Shop LocalMonday, November 1, 2010
Missourians go to the polls Tuesday to decide whether to approve or reject Proposition B, a controversial initiative measure imposing new restrictions on Missouri dog breeders.
The proposed state law was originated by initiative petitions circulated by animal rights groups headed by Missourians for the Protection of Dogs.
Circulators collected an estimated 190,000 signatures on the initiative petitions and Secy. of State Robin Carnahan certified them on Aug. 3. She placed the issue on the Nov. 2 general election ballot as Proposition B.
Many Missouri farm organizations and their Callaway County members are strongly opposed to Proposition B,
The proposed law would prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs if it is the intention to sell puppies as pets. It also would increase the size of living spaces for dogs and require commercial breeders to have their dogs examined each year by a veterinarian.
Supporters include the Humane Society of the United States, Humane Society of Missouri, the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
Opponents include the American Kennel Club, the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners, the Missouri Farm Family Agricultural Alliance, Missouri Farm Bureau, and the Missouri Pork Producers Association.
Supporters of the proposed law have raised $4.4 million. Campaign finance reports reveal that more than 80 percent of the money and in-kind contributions in support of Proposition B came from outside of Missouri. Donations have come from animal rights supporters in California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C.
Ed Sayres, president and CEO of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said “this joint effort and ballot initiative is a crucial step in combating the horrific cruelty perpetuated by many commercial breeders.”
Opponents charge the proposed law limiting the number of breeding dogs is designed to make it more difficult for legal dog breeders who take care of their dogs to stay in business. They say the measure would have no effect on dog breeders who do not comply with current laws banning animal abuse.
Charles Kruse, president of the Missouri Farm Bureau, said “We don’t need out-of-state interests setting public policy here in Missouri. We already have Missouri laws on the books regulating dog breeders. Proposition B will do absolutely nothing to shut down unlawful dog breeders and will instead cause reputable and lawful dog breeders to close their businesses.”
“If Proposition B passes, these radical animal rights organizations and individuals won’t stop there. As experienced in other states, they will work to further regulate Missouri farmers, driving them out of business as well and driving up food costs,” Kruse said.
In an open letter to animal and pet lovers, the Missouri Farm Bureau said the Humane Society of the United States “has an annual budget of more than $130 million and spends less than 1 percent of its funds on actual care of pets. Instead, they use our human emotions and attachments to pets to raise millions of dollars annually to finance their campaigns against farmers and animal agriculture. HSUS and its president, Wayne Pacelle, have an agenda to not only eliminate animal agriculture but also pet ownership.”
Kruse said “the Humane Society of the United States has sport hunting and fishing in their sights, as evidenced by their opposition to Arizona Proposition 109 that is on the Nov. 2 ballot. Kruse said the Humane Society of the United States has given more than $250,000 to defeat the proposition that would give a constitutional protection to the right to hunt and fish in Arizona.”
In a letter to the editor, Edie Maxey, a member of the Callaway County Humane Society, said “Some say Prop B is a conspiracy in conjunction with the Humane Society of the United States to attack our food supply. The truth is Prop B will only affect the food supply of those folks who eat puppies.” She said “the only hunters affected by Prop B would be those who plan to skulk around our back yards hunting puppies. All other hunters can relax.”
Jim Zerr of Williamsburg, a member of the board of directors of the Callaway County Farm Bureau, said many members of local Humane Societies genuinely care about dogs and other pets. “But the Humane Society of the United States has an agenda against farmers,” Zeer said.
Zerr said some local humane societies have or are considering changing their names because they don’t go along with the radical views of the Humane Society of the United States.
He said the national organization used its political action arm “to destroy what little swine industry they had in Florida. They also destroyed the poultry industry in California.”
Zerr said farmers and dog breeders who don’t take care of their animals will lose money. He said setting the number of breeding dogs at 50 will force many dog breeders complying with the law out of business and won’t affect those who are not complying with current law.
Kruse said the Humane Society of the United States, based in Washington, D.C., has contributed $2.12 million in behalf of Proposition B. He said the American Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, based in New York, contributed $511,119 to Proposition B.
Cartoonist Patrick McDonnell, who creates the MUTTS cartoon strip, is a member of the board of directors of the Humane Society of the United States.
“By voting Yes on Prop B and encouraging their friends and family to do the same, my Missouri readers can show the world that the way we treat our animals matters,” McDonnell said.
McDonnell is running a full week of comic strips urging people to save puppy mill dogs. His strip also has addressed the issues of seal slaughter in Canada, whale hunting and saving endangered tigers.
The American Kennel Club opposes the measure because it “will do absolutely nothing to improve the well-being of animals; instead, it would add excessive expenses to responsible breeders who strive to produce well-bred family pets.” The organization recommends enforcement of the current state law.
The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association has a similar view on Proposition B. On its Web site, www.mvma.us, the Missouri veterinarian group offers a side-by-side comparison of the current Missouri law outlawing animal dog breeding abuse and the language of Proposition B.
The Missouri Pork Producers Association says Proposition B “is a backdoor attempt at targeting confined animal feeding operations in Missouri.”
Comments
Anne2010 2 years, 6 months ago
As much as some people want to make this issue about the HSUS and just about everything under the sun, the fact is that it is about puppy mills. Nothing more, nothing less. Prop B applies to dogs and dogs only - there is nothing in the language of the proposition to suggest that it be applied to any other domesticated animal.
If the far-fetched claims about Prop B being the first step in phasing out all animal agriculture sound familiar, it's because they're the same claims used in 1998 to oppose a ban on cockfighting. They weren't true in 1998, and they're not true now.
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.
Furthermore, there is a misconception that only unlicensed breeders are to blame for cruelty and poor conditions in puppy mills. However, there are many breeders who retain licenses (either from the state, the USDA, or both) in spite of numerous citations and failure to provide even the most basic humane conditions for their breeding dogs. The recently released report by the HSUS, Missouri's Dirty Dozen, highlights twelve such breeders. The report can be found at http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2010/10/missouri_dirty_dozen_100610.html
Read the act for yourself at yesonpropb.com, where you will also be able to find answers to common questions, and vote YES on Prop B.
WalkingX 2 years, 6 months ago
Proposition B from the SOS site: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp
(9) ”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) ”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) ”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. AND CAN GO TO JAIL IF I DON'T!!!
They are REDUCING the feeding! By this proposition: (2) ”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!!
LizB 2 years, 6 months ago
People around the country have supported Prop B because Missouri has about 30 percent of the country's puppy mills. These cruel facilities ship dogs to pet stores and sell dogs to consumers all over the country, making this a national problem.
At the same time, more than 190,000 Missouri voters signed petitions to put Prop B on the ballot, and thousands of Missouri volunteers helped gather signatures for the campaign. Thousands of individual Missourians have also donated to support YES! on Prop B.
P.S. The Humane Society of the United States celebrates pets and work to protect them from cruelty -- which is exactly why we're one of the groups supporting Prop B to protect dogs in Missouri puppy mills.
LizB 2 years, 6 months ago
@WalkingX, Prop B doesn't replace any current laws for animal welfare, so it couldn't "reduce" standards: "The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare." Prop B actually clarifies and strengthens several standards of care.
Prop B also states that these basic standards of care only apply to anyone with more than 10 adult, unspayed female dogs being bred to sell their puppies as pets. The 50 breeding dog limit is also clearly spelled out to only apply to dogs being bred to sell their puppies as pets, so it would have no effect on pet owners, livestock farmers, etc.
fultonian 2 years, 6 months ago
WalkingX you stated
What part of AT LEAST once a day means that they are limiting feeding?? It looks to me like owners can feed more than once a day if they wish.
sarah2005 2 years, 6 months ago
Prop B doesn't replace anything, it simply stengthens current regulations and adds to them, making enforcement more likely. Read the measure for yourself, and you will see it is only about dogs. These scare tactics are simply attempts by the opposition to make the issue about something it is not, because it is far more difficult to defend the cruelty.
Additionally, it does not make sense for non-profits to fund regulatory interests. (I also don't think that's legal, but am not sure on that) It applies to both licensed and unlicensed breeders, and is desperately needed in Missouri.
I encourage everyone tomorrow to get out and vote in Missouri - and read the measure for yourself before you do, you will see that it is just about dogs in puppy mills. Nothing more. Nothing less. http:/www.yesonpropb.com/about/read-act
Vote_Yes_on_Prop_B 2 years, 6 months ago
To help set standards for care, Prop B will require an annual veterinary examination for each dog and prompt treatment for any illness or injury—basics of care that most Americans already provide for their dogs. Unlike large-scale mills, responsible breeders already abide by this common-sense standard of care. Missouri’s puppy mills rake in hundreds of thousands of dollars a year in puppy sales; surely they should be able to afford a once-a-year veterinary exam for the breeding animals who are the backbone of their business. Current Missouri regulations already require each licensed breeder to have an attending veterinarian who makes “regularly scheduled” walk-throughs, but Prop B will require that the veterinarian actually examine each individual dog. Given the types of severe ailments seen every day in puppy mills, it’s absurd to think that any inspector would suggest criminal charges for “a scratch on the nose” or other minor issues.
organicivy 2 years, 6 months ago
It is absolute madness that breeding is even allowed whilst animals die in shelters. Don't support breeders - go and adopt an abandoned animal instead.
rock1853 2 years, 6 months ago
More government control is what we need! More taxes, more laws, more prisons! C'mon people.
Sign in to comment
Or login with:
OpenID