What Is The Point Of Prop B, The Puppy Mill Torture Reduction Act?

Opponents of Prop B, the so called Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act find themselves arguing against more than the wording of the act, exactly as Robin Carnahan intended.  Remember, Carnahan wrote the ballot language and had judge bless and sanctify it so voters would see "Puppy Mill Cruelty" is what you're voting for or against.  And who could vote for Puppy Cruelty, besides those who blend them into delicious energy shakes?

But this isn't about Puppy Cruelty. And we can look at the worthless fluff of the ballot language to prove it.

Official Ballot Title:

Shall Missouri law be amended to:

• require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles;
• prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and
• create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations?

It is estimated state governmental entities will incur costs of $654,768 (on-going costs of $521,356 and one-time costs of $133,412). Some local governmental entities may experience costs related to enforcement activities and savings related to reduced animal care activities.

It's pretty straight forward. 

The first bullet point uses words like sufficient, necessary, regular and adequate to describe care of dogs.  There is no statutory definition of what sufficient food, clean water, clean housing and space, necessary veterinary care, or regular exercise and adequate rest mean - supposedly that's for the state of Missouri or individual enforcement personnel to decide.

So if we're not getting more specific, one has to ask - why include this?  Aren't there current laws on the books for animal neglect, abuse and abandonment?

You bet your sweet patootie. It's even called the Animal Care Facilitie Act.

(1) "Adequate food", the provision, at suitable intervals of not more than twelve hours, unless the dietary requirements of the species require a longer interval, of a quantity of wholesome foodstuff, suitable for the species and age, sufficient to maintain a reasonable level of nutrition in each animal, all of which foodstuff is served in a safe receptacle, dish, or container;

(2) "Adequate housing", the continuous provision of a sanitary facility, protection from the extremes of weather conditions, proper ventilation, and appropriate space depending on the species of animal, as defined by regulations of the USDA, as revised;

(3) "Adequate water", the provision, either continuously or at intervals suitable to the species, which intervals shall not exceed eight hours, of a supply of potable water in a safe receptacle, dish, or container;

There's more to the statute, but it's clear the intent is the same.  Take care of the dogs, and if they are't fed, housed, given water, and in other statues, kept from harm, abuse and disease, the current Missouri law will deal with it, which is why you had those two high profile puppy mill raids.

So what's with the Puppy Mill Act?  Does the act change in some way the current laws?

The only major difference is the limit of 50 breeding dogs per breeder.  Now this gets a little trickier.  If the purpose is to limit the size of breeding operations, why the extra ballot language?  Is it because a proposition wouldn't pass that simply said Dog Breeders aren't allowed to have more than 50 females?   This seems to be the meat of the proposition - add some fluff in at first that doesn't substantially seem to alter the laws, and then add in a limit to the number of animals as a side note. 

Note the problem with breeding facilities could be solved with more money and more enforcement from the Agriculture department.  The laws on the books currently allow for that.  If Governor Nixon wanted to, he could instruct his animal inspectors to serve notice, than go to local prosecutors to bring charges.  The legislature could take up a bill to amend the law to determine how many breeding females a breeder can have.  But none of that happened.  

So let's ask a question of the Yes On Prop B folks.  What exactly is the proposition going to fix?  There is no money for enforcement, or extra inspectors.  How exactly does this proposition fix the problem?

And if you just spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to get Prop on the ballot, and fought to get the words, "puppy mill cruelty" placed into the language, what is your purpose?  Are there any answers for that?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comments

[Dale Warren]

To get more hippies to the polls?

[Brian J.]

So were you Alliance of Free Blogs or Axis of Naughty, old timer?

[Jim]

I was neither, but I was in the top 200 of the TTLB. And that's all you're getting out of me. Some things need to disappear off the internet, although I did have a great post about Superman being censored by Tom Daschle for acting unilaterally against the Kryptonians.

But nothing was funnier than your wife's quote that ended, "bork, bork, bork." Still makes me laugh.

[Jim]

Man. Those were the days. 500 uniques a day was big pimpin. SEO linkposts still worked, and there were only like two liberals - Atrios and Oliver Willis. Kos was an upstart still banning everyone but Tacitus, Den Beste was churning out greatness, and Charles Johnson and Andrew Sullivan were acceptable to reference in polite company.

[Brian J.]

When I worked for an Internet agency, it boasted employing one of the top 500 bloggers in the country.

I stayed neutral in the battle, although Mrs. N. was fitness officer or something in the Alliance.

[hln]

Good times. I was. And I'll keep mum about Jim's earlier blogging days. :)

I agree, the language on this one stinks. Being the bleeding heart animal lover (welfare, not rights), I'm going to have to do some heavy reading on this one.

I cracked the top 400 for a couple of days. I think it was a picture of my legs.