LETTER: The facts about the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act

Friday, February 12, 2010 | 7:03 p.m. CST; updated 7:10 p.m. CST, Friday, February 12, 2010

The Missouri Cattlemen’s Association and their recently crowned “Beef Queen” Morgan Kueckelhan falsely characterize the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act and the work of The Humane Society of the United States ("Puppy mill initiative has some worried about its agriculture consequences," Feb. 10). One is left to wonder if they have even read the measure. Anyone who has read the bill will easily understand that it only covers dogs used to produce puppies sold as pets — no other species of animal. It could not be more clear that this measure has no impact on agriculture. It simply provides more humane treatment of dogs at large-scale puppy mills. It's absurd to think that these new policies have any effect on policies related to livestock.

A dozen states recently passed strong laws cracking down on abusive puppy mills, including major agricultural states such as Indiana, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. These laws give 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.

Missouri's puppy mills are cruel and inhumane. Dogs are confined in small cages for years on end with no exercise or human attention, and they are typically forced to live in small wire cages, exposed to extremes of heat and cold. All dogs deserve humane treatment. Readers can learn more or support this effort by going to

Stephanie Shain is the senior director of the Puppy Mills Campaign for the Humane Society of the United States.


Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Joe Overlease February 12, 2010 | 10:53 p.m.

Part 1

You bet the good honest hardworking people of Missouri are worried about this liberal crack pot animal rights bill. I am glad to see you wrote in so we could have this opportunity to expose the mouth peace of the HSUS. Before I tear into you and forget. "How is the audit coming along by the IRS?"

You people caught them sleeping in Pa. OR and Washington, you helped steal about half the dogs Virginia and managed to pull the wool over their eyes on the 50 dog limit, and are already trying to lower the number in OR. The interesting fact is you people know that the magic number for profitability and good health for a breeding facility is Minimally 60 dogs allowing for 25% being young dogs and 25 to 30% retired or resting at any given time. You want to rip the ability of anyone or any business to grow and thrive. Tell me just who in the heck do YOU think you are?

You got by in Indiana and Wisconsin because they had not developed a organized base to fight out of state intrusions
like the HSUS. I would call you a pig but I would not want to hurt the image of our states pork industry through association of the likes of you.

What amazes me is how you people have not been attacked on the street by people who you are trying to steal their business, take money out of their pockets and food from their children's mouths. You run off at the mouth and insult thousands of hard working honest Christian people who love and care for their animals properly everyday. You Puke!

These people make real contributions to this world, unlike you people who are hired prostitutes who walk around and write articles and glad hand people who don't know any better than to have a illicit relationship with you and the other vegans of the HSUS. You people lie about who you are and what you are doing, even the signature gathers are telling property owners they are there getting signatures to repeal a sales tax issue, they fail to tell them they are there to destroy Missouri Agriculture... I wonder why?

(Report Comment)
Joe Overlease February 12, 2010 | 10:54 p.m.

Part 2
You have come uninvited to Missouri and run off your BIG ugly mouth, so far you just have had words fly back at you for now. So for now the breeders and farmers are unarmed, I suggest you pack up and go back east and stay there... But don't forget there are breeders in Maryland and Virginia and a few still in PA and there are farmers there as well, you have already robbed those people of their farms and their dreams. So any reception you get you probably have earned it.

Some may think my reply to you may be a little harsh, I want everyone to know that you are trying to hurt Missouri, not just the breeders, but the dog food companies, the pet stores, the Vets, the Groomers, Ground transportation, the airlines, our schools from loss of a tax base, You are going to cost Missouri untold billions as you work your little crooked weave. All based on your lies and insults.


Do you really think we are stupid here in Missouri? You think we are going to allow you to get away with this treachery?

All I can say is, we in Missouri are called "The show me State" you have shown us enough and have awakened the sleeping giant.

Oh there is one other thing, I am really getting tired of you bad mouthing the hard working people who work in the Missouri Department of Agriculture. These people are professional dedicated and honest. They are devoted to enforcing Missouri animal welfare laws and have been doing so for close to twenty years.

So in Closing I am gonna say we will see ya, but I would not want to be ya.

Get outta here Ya jerk!

(Report Comment)
Elizabeth Martin February 12, 2010 | 11:02 p.m.

Thank you for this well written, and factual, article. If you go to the AKC's website, you can view their list of "Dog Federation Clubs" which is where this anti Hsus/Peta diatribe has spewed from. They are even trying to convince the public that alllllll the animal "rights" folks want to eliminate people's personal pets, too. lololol

It's called 'scare tactics' - they are losing money, and creditation since Akc is now openly supporting the "high volume breeding operations" that some folks call "puppy mills".

They are telling lies in order to try to get voters from supporting any pro pet legislature.

Check the facts - the facts tell the truth - not these "dog clubs".
Even their own people are turning against them since they've found out that they are aligning themselves with the NRA, animal/medical research, fur farms, rodeos, circuses, vivisection, the Canadian seal hunt, puppy mills, and on and on an on.

Don't let these folks fool you - because they will try their best.

(Report Comment)
Elizabeth Martin February 12, 2010 | 11:05 p.m.

So sorry, Mr. Joe - but COWS, PIGS, HORSES, GOATS, CHICKENS ETC....... are livestock.

You ARE the weakest link. Goodbye.


(Report Comment)
Gwen Jones February 12, 2010 | 11:26 p.m.

No the AKC is not the ones that have started all of the anti HSUS/PeTA diatribe. Sadly they are only beginning to catch up in the last couple of years.
No, all of the anti stuff was started years ago by people who woke up and smelled the roses.
This 2007 article gives a lot of good information about what has happened and what will happen.
I can go back even further. So peeper peepers - check out your facts before you go spouting the HSUS/PeTA diatribe that you are being fed by these same groups.

Also to further clarify your standing:
Domestic animals include livestock; which then can be subdivided into the groups of cattle, horses, sheep, etc.
Pets are actually classified as companion animals in the technical, then they go to the higher grouping of domestic animals.
Thus both livestock and companion pets are in the same large group of domestic animals.
Which then you conclude they are included in the definition as given by the Attorney General.
Further the dictionary defines a domestic animal as follows:
an animal, as the horse or cat, that has been tamed and kept by humans as a work animal, food source, or pet, esp. a member of those species that have, through selective breeding, become notably different from their wild ancestors.
For further clarification, domestic animal is used in this definition of animal husbandry:
animal husbandry
n. The branch of agriculture concerned with the care and breeding of domestic animals such as cattle, hogs, sheep, and horses.

I think we just figured out who is the weakest link.

(Report Comment)
Jenny Thrasher February 12, 2010 | 11:46 p.m.

Here is the official Animal Rights 12 Point Agenda, as accepted by the Animal RIghts Movement, embraced by Wayne Pacelle and Ingrid Newkirk, of HSUS and PETA, respectively
(Gee, is it any wonder we are not impressed by the Animal Rightists? How much of this looks familiar to everybody):

The 12 steps of the animal rights agenda

1. Abolish by law all animal research. (There would be no cures for AIDS, cancer, heart disease, etc., and testing of new drugs would be done on humans, or not at all.)

2. Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, and classroom demonstration (physicians would perform their first surgeries and procedures on humans without any previous experience).

3. Vegetarian meals should be at all public institutions, including schools.

4. Eliminate all animal agriculture (resulting in no milk, eggs, chicken, fish, or meat for food, no leather for shoes or clothing). (How many foods do you eat that contain eggs or dairy products, or a derivative of the same? Did you know your keyboard and mouse may have been made with animal products?)

5. Eliminate all herbicides, pesticides or other agricultural chemicals. Outlaw predator control.(Farmers would not be able to produce as much food as they do now, driving the cost of living up, and eliminating the export of food to hungry nations. Animals such as coyotes are already a problem in some areas, coming into yards to eat garbage and prey upon outdoor pets.)

6. Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the Department of Agriculture. (Animal issues would be controlled by people with little or no experience in customary animal husbandry.

7. Eliminate fur ranching and the use of furs.

8. Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.

9. End the international trade in wildlife goods.

10. Stop any further breeding of companion animals, including purebred dogs and cats. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by state and municipal governments until all companion animals are extinct. Abolish commerce in animals for the pet trade. Eliminate pet ownership.

11. End the use of animals in entertainment and sports (resulting in no horse shows, cat or dog shows, animal actors, rodeos, animal movie stars).

12. Prohibit the genetic manipulation of the species (resulting in the elimination of critical medical research relating to Cancer, AIDS and other life threatening diseases, as well as crop production improvements such as the difference between the Holstein and the Angus, and eliminate all pedigreed animals, etc... ).

(Report Comment)
Joe Overlease February 12, 2010 | 11:52 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Jenny Thrasher February 13, 2010 | 12:13 a.m.

The comments of Stephanie Shain of the HSUS need to be addressed, as per her listing of the other states that were blindsided by HSUS laws last session. Not one of those laws in those states is as stringent as the current law on the books for the state of Missouri. I know, I helped review all of them.

This Ballot Initiative measure is redundant, and if the proponents of the measure actually did some research, they would see that. But no, they have the President and Director of the HSMo lying about it all. Yes, they are lying when they say that this measure would suddenly require adequate food,water, shelter, exercise, and vet care because they know this to be untrue- with the exception of the fee for the license, ALL MISSOURI SHELTERS ARE HELD TO THE EXACT SAME REGULATIONS AS ALL COMMERCIAL KENNELS. So they know exactly what is required of Missouri Breeders, that extensive pages of regulations about all of these requirements already exist, and the shelters are inspected by both the ACFA Department, AND a vet, the same vet who they were required to have approve a Veterinary plan when they originally applied for their license. The same vet had to approve the exercise plan they put forth, same as any kennel applying for a license.
Those of you who are blindly following these groups need to begin questioning them about all of this, because they are using you to further their agenda, too. Wake up.

(Report Comment)
Sarah Barnett February 13, 2010 | 12:16 a.m.

First off, HSUS and PETA are two different groups (hence the two different names...). As for the lovely agenda posted, it is from a site called "Buttkickers Anonymous," a site run by those who oppose this initiative. Well if Buttkickers' Anonymous says it - it MUST be true! In fact, on that website they have their own agenda listed, which states "All legislation will be enforced through politicians of our choosing who know nothing of animal rights and furthermore will allow no input from opposing viewpoints lest we sue to get what we want!"

So if they have their way, they run the government and everything else, and sue if they don't like an opposing viewpoint.... Yes. Those are the people who are opposing this initiative.

In addition, anyone wanting to see what the HSUS is really about can look at our website - Worth rated us as one of the top ten most fiscally responsible charities, in addition to Charity Navigator giving us a 4 star rating for 4 years in a row, which only 7% of charities receive.

Regarding numbers of dogs, the initiative does not allow female dogs to be bred more than twice in an 18 month period. Assuming 40 of the maximum of 50 dogs are females, and with an average litter size of five puppies, commercial breeders will be able to sell roughly 200 to 400 puppies a year.

Now, as for finances, this initiative does not require any additional funding. In fact, one fiscal review done by the City of St. Louis indicated that it will actually save the City hundreds of thousands of dollars from the general fund by reducing the burden on the City to close down substandard facilities. Inspectors will have clear standards, and the money raised from licensing fees and fines from violators will help pay the costs of enforcing the law. The Missouri Department of Agriculture is already charged with inspecting these facilities. This Act simply asks them to look for different standards of care when they do.

Once again, just like they did in 1998 when a ban on cockfighting was suggested in Missouri, those that can't defend the cruelty try to point and say "they're out to end agriculture!" Well it's been 12 years since the ban on cockfighting passed, and there has been no attempt to impact livestock agriculture or sport hunting in the state through the legislature or through the initiative process. They were wrong 12 years ago, and are equally wrong today.

Please visit for more information

(Report Comment)
Jenny Thrasher February 13, 2010 | 12:50 a.m.

Part 1-
No, Sarah, you are wrong on all points but one. First-
the 12 point agenda was written by Alex Pacheco himself, Co-Founder of PETA, who shares money with HSUS. They also have worked very closely on a great many issues. Yes, they are 2 separate groups, but they share the same value system. The HSUS just goes in quietly after PETA has raised a crazy ruckus. The 12 Point Agenda was revealed about 15 years ago, and has never been refuted by either Wayne or any of his followers. Even Wayne has recently been admitting that the HSUS is Animal Rights, not Animal Welfare. I just thought the readers would be interested in knowing what the agenda, or manifesto, of the Animal Rights Movement was about.

Next, anyone wanting to know about the HSUS should read their tax returns, because that is where the truth is revealed. Oh, and Charity Navigator allows organizations to pay for high ratings. The National Philanthropic Institute does not. They gave HSUS a C- rating, and are planning to drop that rating even lower because the HSUS won't open it's account books to let in the Sunshine.

Regarding the number of dogs, the interesting thing about this measure is that it only cares how many UNSPAYED dogs someone can own. As long as they are spayed or neutered, someone can own as many hundreds of dogs as they wish. So- do the reproduction organs affect the quality of care a dog receives? And as for not breeding a female 2 consecutive heat cycles, that is covered in the vet plan- as in, if the breeder wishes to do so, it must be approved by their vet.

(Report Comment)
Jenny Thrasher February 13, 2010 | 12:51 a.m.

Part 2
Current research from most Reproductive Veterinary Specialists indicates that breeding consecutive heat cycles for a predetermined time is far healthier for the female dog, as the endometrium builds up in the uterus every heat cycle she is not bred, and causes it to harden, which in turn makes each delivery harder on her and the puppies. Did you know that? We do. Why don't you know that?

As for finances, you better believe this measure will require additional funding! How many more inspectors will be required to go around to all the LICENSED facilities to make sure they have handed over their excess dogs over the 50 dog head count? How much will it cost to feed and house all those dogs till they are re-sold at a substantial profit to the shelters and rescues who will have had absolutely no financial investment in these dogs whatsoever? Of course they will get free "inventory"- they are specifically exempted from this measure in order to be able to handle the influx of unspayed females that would put THEM over the limit, and force THEM into compliance with the mandates of this initiative! Different standards of care from what? The stringent standards of care already in place? There is nothing here besides a cap on the number of dogs that isn't already covered!

You all just love to keep bringing up that cock-fighting ban. You also keep saying that you haven't tried to do anything with the livestock and ag interests since then. Not true. Can anyone say Horse Slaughter? Guess who was behind that one? Yup- the HSUS. There have also been several bills presented at the capitol in the last 12 years that would have drastically affected livestock. But because they were killed, the public didn't hear about them, so you are taking advantage of that fact, and trying to say there has been nothing.

You have not addressed the money laundering of the HSUS. Care to chat about that?

(Report Comment)
Glenn Massie February 13, 2010 | 1:03 a.m.

If you are set on buying a puppy please download and read, “How To Buy A Puppy” before you consider parting with your money. It is free at
Buying a puppy without problems is harder than most people think. Finding a responsible and knowledgeable breeder is very difficult.

(Report Comment)
Joe Overlease February 13, 2010 | 1:46 a.m.

So we smoked Sarah out:

Lets look at your leader and false God Jim Jones, Oh I mean Wayne P. former Vice President of PETA. Nice promotion for Wayne. And you say they are different orgs. What are you smoking? Just don't drink the kool aid when the house crumbles.

Oh you bring up the Charity rating thing.. Who owns the rating service? Well The HSUS is layered like a onion, and deep in it's rottenness is ll kinds of things like your support of ALF, terrorists according to the FBI. And how about how you funnel money to organized crime and the charge of fraud in California, Louisiana and the pending investigation of the IRS and other states for fraud.

Yeah, your right you guys are the good guys. No problem in believing you at all.

You know nothing at all about raising dogs. You guys know a lot about how to kill animals and how steal them from breeders and farmers. Lets see in 2008 97.0% of all animals that came into your control were killed. Now that is a number to be proud of. How about all the animals that were taken to your so called emergency stations after Katrina, you guys were killing them so fast they were piled high behind the buildings. I also like the story about the idiot from HSMO that pulled a gator out of the swamp (His Home) and declared him to be rescued, before killing him. Like I said earlier you guys really are the good guys. And we should trust you based what you say..right?

Your numbers are all wrong, well not if you want to breed poor sickly puppies your are then correct with your assumptions.

Gosh, Look at the time.. I am getting tired of all this silliness from you Sarah. You like your sister, work for your 30 pieces of silver, You don't care about the damage you do all for your God, Wayne the Vegan.

Right now I am tired Jenny has pretty well whipped your butt. And you need to retire back to the hole you crawled out of.

Get Outta Here and Stay out!

(Report Comment)
Elizabeth Martin February 13, 2010 | 9:43 a.m.

Sorry to burst your animal species bubble, but in Georgia, companion animals do not include livestock. I wish they did, but alas, they do not.

And it appears that "Joe" is just hear to stir up strife i.e. silly insults, factless comments, name calling, etc. Basically, a troll.

These PRO pet OWNER orgs need to stop trying to intentionally mislead people into believing that they are the good guys whose sole purpose is to save the animals from those 'awful animal rights' folks. Check out your mothership's website, yes the one which starts with an "N" and ends with an "A" (that is who programs you all, correct?) - her website says it all if anyone needs to truly know who you guys are really trying to protect. And it isn't the animals.

Or perhaps "Joe" is really Patti? Ahmmmmmmm.

(Report Comment)
Gwen Jones February 13, 2010 | 9:52 a.m.

Part One of our Math Lesson
Sarah Barnett wrote: Regarding numbers of dogs, the initiative does not allow female dogs to be bred more than twice in an 18 month period. Assuming 40 of the maximum of 50 dogs are females, and with an average litter size of five puppies, commercial breeders will be able to sell roughly 200 to 400 puppies a year.

Sarah, we are going to take you back to school for a bit of mathematics by a common person and school teacher, myself.

You say that the 50 number is not unreasonable - which it may not be - but a business it is not. Here is the math taking the number of 400 puppies that you sell as a commercial kennel.
I am going to make this a popular, well bought breed by the public that will bring the commercial breeder approximately $300 a puppy through a broker. (Please real commercial breeders don't get after me saying, I only wish!)
$300 multiplied by 400 = $120,000 gross profit (GP)
The 50 dogs have to eat and the cost of their dog food is $9000 per year. Supplements and little extras lets add another $2000 for a total of $11,000.
GP is turning into net profit (NP) = $109,000
With 50 dogs you have to have kennel help and most people like to keep the ratio of 1/25, so 2 people, paid at the rate of $10/hour for 8 hours 7 days a week, plus employment taxes will cost = approximately $30,000 each for a total of $60,000
NP = $49,000
We haven't even gotten into raising the puppies, shots, their food and vet exams, so let's keep going.
Generally speaking if the mother has no vet expenses and is healthy going into breeding, whelps without problems, etc, the sale of one puppy will cover the cost of raising the litter. Since this is such a lucrative business we are going to say that all puppies survive and there are no complications. So with 40 litters you multiply that by the price of one puppy received which we established to be $300. Total cost to raise the litters for the year = $12,000
NP = $37,000
Vet expenses for a group of healthy 50 dogs you would expect maybe a vet visit and medicines of at least once a month on at least one dog. These average right around $75 minimum. If there is any surgery, well the sky is the limit. Let's say we have 25% of the dogs see the vet per month and one emergency surgery that will average out for the year at $200.
Total vet expenses = $4500. But we have sickly animals that have to see the vet more, so let's add at least 1/3 more to this for a total of $6000.
NP = $31,000
To be con't in Part Two

(Report Comment)
Gwen Jones February 13, 2010 | 9:54 a.m.

Part Two of the Math Lesson

Buildings. Here you say we don't do much but I am going to stick to the standards of our ACFA. Consequently the initial investment in buildings, kennel runs, etc, could be as low as $2000 per dog. For 50 dogs that is only $10,000 for the building. But we have to add land of at least an acre if not two at the cost of rural farm property of $4000/acre. So the investment could be as low as $18,000. Now you have property taxes, utilities, building up keep, etc. You can count on at least 25% of your investment having to spent yearly for upkeep (this includes property taxes), that comes to $4500.
NP = $26,500
Now you get to raise your family on the $26,500 which at this point is less than what you paid your employees! Plus you still have taxes to pay, insurance to pay, vehicle expense, and a lot of unrelated expenses that I am sure I forgot and will eat into that $26,500 really quick.
The biggest expense of any operation is the employees. So many commercial breeding operations are family oriented with maybe occasional help coming in. So in this scenario we can save $60,000 if you have the family to help, but they will use the $60,000 quite quickly.

So from our math lesson, raising dogs is quite a lucrative business. I know that there are people out there that will say, I do better than that or I would not be in the business for long. But there are others, who are like many of our farmers, that want to run their own business and struggle with whatever is thrown their way to make a living working with animals. And then there are others that work with animals on a sideline and have a regular job as the animal business would never put food on the table but provides just a little bit of extra income and the pleasure they receive from being able to handle animals everyday of their lives.

So any way you look at it from a business viewpoint - raising dogs is not something that you will get rich from. You can make a bare living.

But here you go Sarah, et al, you say that no one has the right to breed animals and raise them. It is a dirty business that you are out to put a stop to. Good Luck! I will always have my animals and raise them and pet them.

(Report Comment)
Gwen Jones February 13, 2010 | 10:01 a.m.

Peepers Peepers go back to Georgia than and leave Missouri alone! LOL

Look at the definitions again. Never were companion animals and livestock grouped as one. They were kept as separate groups coming under the term of "domestic animals".
It is our AG that has used the term domestic animals to which one can infer to include not only companion animals but livestock also.

Before you start in on something that is evidently an emotional issue with you, you need to know what you are talking about and reading.
Until then, stay in Georgia and leave us Missourians alone.

(Report Comment)
Jake Sherlock February 13, 2010 | 10:08 a.m.


Thanks for your passionate comments on this string. While we want to give all sides a voice in this matter, I do want to gently remind everyone that the Missourian has a comment policy, and a couple of posts in this thread are in violation of those rules.

1) Everyone must post with a real name. I will contact those who have not and give them an opportunity to attach their names to their posts. If they don't, their posts will be deleted.

2) No personal attacks. Calling someone a jerk, coward or idiot is a personal attack. I get that this is something you feel very passionate about, but there are better ways to make your point. Name-calling does nobody any good.

Additionally, as part of the Missourian's commitment to community conversation, we encourage anyone and everyone to submit letters to the editor and guest columns -- these are avenues open to all.

Thank you,

Jake Sherlock
Missourian opinion editor

(Report Comment)
Gwen Jones February 13, 2010 | 10:45 a.m.

Elizabeth Martin said:
These PRO pet OWNER orgs need to stop trying to intentionally mislead people into believing that they are the good guys whose sole purpose is to save the animals from those 'awful animal rights' folks. Check out your mothership's website, yes the one which starts with an "N" and ends with an "A" (that is who programs you all, correct?) - her website says it all if anyone needs to truly know who you guys are really trying to protect. And it isn't the animals.
Or perhaps "Joe" is really Patti? Ahmmmmmmm.

My reply - NAIA is the organization that you are referring to Elizabeth. At least be informative and give out the entire initials. The full name for those interested is National Animal Interest Alliance.
I am going to only say this about the NAIA - if they are the leaders then we are doomed.
Oregon, where the NAIA is situated, was one of the few states that passed a bill that is similar to the PMI. The biggest difference is that the first bill as introduced only wanted 25 animals as the top limit. Patti (the leader and founder of NAIA) went in and negotiated it to a top limit of 50 dogs of intact sex (both male and female are included in the count) for any one person to own, anywhere.
Further stipulations on the law indicate that anyone who breeds 3 litter a year is covered by the law. This means that you can own as few as 3 female dogs, have 3 litters and you are a commercial breeder in Oregon.
Finally, the kicker of the entire thing is that it is illegal for anyone in Oregon to own more than 75 animals regardless of sex or whether they are spayed or neutered.
This law took affect January 1, 2010.

Currently, the word is out, HSUS and its minions are back in Oregon and this time they mean to get the number lowered to 20 dogs period that any person can own.
You see, the 50 did get rid of the few commercial kennels that were licensed and inspected in the state to operate under the USDA, but this was less than 10 (I believe I have this number right but it is close). Now the target is the show breeders and to get rid of them, you lower the number to 20.

This is what really happens. These are the facts.

Another state under fire from HSUS is Ohio as they beat them to the backboard and passed the board to establish and oversee how livestock is treated in the state. HSUS is MAD! They are threatening to spend $3 million dollars to get their new initiative passed (they have to get 600,000 signatures on their petition to get it put on the ballot) which will virtually give them (HSUS) free rein over the Livestock Board in Ohio.

This is what we are fighting to keep out of Missouri. Our right to have animals without the interference of organizations such as the HSUS.

(Report Comment)
Joe Overlease February 13, 2010 | 11:07 a.m.

OK Jake

I am sorry for pointing out these people are idiots, perverts and pukes. I will try very hard not to do it again no matter how revolting their comments are.

I would like the correct the people who keep attacking me about the farm animals, It was not "My" explanation of the word usage it was the Missouri Attorney Generals office that did.. Just reporting the facts.

Jake is correct we should try to avoid name calling, but the other people must promise to stop using term "Puppy Mill" as it is no better than racial slur.
I think the Missourian needs to clear up the use of this name calling in all of the publications too. You don't want name calling don't headline or allow the term to be used. Simple as that.

(Report Comment)
Sarah Barnett February 13, 2010 | 10:57 p.m.

PETA and HSUS are two entirely separate groups and the HSUS has absolutely no affiliation with PETA. Nor do we share funding with them - again, we are totally separate groups, and the HSUS serves a different role which is more mainstream.

As for your violence claim, we ask people to adhere to a code of conduct in how they treat animals, and we should be prepared to adhere to a civil code of conduct ourselves. The illegal actions and use of vandalism by a few individuals in the name of protecting animals result in irreparable harm to the cause of animal protection. True animal advocates promote respect and compassion for people as well as animals.We have a longstanding statement of policy against violence and illegal tactics, and we have even offered rewards to assist law enforcement in the capture of people engaged in this conduct which is reviled by mainstream advocates of animal protection.

Lastly, while you’re certainly correct that the measure includes a general definition of “pet,” the initiative clearly only applies to dogs. Perhaps people suggesting otherwise can point to a specific prohibition or requirement in the measure that applies to animals other than dogs, or even “pets” in general. If you look near the beginning in subsection 3, you will notice that the initiative only provides standards for groups of more than 10 adult DOGS with intact sexual organs that are being kept for the purposes of breeding to create pets to sell to consumers. If you do not breed dogs, you will not be affected in any way by the new law.

For more information you can visit

(Report Comment)
Gwen Jones February 14, 2010 | 11:24 a.m.

Sarah - you are good. I will give you credit for that.

HSUS and PeTA are 2 different organizations. They are not sister corporations nor attached legally in any manner. You are correct.

What I will not give you is that they are not in bed together (although Ingrid has become upset with Wayne for not moving quickly enough on different issues; but what can you say about bed partners? They will argue and fight at times).

Wayne was high in PeTA right before he came on board with HSUS. He followed that organization religiously and brought a lot of the teachings over into HSUS as he climbed that corporate ladder. He did temper them down which is why I refer and will continue to refer to the HSUS as "PeTA in suits." While HSUS does not have the attention attracting publicity stunts that PeTA has, they certainly do profit from them.

HSUS also has other paid employees that were members of PeTA that Wayne convinced to come over. Now, Wayne is good in that he doesn't invite everyone...just the ones that will follow his directives and stay just shy of breaking the law, as in Michael Markarian, VP and Chief Operating officer of HSUS and also president of The Fund for Animals (HSUS PAC) (who was in our state at the head of the meetings being held about the initiative; funny thing there; he said he represented HSUS not the HSUS PAC of TFA; hmm, which paycheck was he bringing home that night?).
Another person is JP Goodwin who also had ties to ALF (Animal Liberation Front) an identified terrorist group of the USA. He is really good in that he goes in acting as a representative of the law and bullies people into giving over their property by threatening law suits and promising them otherwise. Where did he get this authority?

Since I know that you and David are such great 'friends' (tongue in cheek), it would not be fair if I did not mention his website: The Center for Consumer Freedom ( AND YES! They are a PAID lobbying group that has worked for the liquor, tobacco and other interest groups. At least they admit what they are up to...Why doesn't the HSUS?
Another great site for people to find out about the real HSUS is at Activist Cash ( And again, I know that you are no great fan of theirs as it is connected with the CCF.

So Sarah, if you are hiding all of this information about the HSUS, what are you hiding in the initiative? Everything you are saying about the initiative in definitions is correct. BUT it is the hidden agenda of HSUS that we are also fighting.

BTW: How are the collection plates going for the animals in Haiti? Why are we not finding any pictures of animals being rescued in Haiti by the HSUS? Searches are being conducted on a daily basis for such and none are to be found.
Just another example of the real (hidden) agenda of HSUS = Money and Power.

(Report Comment)
Elizabeth Martin February 14, 2010 | 8:18 p.m.

The term "puppy mill" is not a racial slur, good grief. A puppy mill is an operation that "mills" puppies for profit. Technically, any backyard breeder is a puppy mill. If the puppy millers don't like being called puppy mills, then they should stop milling puppies.

A man robs a bank - tells the cops he would prefer not to be referred to as a "bank robber" since that labels him in a negative light.
Does that make him any less of a bank robber?

It is the puppy mills that need to be stopped - the mass producing of puppies for profit with little to no consideration for the physical and emotional well being of their breeder dogs.
aka pure greed and vanity, all for that almighty dollar. Sickening.

And after reviewing the Naia's stance on issues, it appears that the ONLY thing "animal welfare" about them is they are against dog fighting. Everything else reads like an animal advocate's, and animal's, worst nightmare. Hunting, research, zoos, circuses, fur, canadian seal hunt, vivisection, etc.

(Report Comment)
Jenny Thrasher February 14, 2010 | 11:59 p.m.

Ok, here. Let's just take a look at something that is already on the Missouri law books:

Missouri Revised Statutes:

578.005. As used in sections 578.005 to 578.023, the following terms shall mean:
(1) "Adequate care", normal and prudent attention to the needs of an animal, including wholesome food, clean water, shelter and health care as necessary to maintain good health in a specific species of animal;


So tell us again why this Initiative is necessary? Since there is a definition on the books, that means there are penalties assigned for deviating from the definition to the varying degrees that could be carried out.

Come on, MPD, we have quoted laws, revealed your agenda, quoted HSUS tax returns. We have shown the evidence, called you to the carpet, and still you persist in trying to convince people that you just want to help the dogs, that you just want to make sure they have adequate food, water, shelter, exercise, and vet care. How many more times do we have to say that we've got it covered under the law?

Sarah said that "If you do not breed dogs, you will not be affected in any way by the new law." Why not? Why are you all trying to make people believe this is about the care of dogs? If it was, you would have included ALL dogs in your initiative, regardless of breeding capacity or not. Why is that, exactly? Why do you want to exempt shelters, rescues, and collectors from what you claim are just assurances that kennels provide adequate food, fresh water, shelter from the elements, excercise and vet care? Do spayed/neutered dogs not require these things, too? Or, as I stated in an earlier comment, have you paved the way for the influx of dogs you expect to recieve? Do you want to make sure your bases are covered so that shelters and rescues are not subject to a charge of "Puppy Mill Cruelty" when it is determined that many rescues and shelters violate current ACFA regulations, that they don't have a vet care or exercise plan on file with the state, that they don't have licenses?

Your arguments don't add up. The truth is, you know what laws are on the books, you know how detailed ACFA is, you know that Missouri is not the "puppy mill' capital of the country ( a title thrown at every state you have attempted to pass legislation in), and you know that all this initiative is about is putting a 50 dog limit on licensed, inspected, lawfully operating kennels, because they are the easiest to find. What do you propose for the unlicensed, unregulated, abusive, neglectful kennel owners out there? Is ACFA good enough for them?

Your arguments have been weak and based in emotion, not facts. You have provided nothing factual to the public in order to justify such an initiative, and you have deliberately lied about what the initiative is for. If you were on the level, why would you lie about so very many things?

(Report Comment)
Morgan Kueckelhan February 25, 2010 | 4:55 p.m.

I understand the wording on the petition, and I understand it has no wording that deals with livestock. The fact of the matter is that this bill would put many dog breeders out of business who properly run licensed kennels. In 1992, Missouri passed legislation to regulate dog kennels. Yes, there are a few bad breeders out there, but they are the exception... not the rule. If you were from Missouri, you would know that. Don’t accuse me of false accusations, when that is the exact reason HSUS has an annual budget of $200 million plus dollars. If you look at your annual budget only 1/2 of a percent of your budget goes to the actual care of animals. Yet your commercials and any other advertisement ask for donations to "care and save abandoned and mistreated animals." I won't stand by idly and let HSUS misinformation and propaganda have an effect in my state. In the past, HSUS has had an easy way of manipulating the population and swaying un-educated consumers. But not any longer, the truth about HSUS is going coming out. Agriculture is Missouri's number one industry and we WILL keep it that a way. You might have had success in other states, but not this one!

(Report Comment)
Stacy French February 25, 2010 | 9:22 p.m.

I understand that this bill initiative does not target livestock now, but there are other issues with this initiative. Number1, Missouri has laws regulating dog breeders in the state. The current laws are more stringent than what the HSUS is proposing. Second, I want to see a legal definition of a puppy mill. This wording is misleading. There is no legal definition of a puppy mill. If the HSUS really wants to help the animals, maybe they should spend more than one half of one percent on taking care of animals. Also, look at the HSUS's website. It is a radical animal rights group that's end goal is to END ANIMAL AGRICULTURE!!! Just ask the CEO and President Wayne Pacelle. Thank you to Missouri Beef Cattlemans and individuals like Morgan that are advocates for our way of life, and are not afraid to stand up for what is right!

(Report Comment)
Mark A Landers October 28, 2010 | 1:20 p.m.

There is a tiny minority of less 1500 that is being attacked. They have little in economic resources. By nature, they are a group of introverts that have chosen to relate to animals rather than people. They don't have the political wherewithal nor the money to combat such an attack.

A rich powerful group has come into our state and made name calling, sterotyping, purposful deception, and lieing appear to be acceptable.

Hear this person in action

She is an attorney, does that her immune from accountability?

On that link you can listen to her debate veterinarian on Prop B.

The animal rights industry believes with their power and money they can make Missourian's accept this behavior.

Wayne Pacelle has said, "Missouri's moral compass is off"

I say bullying in any form is never acceptable.

I say Wayne Pacelle's perception of Missouri is off.

Vote NO on Prop B

Mark A Landers

Saturday and Sunday I told my story in the comments section on this article. It's way over 250 words so too long to be news worthy. It's numberous posts during the day and night.

At this point in my life I don't think anything is beneath the animal rights then this paper ran this story

Now I not only fear for my dogs that are living, but I fear they may come and dig up my dogs that have passed just to see if I buried them deep enough. Dear God what is happening in America? Why can't people read and verify facts?

Please people wake up and listen to what you are saying and what you are doing.

My partner keeps telling me that it's not me you are attacking personally that you guys don't realize how you have been used by these people to make money for themselves. But it is me that you are attacking.

I posted some pics of my kennel and dogs on facebook last night. I am not computer literate so don't expect a lot. I know its not as good as most of the licensed kennels in Missouri. And it's not as good as I want. But it is what I have.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.