Jump to content
You're comparing auto citations with puppy mill violations. Apples and oranges.
Existing laws are such that they barely ensure that dogs survive, When you violate these laws, the bar is set so low, that the very survival of the dogs is at stake.
To use your apples and oranges analogy, that would be the same as setting driver violations such that you have to be roaring drunk in order to get a DUI; travel at over 100 MPH to get a speeding ticket: and park your car in the middle of the freeway to get a parking violation.
Do not rephrase what I'm saying in order to suit your agenda.
Higher unemployment? Unlikely.
Raising taxes? In what way? This isn't a tax bill.
Bankrupting small business? Unlikely.
Flooding shelters? You all flood the shelters now, with your rejects and your abused and overused dogs.
Death clinics? Please, a limit on hyperbole.
Property rights? If you feel your constitutional rights have been abrogated, file a lawsuit. Note, though, that this is not the first state to put a limit on number of dogs at commercial breeders.
Lastly, if commercial dog breeding were a legitimate industry, why are so many of our state leaders so ashamed at having the most commercial dog breeding operations in the country?
I find it highly unlikely that many, if any, of the violations were not specific to commercial dog breeders.
I have the USDA inspection reports to know that approximately 50% of the breeders licensed by the USDA have violations. In many cases, the violations repeat between inspections, and many are extremely serious.
That's why the audits of both the Missouri Department of Agriculture and the USDA APHIS have shown that both departments are not doing their job when it comes to ensuring the welfare of the dogs.
This is a good reminder. I know that I'm finding myself being increasingly irritated, so it's time to stop.
I don't know why you're fixating on this.
If someone turns in a breeder who they feel is being abusive of the dogs, of course the department has to check it out. But the purpose of Bark Alert is to catch unlicensed breeders.
And the Department of Agriculture is the one who stated that a downside to the program is that the same inspectors who are responsible for licensed breeders, are also responsible for Bark Alert.
The Department does not have enough inspectors, period. The bills currently under consideration do not provide the funding to fully equip the department. One more position specific to Bark Alert does not solve the problems with not enough inspectors.
And with 789 inspections ending with violations, especially with the low bar set by existing standards, there's a problem with the licensed breeders.
Bark Alert was created to go after unlicensed breeders. It's not been used with licensed breeders because supposedly inspectors find them in the course of regular inspections.
But every time someone calls Bark Alert, that's fewer inspections being made of licensed breeders, because the same inspectors have to do both jobs. And no, one whole new position is not going to make a difference -- the department has said that it is understaffed by 7 inspectors and the necessary support.
Of which the legislators will deny any additional general revenue funds. That's also in the fiscal note. "They don't need them"
This is in a fiscal note attached to a bill appended by the oversight committee in response to data supplied by the Department of Agriculture.
Do you want to try that "statistics are misleading" statement again?
You are a breeder who evidently has problems meeting Prop B regulations. You'll find anything and everything to be "misleading" if it makes your point.
You're pulling guesses out of a hat. We already know from Knee Deep in Collies that no, corrections are not being made, things aren't getting better.
There's so many gaps, so much that is lax about existing laws, that it took dying dogs before someone finally moved on Knee Deep.
You're making stuff up as you go. "I heard somewhere that inspectors were told"--you hear this, Ruth, you hear that, but you never substantiate anything you write.
The problem with the existing laws is that when a breeder violates one of them, it's not necessarily a minor thing. The laws for cage size are already too small. The laws about clean water and access to food, are already too minimal. The laws about vet care are appalling--a violation there means a sick, injured dog without any care. A law violating the shelter requirements means dogs freezing in an outdoor kennel without bedding or stuffed in a hot building reeking of ammonia.
When you set a low bar on the existing laws, anything lower that bar means suffering, even death, for the dogs.
I am not willing to let some representatives condemn dogs to this kind of life just so they can placate special interests.
If the breeders can't do the job well, then they need to get out of the business. If they can't provide a decent life for the dogs, they have no business being in the dog breeding business.
From the Bark Alert page
"in 2009, Missouri once again took the lead in cracking down on unlicensed breeders with the launch of Operation Bark Alert."
"Operation Bark Alert has an online reporting system making it easier for you to help us locate unlicensed breeders in Missouri."
"Help the Missouri Department of Agriculture crackdown on unlicensed breeders. If you know of an unlicensed breeder in Missouri putting the health and welfare of animals at risk, report them here."
From the HB 131 fiscal note...
"In FY10, prior to the passage of Proposition B (2010), 789 inspections resulted in violations of Missouri law."
Over half the licensed breeders had violations...and that's with the lax laws currently on the books. And inspectors who have been faulted, in three different audits, for being too lenient, too willing not to write down violations.
And you're talking about 17 licensed kennels...
submit your event »
© 2013 Fulton Sun