i agree that illegal puppy mills need to be shut down, but theres another side to prop b that WILL KILL agriculture, if you read into it, they are going to limit farmers to having ONLY 50 head of cattle and other various farm animals, thats pretty screwed up in my opinion and it will severly hurt the economy even worse than it is now....i know a lot of people around here that have a couple thousand head of cattle and they take care of them

They are not going to limit farmers to 50 head of cattle. OMG the ignorance of some people who will believe anything. Read the bill for yourself.

And Brian, there are some really huge operations in MO. Look up Hunte Corp, they sell 85,000 puppies a year and keep 2000 breeding animals.

I think I can speak as a middle ground here. I am a student at MU, biology major, possibly future dog breeder.

I am in agreement with all of you pro-Prop B experts. Puppy mills are a problem; it is a smear on our state's reputation.

Statistics and heartbreaking pictures aside though, there's no evidence that this bill will work. At all.

Puppy mills are owned by unregistered breeders. The HSUS, if this law is passed, will be the enforcement program and will go after registered breeders. Because that's the information they have!

I'm a bleeding heart liberal, and just a normal college kid, and even I know that this bill was not correctly "put together." I'm hoping the writers will try again to make it work for both sides, because this proposition will lead to uneasy sides to a problem that shouldn't be a problem.

Now for some of the conservatives out there... just because HSUS is crazy, doesn't mean the agricultural industry is going to end today. If you read the bill, like everyone should, it just covers dogs. I didn't even see the word cattle in it...

The question of what would happen to the dogs at licensed breeders over the 50 allowed by Prop B to do is something that needs to be examined. However you can't do Math with the numbers you have here. You need documented numbers with careful labels. Without that it is only wild speculation.
The important point no one has made is that IF THESE DOGS ARE HEALTHY FEMALES, THEY SHOULD BE A VALUABLE, SALABLE ASSET, salable to other breeders in or outside of MO.
They would not be let loose, they would not become a burden on the pounds or rescue groups.
If they are in such bad shape that they not salable, the owner was doing a poor job and it would be in best interests of the owner and the dog for dog to be removed.
If you are saying that there are 10's or 100's of thousands of dogs in MO that are so badly kept that no one would want to buy them, then we have a really serious problem. That many unsalable dogs would mean our laws are too lax or not well enforced.

I don't know how many dogs will be unsalable, but I think that both the current law and the enforcement are to lax.
Look at http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/pets/puppy_mills/summary_report_on_mos_dirty.pdf
These are dogs with LISCENSED breeders.
Some of the problems shown are because of breeders who are breaking current law and the enforcement is to lax. Some is due to the inadequacy of the current law.

By current law you can keep a dog in a wire floored cage its entire life. I learned this by actually reading the current law myself. Read the current law yourself at the links below. Note that "exercise" can be defined living in a wire cage twice the size of the current minimum ( USDA rules p63 Sec 3.8 (c)3ii). Also notice that there are no current rules against stacking the dogs enclosures. Maybe that why we see stacked wire cages.

The current law is inadequate and Prop B is an improvement. What will also be needed is better enforcement. It is unfair to breeders to have to compete with law breakers.

Prop B's Full Text is at http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp

The Animal Welfare Act's regulations, these are the USDA regulations that make up most of the care related rules used by MO
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awr/awr.pdf care standards for dogs begin around pg 60

Current Missouri laws http://www.animallaw.info/statutes/stusmost273_010_405.htm#s344

The comments to this entry are closed.

About 24thState

  • 24th State is named for Missouri, the nation's political bellwether which has the honor of being the 24th state admitted to the union.

    From Springfield to Kirksville, from Kansas City to St Louis, we cover the state's news, views, politics, rumors, and elections.

    The site is a group blog, run by average citizens from across Missouri with a desire to get involved in the political process. The Editorial Board is a mix of Tea Party members writing collectively.

Tip Jar

Change is Good

Tip Jar