Poll on Missouri Proposition B (Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act)
Next week voters in Missouri will decide if they want to pass Proposition B:
“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.
Fair Ballot Language:
A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law 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. The amendment further prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets. The amendment also creates a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations.A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding dog breeders.
If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.”
The poll this week seeks to get a sense of how readers feel about this issue.
From the pro side:
“Missouri is home to an estimated 3,000 puppy mills, breeding hundreds of thousands of puppies, far more than any other state in the country. Dogs at puppy mills typically receive little to no medical care, live in squalid conditions with no exercise, socialization or human interaction, and are confined inside cramped wire cages for life. Dogs at puppy mills must endure constant breeding cycles. Dogs from puppy mills are sold in pet stores, online and directly to consumers with little to no regard for the dog’s health, genetic history or future welfare.” (source)
From the con side:
“As families in Missouri struggle to make ends meet, radical animal rights activists are using emotional ballot language to push economy crippling legislation. If Prop B were to pass:
- BLUE RIBBON KENNELS WILL BE FORCED TO CLOSE DUE TO EXCESSIVE REGULATION AND PENALTIES
- JOBS WILL BE LOST AT PET STORES, KENNELS, AND FOOD PRODUCERS WHO EMPLOY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MISSOURIANS STATEWIDE
- HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF TAX DOLLARS A YEAR WILL BE WASTED ENFORCING NEEDLESS REGULATIONS ON MISSOURI’S RESPECTED, LICENSED DOG-BREEDERS, WHILE THE UNLICENSED PROBLEM-BREEDERS REMAIN UNCHECKED
While unemployment rates continue to rise, Proposition B will cause more small businesses to go under and put many Missourians out of their jobs.” (Source)
Further reading:
- Ballotpedia
- Supporters (Missourians for the Protection of Dogs)
- Opposition (Alliance for Truth)
- ‘Puppy mill’ proposition divides state (Columbia Daily Tribune)
The poll is in the upper right corner of the blog. Â The final results will be presented before the vote on Tuesday November 2, 2010.
– Steve Patterson
We already have animal cruelty laws that are used, apparently successfully, against the worst examples. This appears to be just trying to establish an arbitrary threshold. Why 50? Why not 40 or 66 or 23? Why just dogs? Why not cats, hamsters, chickens, pigs or catfish? Commercial animal production ain't warm and cuddly. I guess if you agree with PETA. it's a good idea, but if you're a member of the FFA, not so much . . .
There is a reason why 30% of the nation's puppies are breed in Missouri.
We're also number one in meth labs. Hint, it's because there's a demand. If people actually went to shelters and adopted mutts, instead of going to pet shops and/or paying big bucks for “pure bred” from breeders, demand would fall. We breed 30% of the supply because a) there's money to be made, b) the cost of entry is low and the education requirements minimal, c) there's an inrastructure in place (breeding stock, distribution, supplies, etc.), and d) other ways to make more/better money aren't available.
You are a very evil person. You probably beat your wife and abuse your children too.
And you don't? But seriously, calling people names won't solve the problem, addressing the core issues will. The bottom line is the bottom line. We have puppy mills because people are willing to spend hunderds or thousands of dollars to acquire the “perfect” specimen, when there are plenty of pets available at every shelter in America. I have never bought a dog from a breeder or a pet shop, nor will I ever do so. I'm not a part of the problem (while you very well may be). But adding another layer of goverment regulation, with little hope of real enforcement, based on feel-good, tear-jerk advertising is, in my mind, a waste of time and another notch in marginalizing our whole law enforcement system. But if you want to push for more humane treatment of animals, the real abuses are happening in the meat production arena, not in a handful of puppy mills . . .
In other words, Missour-ah breeds 30% of the nation's puppies AND is #1 in meth labs because it's full of mouthbreathing, backhill, inbred rednecks? I actually agree with you there.
It is fair to question where “50” came from, and why it's better than any other arbitrary number. I suspect it's an approximation of how many breeding dogs (in addition to their offspring) that a single entity can actually take care of at a single location. (If you read the law, it specifies 50 breeding dogs… there could be a further ~400 individual dogs during a breeding season.)
Perhaps this could be improved by scaling with the number of full-time employees, distinct locations, etc. But 50 is a great starting point given our current environment of puppy mills in Missouri.
It is sad though. We have turn things in to our Sheriff department and they don't take it serious. I even went over their heads but the person I talked too said if they had horses they might come out there and check it out.
You obviously do not know what you are talking about. Warm and cudly means cute little puppies that should be spoiled and loved, not someone that sees them only as a profit. These puppy mill people are cold hearted and all they care about is 1 more dollar in their pocket. They need to be locked up in a wire cage all their life, get fed and watered when ever I feel like it. And throw them away when they stop making money for these evil
Hey, I agree. But the only reason we have puppy mills is because people are willing to PAY! Get rid of the profit motive (outlaw the AKC and dog shows?) and Bubba Joe will switch from breeding puppies to something more profitable, like making meth or building travel trailers!
I am a breeder and you do not know what you are talking about. There are bad breeders just as there are bad lawyers, doctors etc. I take very good care of my dogs and they all are spoiled and loved. There are very strict rules already in place and I am only speaking for myself but my dogs are fed and watered several times a day with fresh food and water. I am not cold hearted nor a puppy mill. Raising puppies has been and I hope can continue to be a big part of our families lives including my grandchildren who love to play with all the puppies. My husband and I are very hard working people and I am very proud of my kennel. You obviously do not know what you are talking about.
You may not be a cruel breeder but the point you seem to not understand is that the dogs you are breeding did not and can not give their written consent to be bred. They might not want to be bred. With bad doctors, their patients must give their permission to be treated on, and with surgeries, need a written signature. Your dogs did not give you permission to breed them and they certainly cannot sign for anything.
Breeding is a cruel practice by itself. There are already too many dogs in shelters without homes, so why breed? It's barbaric. A pure bred is worth no more than a mutt. All dogs, all creatures, are created equal. I'm sorry you don't value the life of your dogs as much as your own.
You know…I'm so tired of this argument. That animals don't want to be bred. You know, they have the SAME innate “drive” to reproduce as any creature does. It's how a species survives, domestic or wild. Breeding is not a cruel practice…it's a natural and necessary activity, if they are to survive beyond this generation. Unless you believe that dogs should become extinct…then breeding must occur… Or are you one of the PeTA supporters who believe that dogs and cats, or anything for that matter, should never live life as a pet. And that humans have NO business living with any other creature other than OTHER HUMANS?
And when animals start “signing” forms that give their permission for anything…call Guiness immediately. They don't give written permission to be treated by their vet. They don't give written permission to have their reproductive organs ripped from them. They don't give written permission for anything…WE are their caretakers. And some of us are irresponsible, and most of us are VERY responsible. And without breeding, there will be no life OTHER than mine TO value. Because without breeding, there are NO MORE ANIMALS. What an incite-filled statement.
The Humane Society of Missouri endorses Prop B. I just got an email from someone saying that Prop B is the work of the Humane Society of the US, not the Missouri Humane Society. The email was leading to me to believe that it was outsiders coming in to push this on Missourians. They failed to mention that the Missouri Humane Society endorses Prop B.
http://member.hsmo.org/site/PageServer?pagename=No_MO_Puppy_Mills
This is about Missouri and our rights, along with us being able to do the right thing. We have needed this for a long time and now is our time to make a difference by voting YES on Prop. B.
I'm amazed that anybody takes opposition to this law seriously. It's a vocal minority of selfish people, followed by a small contingent of the mindlessly idealistic (i.e. political fanatics with “results-be-damned” attitudes).
Regardless, the proposed law would simply make it easier to enforce animal cruelty prohibitions. Requiring dog breeders to treat their animals humanely should be the baseline; it's not an excessive requirement. Opposition doesn't even address this issue, preferring to complain about how it will hurt their personal wealth and making up scenarios in which our economy crashes. The truth is that dog breeders don't significantly impact our state economy. Further, a well-regulated industry can actually improve the economic results. And most importantly, it doesn't matter if a few thousand people struggle as a result of this law: we don't legalize heroin and cocaine simply because a few thousand dealers would like to make more money off the trade.
We need to stop giving such attention to vocal minorities pushing stupid agendas. We the people are responsible for governing ourselves and this includes regulating unethical behavior. This is our duty to ourselves, and to the animals in our care.
“And most importantly, it doesn't matter if a few thousand people struggle as a result of this law: we don't legalize heroin and cocaine simply because a few thousand dealers would like to make more money off the trade.”
thank you! and IMHO, people who make their living abusing animals DESERVE to struggle.
All the while, animal lovers across the world are sending money to HSUS making them one of the richest organizations in the world. Little do the animal lovers know, ALMOST ALL OF THE MONEY THEY SEND HSUS goes to bonuses, raises, pensions, etc….LESS THAN 1% OF THE TOTAL YEARLY INCOME FOR HSUS ACTUALLY GOES TO HELPING ANIMALS!! (and yes folks the information is out there to find!) I sure am glad they are the ones coming to the rescue of these poor animals…I would hate for HSUS to have to “struggle” to make a buck! You know how many more millions this will bring in to the HSUS…and guess what…IT'S ALL FREE MONEY! Let's make sure all the HSUS people don't have to “struggle”, all the while the dogs they “rescue” can sit in even smaller cages until they figure out what to do with them…because of course, HSUS doesn't have to comply with their own rules! I'M VOTING NO!
It is so obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about.
It never ceases to amaze me that people will complain how national companies won't invest in Missouri while the same people simultaneously defending the Redneck character (IE puppy mills) of so much of the state. As my father said, I've never seen a state where so many people pride themselves in being backward. The results is lack of investment in Missouri, and its relegation to further down the list of “flyover states.”
Prop B would establish common sense standards of care for Missouri's breeding dogs and it is supported by many vets, animal rescue groups, clergy members, business owners, and citizens of Missouri. Vote YES on Prop B!
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. Prop B will increase enforcement, and specifically increase and facilitate local law enforcement as compared to the existing vague and highly technical puppy mill regulations. The measure not only provides new, easily understandable criminal penalties for mistreatment, it does so without wiping out or eliminating the existing laws and penalties.
The fact is that 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 many Missouri veterinarians urge a “YES†vote on Prop B. Anyone wanting to read the full act and also find answers to commonly asked questions can go to: http://www.yesonpropb.com/about/qa
Actually, I find that Prop B is vague compaired to the old law…and how difficult can it be for a law enforcement officer to identify if a dog is starving to death or being mistreated??? I would think it would be pretty easy to tell if a dog is a rack of bones or extremely sick! And do you really think a breeder is going to be able to make much of a profit of their dogs if they don't feed and water them? Common sense! Prop B isn't going to stop anything…we have laws, they need to be enforced! And what about those individual dog owners that keep their dogs tied out on a leash with a little ol dog house? Aren't those dogs being exposed to extremes of heat and cold? What about farm dogs??? Or how about those people that don't believe in electricity (and yes folks, there are those people out there!) Are they not allowed to have dogs because they won't be able to have fans or air conditioners running?? And why is it that HSUS and other “rescue organizations” don't have to comply with their own rules??? What's up with that?? I'm voting NO!
I have dug into this extensively. One of the cons you haven't mentioned is that there is already extensive Missouri law that cover these requirements. RSMO 273.325 through 273.333, in particular. There is very little difference between the existing law and the ballot proposition; just the limit of 50 breeder dogs and the penalty for violations. The lead proponent of this measure is the Human Society of Missouri. They produced a report that highlights twelve egregious violators, and they use this to support their claim that more needs to be done. However, the report itself talks about how these breeders have been shut down. To me, shows that the existing law is working.
On the other hand, I don't buy the “excessive regulation and penalties” argument. The proposition does not mention regulatory requirements. A misdemeanor penalty for mistreating an animal does not seem excessive to me.
It feels like political grandstanding, to me. An emotionally charged ballot issue that makes no difference whether it passes or fails is exactly the sort of thing Karl Rove orchestrated to bring out conservative voters, only this time it would seem to be an issue that incites liberal voters.
My dad is conservative and he's planning on voting for it.
Then he isn't much of a conservative. Why would a conservative vote to support a bogus measure pushed by an out of state non-profit corporation that runs a fund raising factory to finance campaigns designed to take rights away from people in favor of animals? Has you dad read the existing law and the proposed law? Proposition B is mostly duplicative of Missouri's existing laws. But take notice that Prop B holds professional breeders to higher standards that animal shelters or individual pet owners. That was the HSUS strategy to get this thing passed. Many animal shelters fail MDA inspections. But you don't see HSUS decrying to sorry conditions of those shelters. Wayne Pacelle and HSUS fully intend to take away your rights to own or use any kind of animal. They will move slowly and cautiously to avoid controversy. But that is their agenda.
No conservative would support such an agenda.
Former Ag Teacher (if that really is your profession)
My father grew up on a farm, still owns and manages two farms, and come from a line of farmers going back centuries. First and foremost, he was always taught that the proper and humane treatment of animals ALWAYS comes before profit. He is not so stupid and gullible to think that PETA will attempt to ban cattle and other livestock herds if this bill passes.
He is also not so much of a blind ideological conservative fanatic that he will not vote for something that some anonymous poster on claims “no conservative will for.”
And the HSUS and PETA aren't stupid either…do you really think they are going to come right out and tell you what their ultimate goal is…OH WAIT…THEY ALREADY HAVE!! HSUS Preside Wayne Pacelle stated himself, “We have no problem with the extinction of ALL DOMESTIC ANIMALS”!! There you have it folks…you don't have to be a conservative, liberal, black, white, green or brown to understand that!! I'm voting NO!
Great post and sooooo right. God Bless You and yours.
A conservative would vote yes for it because it is just the right thing to do. No more, no less.
Former Ag teacher, just wanted to tell you that your views are completely messed up and I know that I can't convince of you of anything in a paragraph.
First, you say “taking away people's rights in favor of animals” as if animals are some inferior commodity for humans to use. Humans are a type animal, you know. We are animals. Dogs feel the same pain and suffer just like we do. Dogs are not ours to breed. Animals should have RIGHTS like we have rights. I'm not talking about voting rights here, I'm talking about the right to be left alone and not used for human profit.
I am a little disturbed by your third-to-last sentence which states “HSUS fully intend to take away our rights to own or use any animal” – yet you fail to mention the lack of rights that said animal has in that situation, and you used the word “use” as if we're supposed to be using animals in the first place.
You are wrong. These new laws will force law enforcement to do their job and hold these people accountable with fines and jail time. Which is what needs to be done.
You're living in a fantasy world. Look at how successful the war on drugs has been. How has all our drug laws “force[d] law enforcement to do their job and hold these people accountable with fines and jail time”?! If there's money to be made, laws wil be ignored and law enforcement compromised – google “mexican drug cartels”. Like anna pointed out earlier, it's one thing to complain, a whole 'nuther to get results!
Michael I've heard that argument before. Anti-prop Bers keep saying “It's already a law.” So if that's the case, WHY NOT VOTE FOR IT AGAIN? Is your logic really just to vote no because it's already a law?
Murder is illegal. If a prop was “make murder illegal in missouri!” Would you vote no since it's already a law? Lol
No new regulations that don't add anything to laws already on the books. The 50 is definitely arbitrary. My dog came from a breeder that holds more than this number. She is licensed and her facility is clean and well run. She has regular inspections. She also provides much needed part-time employment for students and others in a small rural area. I know the lady, I know many of the kids who've worked there. If you're supporting this legislation simply because it's supported by The Humane Society, you should be aware that to fully support the Humane Society, you need to become a vegetarian. They are against animal breeding in agriculture as well. Proposition B does not provide the funding needed to enforce it. Existing laws lack funding for enforcement and so will Prop B. The only result of Prop B will be ending some legitimate businesses and cutting out needed employment.
50 breeding animals also makes very little sense because it makes it so much harder to provide “rest periods” between breeding cycles.
FACT: Prop B does not require breeders to upgrade their kennels if they already provide basic standards of care outlined by the Act. The average person assumes, and expects, that anyone caring for a live animal will provide decent and reasonable care. Under Prop B, a commercial breeder who has 40 females and 10 males can produce approximately 200 to 400 puppies a year (breeding each female twice in each 18 month period). With these sales, a commercial breeder can earn more than $100,000.
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 (in other words, if they spay/neuter the dogs over 50 they come into compliance). There is a network of animal shelters and rescue groups prepared to remove and re-home dogs should mill owners request assistance with placement. Since puppy mills have one year to comply with the new law before it takes effect, animal shelters or rescue groups won’t be flooded simultaneously.
I do understand what you are saying, but it's worth the few legitimate breeders losing a few dollars compared to all the thousands of dogs that suffer every day of their life.
Proposition B is just one more example of Missouri hanging the “Closed” sign out when businesses come calling. If an out of state activist group like HSUS can dupe voters into passing such an exaggerated, unbased bill as Prop. B, then radical activists know they can crush any industry they want by jumping on a demoniztion campaign. And no industry wants to move into a place that would pass a law like Prop. B.
The precedent set by Prop B will damage commerce beyond the dog industry. If a law can limit how many dogs a professional kennel can own, how hard will it be to pass a law that limits how many employees one business can have.
Keep in mind, most of us individual pet owners couldn't meet the standards in Prop. B. Once in a while, my dog doesn't get exercise during the day. Sometimes the little rascal will drop food in his water bowl and I won't find it for a few hours. Both of those things are considered misdemeanor cruelty in Prop B.
The Missouri Department of Agriculture has released the opinion that no kennel can comply with Prop. B
Please vote no on Prop. B. It is a bad law being pushed by an out of state radical animal rights group that wants to eventually take away your rights.
MYTH: Prop B is the first step to ending all animal agriculture and hunting in Missouri.
FACT: Prop B only covers dogs bred to produce puppies sold commercially as pets—no other species of animal—and includes a specific exemption for hunting dogs. It could not be more clear that this measure has no impact on sportsmen or agriculture. Fifteen states recently passed strong laws cracking down on abusive puppy mills, including major agricultural states, giving dogs basic humane standards of care such as food, water, veterinary care, exercise and shelter. Missouri is the largest puppy mill state, but is lagging behind on dog protection—that’s why Prop B is needed. It’s absurd to think that these new policies have any effect on policies related to livestock. In fact, our opponents made the same arguments in 1998 during the debate over the ballot initiative to ban cockfighting in Missouri, and 12 years later, there has been no attempt to impact livestock agriculture or sport hunting in the state through the Legislature or through the initiative process. Their claims dating back 12 years proved false, and the invoking of these same scare tactics are equally false today.
MYTH: Proposition B targets those who are already licensed and inspected by the Missouri Department of Agriculture. It does nothing to address the real problem — unlicensed breeders.
FACT: 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— thousands of dogs are confined for life in small wire cages to produce puppies. This is a serious problem in the state, and needs to be addressed.
Many facilities have lost their federal USDA licenses for improper care of dogs, but continue to operate under Missouri state licenses. Dogs are crammed into small and filthy cages, denied veterinary care, exposed to extremes of heat and cold, and not given exercise or human affection. Prop B will set clear and understandable dog welfare standards across the board. Responsible breeders who are providing adequate shelter, food, water, and veterinary care will feel no effects from the passage of Prop B, nor will small-scale hobby breeders be affected.
MYTH: Breeders can’t afford to upgrade their kennels.
FACT: Prop B does not require breeders to upgrade their kennels if they already provide basic standards of care outlined by the Act. The average person assumes, and expects, that anyone caring for a live animal will provide decent and reasonable care. Under Prop B, a commercial breeder who has 40 females and 10 males can produce approximately 200 to 400 puppies a year (breeding each female twice in each 18 month period). With these sales, a commercial breeder can earn more than $100,000.
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 (in other words, if they spay/neuter the dogs over 50 they come into compliance). There is a network of animal shelters and rescue groups prepared to remove and re-home dogs should mill owners request assistance with placement. Since puppy mills have one year to comply with the new law before it takes effect, animal shelters or rescue groups won’t be flooded simultaneously.
MYTH: We don’t need new laws, but just need to improve enforcement.
FACT: Prop B does not change any of the existing enforcement structure. It will increase the likelihood that local law enforcement will actually act.
You are so full of false information. Are you getting paid to do this??? Do you believe what you write? People,this is a prime example of why you should take the time to do your own research. It would be a full time job following this misinformed individual. Where do you get your information??? From HSUS??? I got mine from the actual text of the statute. Also read #9 in the full text of the Statute (Sec of State website). What is the Definition of 'pet'. Cows, pigs, chickens, sheep,etc are domesticated animals. Also. How close in 'near'. Are you sure its not a step in ending animal agriculture??? To understand this you will have to go look at the actual text. Try not to reply until you do. And you said I was a liar!!!!! Really???
Just wanted to ask you another question. If this isn't the first step in ending animal agriculture, why do we have the support of the MO Cattlemens Assoc, MO Farm Bureau, MO Assoc of Veterinarians…the list goes on and on. Go to http://www.thealliancefortruth.com for endorsements against Prop b. Just also want everyone to know that even if this passes we won't go down without a fight. We have more heart and drive to work hard for something in our little finger than the animal rights movement and all of their terrorist friends do as an entire group.
I have seen puppymills and am now a reputable show breeder of AKC Samoyeds and I suppost Prop B. When I was uneducated I went to these place and saw the filth and cages these dogs had to live in. Dogs are not cattle and hogs they deserve better than a cage 12 inches bigger than their own body (Present USDA law). Dogs can be trained to save peoples live by tracking down the lost, detecting cancer, or protecting our law enforcment. That is why they are called mans best friend. Cattle and hogs are not on the same level as Dogs. Dogs should not have to live on wire their entire life because the puppy farmer is to lazy and wants it to fall below so thay dont have to clean as often. VOTE YES ON PROP B!!!
I have seen a real puppy mill too, and they are not pretty. My family friends lived next door to one in western St. Louis County. The owners did not care about their animals, did not add much to the local economy, and terrorized their neighbors when the abused dogs escaped and bit my friends. I don't blame the dogs, knowing the conditions they were living in.
Can we please shed Missouri's reputation as redneck country? That will do more for investment than being a safe haven for puppy mills.
so because you both have seen a “puppy mill” that means you both know what EVERY FACILITY looks like? I agree that the “True” Puppy Mills should be shut down, but not everyone should be punished for those “lazy” people. There is always the good and the bad in everything…why should the good be punished for the bad's mistakes??
You obviously know that no one has seen every puppy mill, but if you only see 1 or 2 then it is a no brainer that something needs to be done to change how these thousands of dogs are treated.
AKC is opposed to prop b!!!Just so you know!!!And YOU as a show breeder do not hav to comply. How Convenient!!!
You are soooo very wrong and not worth listening to. That is just one more lie and that is all the puppy mill industries have are LIES!!!
Read #7 of the proposed statute. You can find it on the Sec of States Web site. Shelters are also exempt from this Proposition. Also while your online go to the AKC website and search 'Missouri proposition b'. You may e suprised to learn that I, in fact, am telling the truth. On the other hand, HSUS has produced bogus breeders and a Veterinarian from Texas to be in their commercials pushing prop b. The people that you are trying to put out of business are real people with real families to support. We are NOT cruel to our animals. We know more about taking care of them than most people can imagine. We don't have to lie about anything. Everyone needs to know that the animal rights movement is big business!!! that is most of what all of this is about. The Humane Society of the United States is the major money backer of this proposition. As of Oct 1st 1.6 MILLION. Also just so everyone knows…If you give the HSUS $10, ONLY 5 cents goes to any local shelter. If you are willing to research any of this you will find that I am not a liar…just informed.
I don't understand why, if non-licensed puppy mills are responsible for the cruelty to the animals and are selling them in legitimate outlets, i.e. pet stores, this proposition doesn't require that the license number be required on any papers or bill of sale for these animals. I believe many people must be buying these pets under the belief they are coming from regulated, licensed breeders.
That is one of the huge problems. People are spending hundreds of $$$ on these so called top of the line puppies just to get them home and find out how sick they are. Many die within weeks of being purchased from a pet store.
As opposed to spending hundreds of $$$ for an adoption fee at a local shelter. What is the percentage of puppies that die within a few weeks of being puchased??? I've been doing this for many years and know that that is a very rare occurance. You are the myth buster, so please get back to me with the numbers. It is ok to want to purchase a purebred dog. People have a right to like Yorkies more that they like Labs. Yes, If this passes the price for such breeds are going to skyrocket. You can always go to your local Show breeder. They will be in full swing. And charging TOP dollar.
http://kmox.cbslocal.com/shows/mark-reardon/
Go to segment dated 10/25/10 titled Pros and Cons of Prop B to hear the lies told by Barbara Schmitz.
Barbara only speaks the truth so just because you say she is a lier does not make it so.
O rightous one tell me more. I listened to this radio show where she was making it up as she went. Very entertaining for me. Too bad it isn't required listening in order to vote on this scam of a proposition.
Proposition B from the SOS site: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp
(9) â€Pet†means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.
Domesticated animals are cattle, hogs, turkeys, chickens, etc. I am really wondering why the word “pet†means domesticated animals. IF they get this definition in the state, will they be after cattle, hogs, goats, sheep, etc.?
This proposition is cleverly written: (8) â€Person†means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or syndicate.
This will get Cargill, Tyson, all the big animal industry in Missouri, along with all of the small farmers and larger. IF this passes, and “pet†definition is in the law, I am in trouble! If I have 20 cows, one bull and 20 goats and one billy. 42 head. Not a problem until they have little ones, BAM, I am in violation of the new law. I cannot keep farming with this amount of “pets†due to the costs of equipment, fuel, etc., and loss of income due this 50 limit.
(3) â€Necessary veterinary care†means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed “Acceptable†by the American Veterinary Medical Association.
I have to have a vet check all my animals once a year, and have to use them to doctor ANY ILLNESS OR INJURY? I can doctor my dog for a cold or minor cut. I do use a vet for ANYTHING serious, but this states ALL. IF the pet rules apply to all domesticated animals, and I have to have a vet check all of them once a year, this will bankrupt me and most farmers very quickly.
They are REDUCING the feeding! By this proposition: (2) â€Sufficient food and clean water†means access to appropriate nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health; and continuous access to potable water that is not frozen, and is free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants.
Current MO law states that the breeders feed twice a day. IF they are wanting to help animals, why only feed once a day?
This is on the ballot. PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE! OVER $620,000 dollars are minimally required for this proposition out of our currently strapped budget. Please consider the ramifications that this proposition could do to the farmers of Missouri. I am dead set against ANYONE who is cruel to ANY animal. I would support this bill if it had a funding source, and went after the ILLEGAL “puppy mills†and stated just that. With the 164 MILLION dollars that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) currently has, why don’t they fund this effort? Why take away more revenue from OUR TAX DOLLARS to fund their Proposition?
PLEASE VOTE NO ON PROP B!!
I guess you can type whatever you want but you still are a lier. And by the way, you lose!!!!!
Getting flustered yet. Gslittlebit, its written on the statute! Walking x just typed what the statute actually said. How can you argue that??? You have been told what to think and say so now all you can come back with is 'You lose'. Come on! Take some pride and do your own research! You have called everyone you reply to a liar. Prove your point or get over it!
Lots of talk. Little facts. How many enforcements have happened over the last 5 years? How many breeders are there? What laws are currently on the books for cruelty? Why are they not enough? Is it a problem with laws or enforcement?
We should, in general, be kind to animals.
One must not lump all breeders into the “puppy mill” category.
A true breeder's aim is to keep the integrity of that breed.
Breeder DOES NOT = PUPPY MILL.
I am a huge advocate of prop B. I laugh when people tell me the “cons,” such as 1) Factory farm animals will be regulated also which will decrease meat quality and 2) licensed dog breeders and pet store workers will be out of jobs.
These are PROS, not cons. I am a vegan and do not eat any living creature, thus, regulating factory farming is a plus. Second, I want dog breeding to go out of business. It's not something people should be doing for a living. It is an evil, corrupt career choice. There's plenty of dogs without homes at shelters, we don't need breeders. This prop screams PLUS PLUS PLUS PLUS =)