24thState

Shades of Proposition B

Indiana farmer Frank W. James muses today on Animal Agriculture's "PR" Problem, and some of the lessons apply to the ongoing imbroglio about dog breeding in Missouri:

I guess I've been thinking about Animal Agriculture lately and it's PR problem.  Basically it stems from the fact that most of our national population resides in population centers of 100,000 or more.  (I think the figure from the last census was 51%.)  Additionally, according to most studies of demographics, the average urban resident is more than 4 or 5 generations removed from the farm.  That means you have to go back to their great-great-grandfather or later to find any direct linkage between their family and a farm heritage.

...

The biggest direct threat to Animal Agriculture in America presently is the Ballot Initiative. I think its either 25 or 26 states allow ballot initiatives if the organizers can gather 200,000 or more signatures.  This process has lead to cage-less chickens and the outlawing of swine farrowing crates in California, but California is not alone in this insanity.  These 'feel-good' animal agriculture production laws have been copied in a number of states and the consumer is the one who is ultimately stuck with the bill because the affected producer in an effort to stay in business must pass along all the added costs associated with some of this nitwit stuff.

If your food costs are going up, don't blame ethanol, blame the process that forces egg producers to put their chickens in an environment mandated by 'feel-good' ordinances which raise the cost of production through death loss, disease and other factors that ignore the realities of working with poultry or farrowing baby pigs.

He has nailed how Proposition B passed and how urban dwellers want to remake the world to suit their sensitivities without the knowledge of what that really means and ultimately how it will impact them.

Prop B Fails to Pass State Constitutional Muster

Image via Wikipedia

I asked Mindy Patterson to bring our readers up to speed on Prop B and the legislation in Jeff City to ammend it. Prop B, the so-called "Puppy Mill" ban, passed on last Novermber's ballot. Mindy was active in the fight against Prop B. Now she is working to fix the flaws in through Senate Bill SB113.

It states clearly in the Missouri Constitution, Article 1 Bill of Rights, Section 2, That all constitutional government is intended to promote the general welfare of the people; that all persons have a natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry; that all persons are created equal and are entitled to equal rights and opportunity under the law; that to give security to these things is the principal office of government, and that when government does not confer this security, it fails in its chief design.

As Americans we live in a Republic, not a democracy. This means that it is up to our Missouri legislators to protect the individual rights and freedoms of its citizens. Thankfully, our Missouri legislators are doing just that as they see clearly that Wayne Pacelle and the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) are using Proposition B to forward a radical animal rights agenda on our Missouri citizens.

Mr. Pacelle and the Humane Society of the United States continue to use emotion, misinformation and millions of out-of-state dollars to pressure our Missouri lawmakers. If it was really about the care and welfare of animals, why didn't HSUS spend their $4.2 million in campaign funds to help fund and enforce the Missouri Animal Care Facilities Act already in place?

Prop. B which won by only 60,000 votes and lost in 103 out of 114 counties, does nothing to stop animal abuse or punish the law breakers contrary to how it is portrayed.

Senate Bill113 is an excellent bill which actually provides Missouri with what Missourians viewed as the intent of the ballot language for Prop. B. 

• SB113 defines terms for the provision of food, water, shelter, vet care and exercise and makes those provisions enforceable with penalties for non-compliance.
• SB113 punishes the law breakers, not the law abiding.
• SB113 funds increased enforcement, and goes after the unlicensed breeders. Prop. B is an unfunded mandate with NO provisions for legal enforcement.
• SB113 also eliminates the 50 dog limit, and makes it clear that the law refers to dogs and not to the broader category of domesticated animals, thereby protecting Missouri agriculture. 

Our Missouri economy cannot afford the crushing blow that Proposition B would impose on our state's economy as it would force thousands of legitimate dog breeders out of business, and create a devastating domino effect on other Missouri businesses statewide. Accordingly, it is up to our legislators to uphold the Missouri constitution and protect their constituents’ “right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and the enjoyment of the gains of their own industry.” Therefore, we must support and thank our Missouri legislators who are thoughtfully considering what is best for all Missourians instead of crumbling under the pressure of mob rule.

Mindy Patterson is the Communications Director for Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (MOFED), Director of The Cavalry Group, and on the Board of Directors of the Missouri Equine Council.

Shocking! Prop B Was A Ruse!

 

From the Quincy Herald Whig:

Shortly after the Nov. 2 election, dog breeders started receiving letters from the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Breeders were told that the HSUS filed a Freedom of Information act request on Oct. 4, to get access to information on USDA licenses for use in a civil lawsuit.

"These are the people who said â trust us' we're only worried about the puppies," said one Northeast Missouri breeder who requested anonymity. "Now they want private information on all of us."

License forms include information such as the number of dogs purchased, the number sold, the gross revenue and income after expenses.

The article also points out that HSUS spent $2 million on advertising for the puppy mill law (and it's known as the puppy mill bill because Robin Carnahan named it that), but only $43,000 on helping out shelters.

Others concerns include shelters forced to take in more dogs than they can handle, and the reality that the new law only addresses licensed breeders  No word yet on fake SWAT teams kicking in doors.  

Strange.  It's almost as if Prop B was some huge propaganda vehicle for HSUS to raise more money from donors instead of actually solving the problem of unlicensed breeders. 

But who could have seen that coming?

Voter Guide Links For 2010 Election

I'm here phone banking at the St Louis Tea Party Headquarters at 4512 Hampton Ave, and got the request for a voter ballot guide.  I'll try to put one out this weekend, but in the meantime, check out the MissouriFamilyNetwork for a guide on the propositions.

The League of Women Voters has also provided a voters' guide for the St Louis Region for candidate education.

Short version from me would be:

1) Robyn Hamlin, Todd Akin, Ed Martin in the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd districts.

2) Yes on Prop A, No on Prop B. 

3) If a politician is running unopposed, leave that part of the ballot blank to encourage an opponent the next year.

 

Puppy Cruelty Has Nothing To Do With Prop B

Prop B: The Planned Puppy Euthanasia Bill.  Maybe we should just call it the Puppy Murder bill and run around throwing puppy slobber and red paint on Prop B supporters.  Wait - that would be too sane for a group that gets accused of throwing molotov cocktails through campaign windows. 

Have you ever in your life seen so many adults completely incapable of discussing a proposed law without invoking such hatred?  Functioning on an emotional high is the trademark of liberals, but if you want a reason to vote against Prop B, the supporters and their stated belief that all opponents hate dogs and love cruelty is a good start.

Prop B bypasses the state legislature to create a new law on the books concerning puppy mills.  For a side-by-side comparison of the Prop B language and the current laws on the books, download this brochure.  Notice that while Prop B adds language to the statutes, it procures no money for enforcement or to care for the displaced dogs.

If the puppy mill bill (the word itself is a creation of animal activists, looking for something that sounds horrible so they can rail against it), was passed through the legislature, debate on the positive and negative aspects, as well as legislation addressing the implementation and funding mechanisms for the effects of the bill could have been addressed.  That didn't happen, because HSUS failed to get it through the Missouri legislature. Instead, they decided on an emotionally manipulative proposition campaign that cost millions of dollars to sneak in legislation behind the spectre of PUPPY CRUELTY.  And backed by Robin Carnahan, a judge ruled that PUPPY MILL CRUELTY ACT was a reasonable title for the bill. 

But the bill doesn't discuss animal abuse or animal torture. There's nothing in the bill that addresses the issue of Puppy Cruelty.  The bill addresses breeding puppy care and limits on the number of breeding animals one licensed breeder can own.

If you are a licensed breeder who treated your dogs with the best care any dog had received, employed 100 people, but own 51 dogs for breeding, you will be considered a criminal.

If you are a licensed breeder with ten dogs who treats your dogs with the best care, but their enclosures are 48" by 35," you're a criminal.  

If you own 9 dogs, and you stack them one on top of another 9 high, and deliberately put feces in their food and water, and leave them in the snow and heat, the bill doesn't speak to you at all.

If you are the HSUS, and you take in 1000 dogs, and keep them in deplorable conditions before killing all of them with rat poison, you are not affected by the bill.

So how exactly does the bill deserve the title of Puppy Mill Cruelty?  It doesn't.  The terms "puppy mill" and "cruelty" aren't relevant.  The bill is aimed solely at licensed dog breeders who have yet to break the law.  This is a restriction on their ability to raise dogs, not an animal cruelty law put into place to stop animal cruelty.

But as we've pointed out - passing a law limiting the number of dogs a breeder has doesn't have the emotional appeal of "puppy mill cruelty."

 

 

 

What AstroTurfed Prop B Support Looks Like

Google this statement from AnneHSUS, a propaganda queen for HSUS out of Maryland.  Anne leaves this comment on every conversation on any blog across the country.  There are 138 results for the exact wording of this comment. 

"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 willtop puppy mill abuses by establishing common sense standards for the proper care of dogs"

There are already common sense standards for the proper care of dogs, but more important, the statements that "Anne" makes lump together unlicensed breeders and licensed breeders. This is an emotionally manipulative attempt to shut down all discussion on the merits of Prop B, and instead focus your attention on the possible abuses of some dog breeders. 

Note Anne makes no distinction between the two.  She's not paid to.  She's paid to leave this comment in as many places as possible, using the words "crammed," "exposed," "given no human affection," "cruel" and "puppy mill abuses."

It's straight up propaganda, designed to enrage you and stop thinking.  That should be the Prop B message.  Watch me beat this puppy and then vote to stop it.  Counter this with the enraged citizens and animal breeders that are leaving hundreds of comments on their own.  These are unpaid citizens working to fight back against a campaign that brands them as in support of puppy cruelty. 

On the merits of the campaign alone, anyone interested in civil discussion has to agree that Prop B is not an honest campaign.

It is well-funded though. 

 

 

What's This? Wild Dog Pack Kills Elderly Couple On Walk?

Wow. YouTube sure has the greatest hits channel up there.

 

This sad story from Georgia concerns an elderly couple who were attacked by a wild dog pack in rural Georgia.  Of note is that it's exceedingly rare to be attacked by dogs and be killed in the US. It's somewhat more likely in other countries, but you're more likely to be killed by lightning than to be mauled, even in rural areas.

But nature is not be trifled with. The uptick in cities dealing with mountain lion, cougar, and bear attacks in suburban areas coincides with the failure to control wild animal populations.  When you inject a large number of animals into an ecosystem, there will be problems that were not foreseen in feel good legislation called Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention. 

It's not likely that the boothells of Southern Missouri will turn into a Cujo killing ground, but you will see depredations and pack behavior if you don't prepare for an influx of animals. Prop B does not do that, which will mean either the death or the wilding of at a minimum, tens of thousands of dogs.

HSUS responded to a previous post stating there was a fund put in place to help with this. I have requested documentation of that fund, as it is wildly out of place with what HSUS typically does, which is nothing.  They are a special interest, providing just a tiny portion of their financial holdings to helping dogs.  We'll see what they claim, if they claim anything. 

In upcoming posts, we're going to discuss our role in protecting and raising animals, versus that of the government, and we're also going to research what HSUS is doing in other states. Surely if Prop B is all it is claimed, and only what is claimed, we will see similar legislation across the country, and nothing further.

Using Your Brain To Think Through Prop B

The Humane Society of the United States, which is not the Humane Society you think of that shelters pets, is pushing Prop B with millions of dollars in financing from out-of-state interests.

What do they think they are buying with this money?

It's not dog welfare. Here are some things to think about.

1) 86,000 dogs will have to be put down, many of them healthy, happy and loved. 

The HSUS says there are over 200,000 dogs in Missouri that are kept by breeders.  There are some 1200 licensed breeders.  If you limit the number of dogs you can keep to 50, you have 60,000 dogs.  What is going to happen to the other 140,000 dogs?  There are some 350 shelters in Missouri.  To accomodate the overflow, 400 dogs per shelter would have to be offloaded before the year is out.  The vast majority of those dogs are currently healthy and cared for by dog-lovers. What will happen to them?

Some will be put up for adoption.  Those who are not rescued, will be killed, released into the wild, or moved into illegal puppy mills hidden away from the state.

The problem with broad regulation is it affects everyone. It's not hard to say that 86,000 dogs will be killed if this measure passes. 64% of dogs that go into a shelter don't come out.   But the HSUS and Prop B say nothing about this problem.

2) There will be less dogs and less dog breeders

Pet ownership will decline because costs will go up.  The arbitrary limit of 50 will turn breeders in hobbyists unless they drastically increase the costs of each puppy.  Ultimately, only the wealthy will be able to afford dogs from breeders.  The HSUS considers this a good thing.  Their view, and that of many animal rights activists, is that dog breeding is offensive by its very nature.

So those dogs you loved as a child? The Westies?  The Golden Retrievers?  Good luck finding one.  You'll be able to go to the pound and get a dog, but only what is available, which means choosing a dog for temperament or that fits your lifestyle won't be as easy. 

3) Less people will buy dogs

Families with children will buy less dogs.  While adopting strays can be a loving strategy, it can also bring danger.  Pound dogs and rescue dogs are great when you know how to treat them.  Anyone with experience with pets knows that people with a history of pet ownership are more likely to understand how to handle animals. especially ones with a history of being in

4) The wild dog population will increase

Dogs are beasts.  Noble, but beasts.  Like all animal populations, they will increase when left on their own, and in the backwoods of Missouri, when you let hundreds or thousands of dogs go free, you're going to see an explosion of their population in a way that is not at all controlled.  Domesticating animals isn't something we solely do for joy.  Your solutions are pretty narrow.  The shelters will fill up, and you can let the dogs go, turn them over to be killed or kill them yourself.

5) The Humane Society of the United States will still go after licensed breeders. 

The HSUS has a very bad track record of abusing the courts and targeting good people to scare breeders into leaving the business:

"HSUS has now become the self-appointed law enforcement of the animal world. In some states, HSUS employees are running around with guns and police-like badges breaking down doors, confiscating animals and business papers, and obtaining warrants with false information. Lawsuits are cropping up against HSUS, sheriffs and governments for blatant violations of the most basic of constitutional rights."

-Joe Wurzelbacher

 

 

Search "Denisa Malott" and "Dan Christensen" on Google to get a sense of that HSUS does when it has the power of the proposition.

This is a pdf of the court documents for a $5 million lawsuit against HSUS for taking almost 300 dogs in a "raid" that left his dogs dead, diseased, and given away, in addition to ruining his reputation as a licensed dog sellter. 

6) Laws still won't be enforced by law enforcement officials

While you see a series of high-profile raids of unlicensed puppy mills on the news, what you don't see is enough criminal enforcement of the laws already on the books, the laws written by your Missouri legislature.  Rather than working to increase enforcement, or lobbying Governor Jay Nixon to find money in the budget to enforce laws on the books, the HSUS is trying to create a complementary law with no enforcement.

The HSUS just released a report of licensed breeders they claim are currently in violation of their licenses. Rather than using their vast wealth and power to do anything about it, they are instead targeting the entire breeding industry.  They are not interested in fixing the problems they have identified.  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.

HSUS instead contracts with Rescue Operations to stage raids against dog breeder.  With no money for enforcement, local officials are all too happy to pass over authority.

7) Little dogs will die under breeder's care

To show you how poorly thought out Prop B is, think of the Chihuahua.  They're little, hairless dogs that won't do well in snow.  But new regulations require access to the outdoors.  The rules allow little dogs to go out into the cold and die, whereas a dog like a Siberian Huskie would do fine.  The proposition doesn't allow any breeder to take note of the difference.  All dogs are equal, under Prop B. No matter their personal needs.  Of course, this means breeders won't raise many dogs.  The danger of being prosecuted in a criminal manner is too high.

8) Most licensed breeders will shut down because of costs

Breeders won't be able to comply with the arbitrary regulations, and will shut down.  In addition to tens of thousands of dollars in structural upgrades that could be do for many breeders, the danger of having a water bowl get dirty is enough to put you in criminal risk.

They're dogs.  Dogs get water bowls dirty when they drink.  They lick themselves for goodness sake. What do you think is going to happen?

And yet now. Food, or debris, or dog slobber in a water bowl now makes you a criminal.

9) New laws and lawsuits will be brought

An affirmative public vote for this travesty of a bill will be used to push future regulations and used in court cases to force more animal regulation on Missouri and other states.

Study and think.  Why would an organization spend 3,000,000 to go after Missouri dog breeders, rather than working with existing laws and legislatures to improve enforcement?

What is HSUS after?

 

Statement From Missouri Veterinary Medical Association Against Prop B

This is the statement from the Missouri Veterinary Medical Assocation on their website about Prop B. 

 

Picking a Reputable, Licensed Dog Breeding Facility Missouri Veterinary Medical Association member veterinarians care very much about the welfare of dogs in breeding facilities in our state.

We have devoted our lives to the treatment of animals and the prevention of suffering and pain. We agree that there is a ‘puppy mill’ problem in Missouri and we want to resolve it.

The issue of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act has come about because breeding facilities that are unlicensed are not being regulated or inspected.

For a side-by-side comparison of the Proposition B ballot initiative and the current Missouri Animal Care Facilities Act click here.

Our state has good existing laws (Click here for current Missouri dog breeder regulations), but those laws need enforcement.

Cases of neglect and bad conditions have come mainly from unlicensed breeders who are not overseen by state inspection.

Passing blanket initiatives (Click to view a copy of the ballot initiative) without careful consideration of the facts and ignoring existing law is not in the best interest of the dogs we are trying to protect.

The MVMA believes the answer lies in adequate funding for more inspections and better enforcement. You can do your part by making certain your next puppy is not from a puppy mill.

Report them, don’t support them! Click here for "Operation Bark Alert" reporting site. For more information, ask your veterinarian for a brochure on “How to Choose a Puppy” or click here to view a copy.

Prop B isn't about animal welfare or puppy cruelty. It's about adding regulations to the pet industry that can be used as a wedge for future legislation and enforcement.  Read the laws on the book.  Vote No on Prop B.

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?