advertisement

Humane Society president urges passage of Proposition B

Protesters say initiative would drive up costs for licensed breeders
Monday, September 13, 2010 | 10:18 p.m. CDT; updated 9:47 a.m. CDT, Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Wayne Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, speaks to a crowd at Cafe Berlin in support of Proposition B, which would regulate dog breeding in Missouri.

COLUMBIA — In a speech Monday evening, the president of the Humane Society of the United States made an emotional appeal for the passage of the controversial Proposition B.

Nearly 100 people crowded into Cafe Berlin to hear the speech by Wayne Pacelle, the president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States.  Proposition B — formally known as the Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation Initiative — is an initiative that supporters claim would end inhumane treatment of dogs by large-scale breeders in Missouri. It would require commercial breeders who own more than 10 dogs to follow specific care, feeding and shelter guidelines.

MoreStory


Related Media

Opponents of the initiative — some of whom protested outside the cafe during Pacelle's speech — maintain that it would be harmful to legitimate breeders and would pose financial and regulatory problems for the state.

The crowd inside Cafe Berlin included volunteers, members of the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other supporters of the initiative.

"It's a sad circumstance of our society that there are people who are willing to take advantage of other creatures," Pacelle said. "We have core tenets of conduct. And one of these tenets is that cruelty is a vice, and we should do something about it."

Pacelle said the number of breeders in Missouri makes Proposition B a uniquely important issue.

"There has never — never — been a more important dog protection measure on any ballot or in any state legislature, ever in the history of this country," he said.

Although Pacelle characterized the protesters as being "people from puppy mills," the dozen or so sign-wavers outside Cafe Berlin said they were mostly the owners or employees of licensed Missouri dog breeders. In his speech, Pacelle focused on the importance of shutting down unlicensed breeders.

There was a marked difference in tone between the supporters and the protesters: Pacelle's appeal was broad and inspiring, and the protesters' problems were detailed and specific. Where he spoke about ending cruelty, the protesters talked about kennel materials and renovation costs.

"Whoever wrote this measure has never raised an animal," said Hubert Lavy, 68, of Silex.

Lavy owns Tenderheart Kennels, and under the new regulations he said he would be looking at $50,000 in renovation costs.

He also criticized specific provisions of the initiative, including the requirement for all dogs to be housed on a concrete floor. Lavy said the wire crates where he keeps the newborns prevent them from coming into contact with bodily fluids that could cause illness.

Missouri residents will vote on the initiative in November.


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.


Comments

david teeghman September 14, 2010 | 12:24 a.m.

Finally, Missouri can end the embarrassment of producing 1/3 of the nation's dogs in these shameful puppy mills. Yes on Prop B!

(Report Comment)
Linda Hopper September 14, 2010 | 6:20 a.m.

What is wrong with people. HSUS is feeding a pile of baloney and you are willing to listen. His statement about, "It's a sad circumstance of our society that there are people who are willing to take advantage of other creatures." Well what is HSUS doing? They are a very wealthy organization due to people donating to them for the welfare of the animals. But consider the fact that they will not give but 1/2 of 1% which is basically nothing to helping animals. But yet the rest is used for their dinners and marketing to raise more funds for themselves. If HSUS was really for the animals why would we have all the horrible animal shelters that there are out there? Why are they not giving to them. Stock answer is "We don't have funds for that." This Proposition B is just their way of getting their foot in the door to not only rid the state of licensed puppy breeders but the wording is so broad that it will cover many areas. Attacking the licensed breeders is only their first step. As stated in an email dated November 16, 2009, the President and CEO of the HSUS stated that every "responsible breeder" is a "puppy miller;" every "family farmer" is a "factory farmer;" and every "responsible hunter" is a "poacher." So what do you think is going to happen if this Proposition B is passed? You the "factory farmer" will have huge problems. And you the "poacher" well you will be stopped. So "WAKE UP AMERICA" before it is too late!!!!!!!!

(Report Comment)
Robin Nuttall September 14, 2010 | 7:50 a.m.

The HSUS and other animal rights organizations are going to spend $1.7 million in advertising in Missouri to try to ram this legislation through. That is money they are choosing to spend on furthering their political and ideological agenda instead of helping dogs.

Pacelle is closely tied to PeTA. The agenda of HSUS and PeTA is to end all domestic animal ownership, period. In Missouri, this bill does not use the word "dog" it uses "animal". If it passes, it could affect livestock breeders and farmers as well as dog breeders.

Many of us who are against this bill are not commercial breeders, but concerned dog owners who see the truth that this bill is just the start of a much larger program to end all dog breeding forever. No more dogs. That is the end goal. HSUS and PeTA will do anything and everything to pressure and restrict our rights and to kill as many dogs as possible. For more information and the real truth behind this bill and these organizations, here are some links:

http://www.humanewatch.org

http://www.naiaonline.org

Get informed. This bill is not what it seems on the surface.

(Report Comment)
Mary Preston September 14, 2010 | 10:13 a.m.

I have 3 dogs. Does that leave me out of this Prop B issue? NO! If this were to pass the impact to the economy of this state will be devastating. Purina and many other BIG companies rely on the pet industry. Missori already has excellent laws protecting puppies thru the USDA and MO Dept of AG. Can Missouri afford to wipe out an entire industry. THINK before you cast your vote.
Bottom line almost everyone loves animals. LOVE your PET? Thank a BREEDER! Vote NO on prop B. Don't be fooled by animal rights propaganda that will take away your rights to own a pet.

(Report Comment)
Robin Nuttall September 14, 2010 | 10:17 a.m.

And to follow up my comment; this law will not solve the problem of too many dogs in shelters. Overall percentage-wise, few newborn puppy litters come into shelters. Most dogs who end up in a shelter *had* a home. They are rowdy adolescents or older dogs with health problems. They are dogs who are victims of careless owners who see them more as a convience to be thrown away at the first sign of difficulty than a lifelong companion.

What we have is an OWNER problem. It's very easy to point fingers at the mythical puppy mill (for which, by the way, there is no legal definition in this state or any other state). It's harder to look in our own back yards. And certainly some few commercial breeders do have dogs in very poor conditions; we have laws already on the books to deal with that. Most commercial breeders aren't that stupid. Unhealthy dogs kept in filthy conditions do not produce large litters of healthy, pretty, saleable puppies. Besides which, commercial breeders actually contribute very little to the overall population of dogs in this country. 75% of the dogs bred in the U.S. are bred by casual, one-time breeders who think their dog is great so they want one "just like it" or who think because they have a purebred it's magically special. Only 10-15% of the overall numbers are produced by commercial breeders, the remainder being bred by show/working breeders.

Instead of instituting a draconian animal-rights oriented law, what we need to do is work with owners to help them keep the pets they have. Studies show that owners who take their dog to even just one dog training class are far more likely to keep that dog for life. If only the HSUS would spend some of their $165 million in assets on owner education, subsidizing training classes, and helping local shelters. But they don't.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush September 14, 2010 | 10:34 a.m.

I've read both the Yes and the No reasons to Prop B - so I decided to read the Proposition.

The Act clearly covers dogs - "”Covered dog” means any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids, that is over the age of six months and has intact sexual organs. 273.345.5(1)"
Regarding the alarmist language over the word Pet - here's the language in the proposition "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog:" and a pet is "Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof."
Just so we're clear - a No vote is a vote against the following:
"(1) Sufficient food and clean water;

(2) Necessary veterinary care;

(3) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;

(4) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs;

(5) Regular exercise; and

(6) Adequate rest between breeding cycles."

Now, people can be against PETA and the Humane Society, but why would you want to stand against good regulations for proper and humane breeding of dogs or stand against holding those in violation of decency accountable? I'm really baffled.

(Report Comment)
Hillary T September 14, 2010 | 11:09 a.m.

The HSUS doesn't have any issue with responsible breeders; see http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pupp.... Our organization strongly promotes pet ownership, and not surprisingly, most HSUS employees have animals.

As Gregg has already noted, Prop B is limited to dogs. This is clearly spelled out in the definitions. People can read the language for themselves at http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010peti....

Although enforcement of existing regulations is improving, the standards themselves are inadequate. For example, commercial breeders are currently allowed to confine hundreds of dogs in small wire cages stacked one on top of the other. Dogs deserve better. Vote YES on Prop B.

Hillary Twining, HSUS

(Report Comment)
Hillary Twining September 14, 2010 | 11:47 a.m.

I want to add that this ballot initiative is supported by many organizations, vets, and citizens (see YesOnPropB.com), but it also affects people outside of Missouri because puppies from the state's puppy mills are sold all over the country.

Hillary Twining, HSUS

(Report Comment)
Robin Nuttall September 14, 2010 | 12:19 p.m.

No problem with responsible breeders or pet ownership?

"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. . One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Senior VP of Humane Society of the US, formerly of Friends of Animals and Fund for Animals, Animal People, May, 1993

“My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.”
— HSUS grassroots coordinator John “J.P.” Goodwin

What HSUS posts on its website and what the real goals of the organization are are divergent.

The truth is that this bill is one step on a road by the HSUS to end all animal breeding and all domestic and food-animals. Period. They restrict us a little, then they restrict us a lot. For instance, this bill says 10 breeding females. Let's say someone is a show breeder. That breeder may have enough multiple generations to have 10 females, of which they may breed one or two, perhaps every year or so. But they would be subject to this law.

We already have laws in place to provide adequate shelter, food, water, and space to dogs in commercial breeding operations. We do not need more.

I am NOT a commercial breeder. I am proud to own, train, and show dogs in a variety of sports. In 25 years I have bred precisely 2 litters. Those of us against this bill are NOT all disgruntled so-called "puppy millers."

(Report Comment)
Robin Nuttall September 14, 2010 | 12:37 p.m.

And since the HSUS is here (hi Hillary T) does that mean the HSUS will fund the $650,000+ initial cost of this ballot? How about the estimated $1.1 million in lost revenues to the state, or the ongoing yearly costs?. Certainly they have the war chest for it. Remember they're spending $1 million on advertising just on this one bill...

(Report Comment)
Lynn Stewart September 14, 2010 | 1:54 p.m.

The HSUS is so concerned in lining thier pocket and making themselves look good that they don't stop to think of all the people they are hurting. There are going to be hundreds of people dumped out onto an already stressed job market, from people whom raise the dogs, manufacture feed, vaccination, pet stores accross the country. You want to see a bad ecomony pass prob B and it will get really bad. Missouri's unemployment rate will shoot way up, welfare benifit will go way up. CAN MISSOURI really afford this? Think about it. About Gregg's comment, most all that he quoted is already a law in place on the books that legal breeders follow and are mandated to follow. Those are not new, get with the program gregg. It's the cost to modify houseing for one, 50 chihuahau would have to have a building roughly 150ft long by 100ft wide just for space, heated and air conditioned, can you imagine the expence. That in its self will cause the EXTINTION of alot of breeds. This prop b is worded to yank at your heart strings, cuz even as a breeder it yanked at mine to think someone doesn't feed thier dogs everyday, BUT all of us legitimat breeders do take very good care of our dogs. They worded it to yank at your heart strings just to hide the real agenda and that is to put everyone out of business. Mr David T how are you going to like it when you have to pay more taxes to pay for unemployment and welfare that will be paid out because you want to shut us all down? that's what is going to happen, MIssouri generates alot of revenue from the breeders and supplies that go with it, all the MISSOURI REVENUE GONE, then what? is the HSUS going to come in and help missouri survive the millions of lost dollars, i don't think so. Prop B is the first step, next is cows, pigs, chickens, sheep, goats, guns. HSUS needs to go after the UNLICENSED breeders that keep thier animals in substandard conditions, which is mostly what you see on thier advertisments, unlicensed breeders who don't follow our very good laws already in place. It would be one more goverment sanction to take away more of our rights and make us all voiceless and no longer a free country. Save our humanity and our rights VOTE NO ON PROP B

(Report Comment)
Karen Bell September 14, 2010 | 2:10 p.m.

Greg Bush - you need to keep reading the proposed law. Each of those items you listed further into the proposition gives the definition of each (listed as you did is very misleading). These dogs have more regulations than any child does. There is no law stating the size of a child's room or that they have to have a determined amount of exercise, my house can have cobwebs but the kennel should not, etc. Currently, no dog is allowed to be kept in a wire cage without adequate room nor on directly on top of another cage. Why are shelters, animal hoarders and people with just one or two dogs exempt from this law? Shelters have the same type of facilties except usually not as clean, hoarders are even worse and I see numerous individuals with dogs tied out to a tree with nothing but I guess that's ok according to HSUS. Most people do not see a doctor for a cold; however, this proposed law states any type of sickness on a dog. Please do not get me wrong, I am totally against any substandard kennel but this new proposition will NOT address those at all. Don't be so foolish to believe HSUS is just after the dog breeders. Anyone that would like to keep as many rights as possible and keep agriculture in Missouri should Vote NO, NO, NO to Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Sara Hargrave September 14, 2010 | 2:54 p.m.

The Missouri Columbian has shown its liberal bias once again with the article facts. I came to see for myself what this Prop B was all about. I did an actual head count and inside the Cafe Berlin there were exactly 47 people attending the HSUS meeting. Shame on you, Columbia Missourian for reporting 'over 100'!!! I did a count of the people outside opposing the initiative and the crowd numbered 69 people....not a 'dozen'.
This is not my only issue with the reporting, just another reason not to trust newspapers these days to give us a true view of even the details of an event. If they cannot report objectively, citizens are left to be responsible citizens and look closely at issues that will affect our state, not be affected by the slant shown by reporting like this that is not worthy of our trust. I have read the initiative and also checked the regulations that are currently in place with our current Department of Agriculture. Food, water, shelter, veterinarian care...are all now in our current regulations.
I am tired of the government intrusions into our lives and had an idea that this proposed law was just more of the same in the lives of Missouri businesses.
I think the educated voter can look closely at both sides of this issue and see through what is going on.
Thomas Jefferson said, "With our form of government, we will get the kind of government we deserve".
So look closely Missouri! Learn to think for yourself and come to logical conclusions. Don't be fooled by emotional issues and be lead like silly sheep!
I, for one, am going to watch this newspaper to see how they incorrectly report this and other political issues this fall which will either help our state or tear it down.
AND I WILL VOTE!!!!

(Report Comment)
jason carter September 14, 2010 | 3:16 p.m.

This will devestate an already weak economy in this state. Dogs eat dog food that is processed in Missouri. Corn and soybeans and meat are the core ingredients. What do you think this will do to agriculture.
This will put hard working families out of business. Thus unemployement.
Licensed kennels are under state and federal USDA jurisdiction and have guidelines. The state and federal government already are lacking in funds for routine inspection. If this passes, no one can own over 50 dogs. What will happen to the rest? Are we going to kill them all?
How can someone tell a breeder that they are going to have to kill their animal. Are there enough rescues to handle the thousands of dogs that this will encompass? Is the public willing to give up purebreed pet ownership? This is what they want. They want it all to end. Don't be fooled. Next on the list are our farmers.
What effect will this have on veterinary practices? You think fees are high now? Just wait folks! Spread the word by mouth and emails. Stop this proposition.

(Report Comment)
Stacy French September 14, 2010 | 5:45 p.m.

Missouri Department of Agriculture has a Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA) that has legislation on animal care.

http://mda.mo.gov/animals/ACFA/

Missouri Department of Agriculture also has a program called Operation Bark Alert that allows people to report breeders with questionable procedures and facilities, as well as those with an unknown liscense status.

http://mda.mo.gov/animals/ACFA/barkalert...

I have a hard time believing a person who has never felt a bond with an animal. I think everyone who has owned animals will agree, if you care about your animals you will form a bond with them.

“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251, before joining the HSUS.

And as far as those of you saying that we are reading too far into this ballot initiative; that HSUS is not coming after animal agriculture in Missouri:

"People know what happened in California, and they know it can happen again and again. They know that no group has passed more ballot measures than we have. They know we have a focused strategy. They know we have a budget of $150 million a year. And they know we're ready for a fight." Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO, Humane Society of the United States, Los Angeles Times, April 7, 2010.

Please be informed about the issues and do research on your own. Do NOT only read one side of the argument, KNOW WHAT YOU ARE SUPPORTING before voting on PROP B.

(Report Comment)
Mark A Landers September 14, 2010 | 10:24 p.m.

LOVE your PET? Thank a BREEDER! Vote NO on prop B. Don't be fooled by animal rights propaganda that will take away your rights to own a pet.

Why is Prop B written so poorly that it will kill dogs if breeders implement the regulations? Example "unfetted access" to the outdoors. How many of you parroting the Animal Rights Industry's "care for animals" propaganda NEVER restrict your pets access to the outside during the extremes of our Missouri climate?

"Follow the money" 1.7 million dollars from out of State special interest groups to pass Prop B and only 61 thousand dollars from Missouri Agriculture to fight Prop B. The Animal Rights Industry is banking on National Media attention to dupe people seeing horrible images of dogs that are not fit for commerce stuffed into tiny cages to get people to give the $19 a month. If a million more people sign up Nationwide that would be 19 million a month...month after month...year after year. Now tell me who is making a profit off on the animals. According to HSUS's site they already have duped 11 million people into giving monthy suport to them. Now tell me who is making the "profit".

VOTE NO! HSUS HAS GOT TO GO!

(Report Comment)
alice smith September 14, 2010 | 11:18 p.m.

"It's a sad circumstance of our society that there are people who are willing to take advantage of other creatures," Pacelle as quoted by this paper..
perhaps the paper should have found a few other quotes from the vegan cult leader..

Really Wayne?? all 47 people.. "nearly 100" heard you say this.
If there was EVER a group of cultists who are MORE than willing to take advantage of "creatures" it is the HSUS who takes money from unsuspecting donors who think their hard earned dollars and cents go to "help animals" when really their money goes to promoting the animal rights cult of no pets.
In his own words.. Pacelle says:

“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne Pacelle

for those of you who think this is just about dogs:

Pacelle says:

"We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. . One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding." Wayne Pacelle, Humane Society of the US,

and of course for those of you who think Wayne just loves the idea of you having a pet:

Pacelle says:

"When asked if he envisioned a future without pets, “If I had my personal view, perhaps that might take hold. In fact, I don’t want to see another dog or cat born.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt

oh and you can throw this one in..Goodwin is Waynes right hand man

"My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US,

so what are you to believe.. ?? all of this.. and a 1.7 MILLION dollar campaign to end animal ownership starting in Missouri.. If you believe this is "only about dogs".. I have a big orange bridge to sell you.. cheap..

Maybe Hillary will buy it.. she buys everything else her cult tells her

(Report Comment)
Kara Crass September 15, 2010 | 12:03 a.m.

Hillary, I would like to point out that this Proposition is also OPPOSED by many organizations. The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, The Farm Bureau, The Dairyman's Association, The Cattlemen's Association, The Corn Growers of Missouri, The Missouri Department of Agriculture and many many of our state legislators.

And if this is all about just the most humane, basic care for dogs why are the shelters, rescues and Humane Societies exempt? Why will shelters, rescues and Humane Societies still be allowed to keep their dogs in "Small wire cages stacked one on top of the other"? Because shelters, rescues and humane societies do house their dogs in stack cages and will be able to continue to do so, if the proposition passes. If this is just to ensure that all dogs are treated humanely, why shouldn't it apply to everyone?

(Report Comment)
Dorothy Everett September 15, 2010 | 7:20 a.m.

A question please,Why does Missouri need a man from Connecticut, who works in Washington DC to come to our state and tell us what laws we need? Espically a man who doesn't like animals and who wants to tell us the proper treatment of them?

“I don’t have a hands-on fondness for animals…To this day I don’t feel bonded to any non-human animal. I like them and I pet them and I’m kind to them, but there’s no special bond between me and other animals.” Wayne Pacelle quoted in Bloodties: Nature, Culture and the Hunt by Ted Kerasote, 1993, p. 251, before joining the HSUS."

Are we not smart enough to write our own laws? Does Wayne know that we do already have good laws on the books to protect our pets?? Since the 1.7 million raised to push this through has come from out of state, seems to me that shows that we in Missouri know we don't need Prop B.

No, I am not a commerical breeder, I am a pet owner and I want the right to be able to buy a pet of my choice, from a breeder I trust.

(Report Comment)
henry almond September 15, 2010 | 7:52 a.m.

i see every dog breeder in the US has been alerted to comment on Prop B. These greedy less evolved segment of our population are all on a group called PET-LAW.com. and their leaders have ordered them to comment here. What a bunch of losers! They need to man-up & start reporting all that income they rake in to breed & sell these poor animals! Wish I knew their SSN, I'd sure turn them in. We're tired of paying for over-pop of dogs while they enjoy "their so-called hobby", PAY YOUR SHARE! ROCK ON HSUS & ASPCA & PETA!

(Report Comment)
Julie Julie September 15, 2010 | 9:01 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Lynn Stewart September 15, 2010 | 9:49 a.m.

Henry legally licensed breeders do turn their income in and pay thier taxes. you wanting thier SSN sound like identity theft which is a crime. This law is only hurting the legally licensed breeders not the ones you think it's geared for. You must also be a vegitarian if you want HSUS PETA and ASPCA to rock on, they want to abolish us eating meat. Just food for thought, check out both sides of the issue before deciding what is best, don't jump to conclusions just because you think someone is getting rich from animals and it makes you mad, no one raising dogs is getting rich, just surving like everyone else and providing loving pets to the people of the world. If HSUS had thier way no more pets. Think about it if the breeders stop breeding, eventually where are the HSUS dogs going to come from? They aren't then when you children/grandchildern want a puppy, there wont be any. Just look at both sides of the issue and take your feelings out of the equation and make an imformed decision about what is best for Missouri.

(Report Comment)
alice smith September 15, 2010 | 10:00 a.m.

Hey I live in "Lala" land so I can tell you there is a reason Henry has the name of "almond".. it is just another nut..
take a good look at the HSUS tax forms and tell me who is 'skating" on taxes..

and when Wayne Pacelle actually OWNS a pet ( he has NONE.. not even a rescue cat) then he can preach to the rest of us about 'saving animals"

(Report Comment)
Linda Hopper September 15, 2010 | 10:09 a.m.

There are 2 major organizations in the US, HSUS and PETA. Neither one is affiliated with nor lends support to your local Humane Shelter. In the case of PETA, the animal shelters that they do operate have somewhere close to a 97% kill rate of the animals in their care. HSUS has solicited hundreds of millions of your dollars in the name of animal welfare, when in reality, the majority (over 95%)is used to raise more funds for their executives' salaries and expense accounts, retirement accounts, and for lobbying for restrictive animal ownership on local, state, and federal levels. You have seen those commercials on late night TV showing the poor animals needing your help and for only $19 contribution you can be part of the solution. Less than 6 cents actually goes to animal care. Wake up people!!!!!!!!!!

(Report Comment)
Linda Hopper September 15, 2010 | 10:19 a.m.

HSUS and PETA people are Animal Rights Activists primarily because they want to inflict their beliefs on society without choice. Their ultimate goal is that we all become vegans and that no animal should be owned by people, including pets and farm animals. If they continue to convince our society of their agenda, the day will come when none of us will own pets nor have the choice of eating meat, wearing fur, or hunting and fishing. Please take the time to learn the truth, and derive your own opinion based on the facts, not the spoon fed propaganda of the Animal Rights Activists.

(Report Comment)
stop badlaw September 15, 2010 | 4:04 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
stop badlaw September 15, 2010 | 4:17 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Yvonne Boudreaux September 15, 2010 | 7:40 p.m.

Wow! Pet-Law demands a response to Proposition B and EVERY troll in the state weighs in with their myths... and lies... Thank you Gregg Bush and others for "outing" them. People are sick and tired of Missouri's mills cranking out the misery. Pro Prop B people have the animal's welfare in their hearts. The rest of you? How is benefiting from the natural urges of animals actually legitimate work? Go out and find a "decent" job!

(Report Comment)
Laura Umphenour September 15, 2010 | 10:36 p.m.

Are these dog breeders not retrainable like other jobs that are eliminated? I know some breeders that are on disability and making "cash" sales on dogs that they don't report as income. What benefit to our state is that. I know a tax lawyer who does taxes for many of these commercial breeders who supports this bill as he knows first hand that most of them show a loss on their taxes when they know darn well that they've made good money off all these dogs.
Are these people not retrainable?
Dorothy Everett....we need a man from Conneticut to tell those of us in Missouri because those of us in Missouri have been yelling to our "paid off" politicians in Jeff City and they never did do anything BECAUSE THEY GET FUNDING FROM THESE AGRICULTURAL ENTITIES. That is why we have someone from Conneticut. Someone who is not bought off by the Agricultural groups. When the vote comes in in November you will see what Missourian's want....these politicians only represented a small amount of Agricultual based persons. Not all of Missouri.
Kara Crass.....how many Shelters and Rescue Groups have you worked at? None I bet. We are NOT exempt. We have regulations as well, but we don't treat the animals like puppy millers. We don't have that mentality. We cannot stack them in chicken wire cages and don't. We allow them to run around and socialize, AND WE DON'T BREED THEM TILL THEY CAN'T BREED ANY LONGER. We are totally under regulations. Before you make that thoughtless comment you need to check out what the regulations are.

(Report Comment)
Laura Umphenour September 15, 2010 | 10:37 p.m.

To Mark A Landers. I have 3 rescue Poms and 1 rescue Jack Russell. All these dogs have been a great expense to us. Due to the fact that the breeder was greedy and did not take care of the breeder stock and did not breed healthy pups. It is not a matter of me not loving my animals, or I wouldn't have them....it is a matter of the breeder who is providing the product to provide a quality product. If you went out and bought a car from Toyota and the peddle began sticking on you and your family was in danger of driving too fast down the road.....then it is okay for the Government to step in and regulate or investigate. That was a product that you bought and you expected quality from that product.
If you bought eggs from a store and your family became ill due to improper regulations at the facility that the eggs came from......then it is okay for the Government to step in and regulate or investigate.
Then why would you not expect the same with living, breathing objects. Why would you not want some regulations in place. Have any of you actually read the Animal Welfare Act of 1966 that is currently in place....THERE IS NOTHING TO REGULATE THESE PEOPLE IN IT. There is nothing on the books to make it a legal offense. There is nothing to hold these people accountable for what they do. That is why that have moved here to Missouri BECAUSE NO OTHER STATE WANTS THEM.
We started out with 995 Breeders & Brokers in 1999...
2002 - 1077; 2004 - 1312;2005 - 1442;2006 - 1560;2008 -1525;2009 - 1370;2010 - 1200. There are a total in Missouri of Breeders 3658 and Brokers 962 = 4620.
There is no other state in the USA that even comes close to that number! Why is that?

(Report Comment)
Bob Brobston September 16, 2010 | 6:52 p.m.

Why should we allow the HSUS to limit how many dogs a breeder can own and put excessive regulations on housing, space and conditions (breeders will be required to purchase air conditioning for their animals, and it will be a misdemeanor if a cobweb is in a kennel or a piece of food is in a water bowl!)? Not only will Prop B be expensive to tax payers and eliminate the state’s dog-breeding industry, it will open doors that will affect livestock production and the price and availability of food (as happened when similar bills did away with the pork industry in Florida and the egg industry in California). With the exception of capping the number of dogs a breeder can own and forcing them to implement costly climate and environmental control, most of the laws in the bill are already on the state’s books. Legitimate, licensed breeders follow the laws and take care of their dogs. The state inspectors need to focus on the unlicensed problem breeders who break the laws, don’t get caught and sell their dogs under the radar. The only breeders that will be hurt by passing Prop B are the ones doing it right.

(Report Comment)
Kara Crass September 17, 2010 | 1:44 a.m.

I am once again floored that people just spout the same ol' same ol'. I think we know who signs Laura Umphenour's paycheck. In today's economy with the unemployment rate what it is, with the amount of jobs that this state is already loosing and you want to "re-train" thousands of people? Because, make no mistake about it, it will cost countless Missourians their jobs. It won't just be the responsible dog breeder, it will be the corn grower who supplies corn for dog food, the guy on the loading dock at your local feed store, the guy at the local grocery store where breeders can't afford to shop anymore, the kennel supply employees, the local gas station owner where the corn farmer buys his gas.....and the list goes on and on. Any responsible breeder is against puppy mills, that's not the issue. The issue is basic rights and freedoms that you are trying to take away from us. It's the fact that this proposition DOES NOTHING TO SHUT DOWN PUPPY MILLS!!!! How many times do you have to have that pointed out to you? It has no provisions in place to find the puppy mills and shut them down. We actually have 23 pages of regulations that we have to follow and violation of those regulations does come with severe consequences. I'm not sure who told you to go all the way back to 1966??? But look at the MO Dep Of Ag's website and see what we actually have to comply with. How do you get from that that the government does not regulate the dog breeders? The problem is MONEY, the government does not have enough money or inspectors to enforce the laws we already have, so let's give them more. We need better enforcement, not new laws. And where is the 1/2 million dollars a year to run this program going to come from???? You guessed it.. Joe Public, rack another tax hike up for Missourians. Every voter in Missouri has a voice and the ability to examine the facts. I implore every one of you to take the time to read all the facts. Do not let the Animal Activists convince you that you are a bad person or a dog hater if you don't vote yes. Everyone should vote their own mind and conscience. Just please please take the time to read the bill thoroughly and understand the ramifications completely.

(Report Comment)
Kara Crass September 17, 2010 | 1:59 a.m.

There are many points to any argument, and no issue is ever black and white. No matter what the HSUS and it's affiliates would have you believe, this proposition does nothing to shut down puppy mills. It has no provisions in place to find the illegal sub-standard kennels and bring them into compliance. They don't follow the laws we already have, why would they follow new ones. And it will cost the already strapped Missouri Taxpayers 1/2 million dollars a year to enforce. Not to mention the Billions of dollars in revenue that will be lost to the state.
Now, any responsible breeder is against puppy mills, so the insinuation that you have to be for the proposition or you are a dog hater and a terrible person is ludicrous. Just because some of us have the intelligence to think for ourselves and not just repeat the same old retoric, does not make us bad people. Just because we are trying to stand up for our rights and not be rail roaded, does not meant that we must be puppy millers ourselves, because "only a puppy mill would be against this bill." That is another tactic used by the HSUS and it's affiliates, they use emotions and sympathies to cloud the truth and spread their lies. The fact is that a responsible breeder already has regulations that we have to follow for most of these issues. The problem with the proposition is trying to limit breeders to 50 dogs and the ridiculous space requirements that they are demanding. The fact is that the cost to renovate kennels already in compliance will be so financially impossible for most breeders that they just won't be able to do it. That is how this will affect a responsible breeder. Responsible breeders already have to feed and water their dogs, that is just insulting the intelligence of every Missouri voter to try and make them think otherwise. These are just the facts, and I have every confidence that the citizens of Missouri will take the time to find them out for themselves. Please please read the proposition and the regulations already in place and don't be fooled by the completely biased wording of the ballot. I do hope you will VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B, but ultimately everyone must vote their own mind.

(Report Comment)
Kara Crass September 17, 2010 | 2:16 a.m.

Now for Laura Umphenour, how many legetimate, legally licensed kennels have you worked at? We treat our dogs better than most people treat their children!! We are with these animals 24 hours a day 7 days a week. We sweat, work, play, and cry over our dogs!! We don't have vacations and paid holidays, we work for every dime we make and believe me, it's not much. I put so much money into a puppy that I make just enough to pay my bills and get by, just like every other working person in Missouri. I don't get rich off this job, but I do get a great satisfaction in pairing a person with their new puppy and seeing the love that they get from them.
I have actually worked with several different rescues and they have pretty much been all the same, in it for the dollar!! So don't tell me it's some noble calling that they have and they don't make money off these dogs. At least, we responsible breeders,have the guts to call it like it is. This is my business and I love what I do, I will not apologize to anyone for that. I have tried to deal with rescues that have stated, "We can't MOVE that breed, it's just too common..." "That dog is just too old for anyone to want, we need puppies..." "That breed is just not marketable..." "We can't take anymore males, people really prefer females..." and my favorite "16 weeks is a little old, we really need 10 weeks or younger..."
Did I say all rescues are like this, no!! I don't try to paint you all with the same brush, I try to be a little more fair than that. But this does seem to be the rule rather than the exception. I have a better concept than anyone what I have to go through and what this proposition will do to the responsible breeder. Will I be able to stay in business, probably. Will the cost of remodeling be devastating, DEFINATELY!! I am considered a small breeder, so the number will not affect me as much as others, but that should not even be an issue. It is completely unconstitutional to try and hinder a person in the act of conducting their business. There is such a thing as hindering free enterprise!!! I don't know where you people get some of your ideas, but at least try to be fair and know that there are 2 sides to every coin, we are not all alike and those of us doing it the right way, should not be punished along with the others!!

(Report Comment)
Kara Crass September 17, 2010 | 3:00 a.m.

I got a little side tracked there, that's what happens when you are dealing with something personal, people take it personally. Laura Umphenour, I have been in several shelters and I know how they are regulated. They have the same regulations as we do and guess what? If you can't use stack cages, NEITHER CAN THE RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS. And if the inspectors are not doing their jobs and enforcing the laws, that applies to you to, right? I went to the Humane Society of Springfield, before they had the new facility, to get a cat and it was a terrible experience. The first thing, you walk into 2 rooms with, you guessed it, stack cages lining the walls. Every cage has 2 to 3 cats in them in some stage of illness. From sneezing and runny eyes to vomiting and near death. When I asked an employee what was being done? She LAUGHED and said "Done? nothing, they are all going to die anyway!" If that is the humane treatment that you are talking about, I want no part of it. Two weeks later, those cats were all euthanized. It was reported as a "tragedy". Wonder how that would have read if it had been a breeder who had not medicated or supplied them with necessary veterinary care? I have not been back to the new facility and so can't comment on that, but I know what it was like before. I still contend that if this were only about the "minimum basic humane treatment of dogs" that the shelters, humane societies and rescues should have to follow the same rules. But then the Humane Society of Springfield's new multi-million dollar facility might not be in compliance!! And I don't care if you cry foul, "all shelters aren't like that" Guess what? ALL BREEDERS ARE NOT PUPPY MILLS!!! And as to agriculture "buying off" the legislation, are you kidding?? I would like to see how much money HSUS gave to Robin Carnahan's campaign. In the end it is up to every person to find out the truth for themselves. Please take the time to look at both sides of the issue before you decide. As a responsible dog breeder, I would like to ask you TO VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B, but in the end it is up to each of you to make up your mind. Please just remember, " A lie can travel the world, while the truth is putting on it's boots." Mark Twain.

(Report Comment)
S Mason September 17, 2010 | 10:44 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
mary ann mcgregor September 17, 2010 | 11:13 a.m.

A No Vote to Proposition B is a vote for freedom. It is a vote to stop the tyranny of the HSUS and their anti-agriculture agenda. Vote No on Proposition B, and you will still be able to find a wonderful puppy to have in your home as a companion, a friend, a protector - and you will not have to prove that you are capable of owning this puppy - except to the breeder, you will not have to pay any gov't fee, because though it is not spelled out here and now, that is exactly what will happen. A Yes vote, means public access to owning a puppy will be greatly restricted, prices will be sky high, your grandchildren may not ever know that pleasure.
A yes vote means you have helped a power hungry organization to have its way - and to begin the quick decline of our agriculture, to help us here in America to have less freedom and to lose our envied way of life.
Please - for your own sakes, please VOTE No on Prop B.
Pacelle is a very convincing liar - don't be fooled.
It is silly to say that voting No will deprive dogs of fresh water and food, or space and exercise and that you will deny them of access to Vet care - do your homework, you will want to VOTE NO on PROP B.

(Report Comment)
JUDY WALLES September 18, 2010 | 4:47 p.m.

HI, I coppied a piece out of your own news article it states (6:47 p.m. Fri : Central Missouri Humane Society faces fundraising shortage) Why on earth does your local Humane Society face any kind of shortage while the president of the Humane Society of the United States and his employees make MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A YEAR from you by turning your emotins on and make you think they are helping poor little inocent animals while they are making a fat profit doing it. Their money goes to line pockets and to heck with the dogs. Why do you think that your local shelters need donations? Its because the HSUS is not funding anything as they state they are. They used thousands of dollars just lobbing agains the Missouri Dog Breeders. The HSUS wants you to believe they are good and doing this for the best interest of a little puppy or kitty. People of Missouri don't be fooled by this organization. Most of this is public knowledge you can look up how much money they make. Their wages are over $200 thousand a year but they make you think that they are a non profit orginization WELL GUESS AGAIN. They are very wealthy. HSUS is not going after the collectors or horders or the unregulated people, they are after the breeders that are reputable people that pay taxes, and love their animals and families. I am State regulated and USDA regulated already and we are Vet Checked at the kennel. We are even regulated by AKC,APRI,UABR,ACA which are national registeries. This bill is intended to put every breeder in the state out of business. A registered dog as you know it will cese to exist if you put these people out of business. If your happy with a unhealthy mute with no shots, no immune system, no registration well I guss thats what you will get.

(Report Comment)
JUDY WALLES September 18, 2010 | 4:49 p.m.

SORRY BUT HERE IS THE REST OF MY COMMENTS. This bill does not just affect dog breeders. It affects you, the public, but you may not realize it until its too late. It starts with us the Liscensed Breeder, then the local feed store, then the crop , growers, & lets not forget the chicken growers, beef growers, hog growers, that provide all the products that go into the feed. Oh and what about all the shots that we won't be buying or the products that we won't be buying like feeders, waters, water hoses, pestisides to keep fleas and tick off and Vet care, oh and all the truck drivers that deliver all these products. oh yell I won't need a Mini Van anymore to drive around in or crates to carry my puppies to the vet. PEOPLE OF MISSOURI THIS NOT A BREEDER PROBLEM ITS A STATE PROBLEM YOURS, & MINE DON'T LET THEM CONTROL OUR STATE AGRICULTURE, If you like hamburgers at the fast food places or a good Stake to eat, or maby your a chicken. This is the tip of the iceburg for the HSUS. This is their goal to stop AG in general. Who's going to feed America if this happens. Stop this before its out of control. I pray the smart people of Missouri won't be fooled by lies. The HSUS have no right coming into our state and taking money from anyone when they have KILLED MORE DOGS AND CATS IN THE US THAN ANYONE. My grand daugher cried the other day she is 6yrs old but she is smart enough to know we don't miss treat our animals. She wanted to know why they are saying we starve and mistreat them. This is coming from a child that is smarter than most adults because she can see through the lies and deceit. Please talk with a breeder look at a Registered Dog that is not what they are showing you on TV. The HSUS don't want the truth to come out. VOTE NO ON PROP B WE ARE NOT A PUPPY MILL WE ARE GOOD HONEST PEOPLE. I PRAY THAT YOU ARE. They think MISSOURIANS ARE DUMB HILLBILLIES AND CAN BE LIED TOO. DON'T PROVE THEM RIGHT. I MAY BE A HILLBILLY BUT I'M A WELL EDUCATED PERSON AND I'M PROUD TO BE A DOG BREEDER FOR THIS FINE STATE OF MISSOURI. ***VOTE NO ON PROP B*****

(Report Comment)
JUDY WALLES September 18, 2010 | 4:59 p.m.

ONE MORE COMMENT PLEASE. I RESENT THE FACT THAT THE HSUS CALL US A SLANG NAME SUCH AS A PUPPY MILLER THAT IS THE SAME AS CALLING A WHITE PERSON A NAME OR A BLACK PERSON A NAME OR A HISPANIC PERSON A NAME ITS A NASTY SLANG NAME THAT IS FALSE HURTFUL AND I RESENT THE FACT THAT THIS FINE STATE OF MISSOURI WOULD ALLOW SUCH NAME CALLING. I PROMISE YOU IF I CALLED SOMEONE TO THEIR FACE A SLANG NAME I WOULD GO TO JAIL SO WHY DON'T HSUS GO TO JAIL? THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING TO ME AS A GOOD HONEST BREEDER.

(Report Comment)
Amber Hanneken September 18, 2010 | 6:50 p.m.

Just so people know, the Humane Society of the United States has nothing to do with local humane societies like the one in Columbia.

HSUS is an animal rights group like PETA. They have ZERO relationship to local animal shelters.

In my opinion, every article about this organization should clarify that.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro September 21, 2010 | 3:04 p.m.

Thanks Amber.
I did some research on the HSUS and discovered many more reasons to Vote No on their lobbying initiative than yes...
http://www.mofed.org/Hand-outs-Printable...

(Report Comment)
Theresa Rogers October 6, 2010 | 10:58 a.m.

This law is a nice idea but I really don't know how it's going to make a difference. A law is only as good as its enforcement. Many puppy mills have had countless repeat violations of the Animal Care Facilities Act but they still have their license! Missouri does not even inspect every puppy mill every year. If they don't even do that, how can they be checking on unlicensed breeders that should be? If Missouri isn't enforcing the current laws now, what makes us think they're going to enforce this law? Also, can 1 or 2 people realistically be capable of properly caring for and socializing 100's of dogs and puppies? Maybe the number of caretakers should be addressed-not necessarily the number of dogs per facility. If people would do some research about the breeder and their facilities and their track record with the state (if they've even been inspected!) and other people who have bought from them before they buy, the "bad" breeders would be put out of business! I have "bought" only one dog and that was years ago before I became educated about pet overpopulation, etc. And, then I got him for $50 because he wasn't "suitable" to sell elsewhere. If I hadn't bought him, he probably would have been killed. Since then, I have adopted my dogs. I have six. Some found me...two were dumped out on my road. One had been severely abused and he is a purebred French mastiff. One was dumped in a field with a litter of pups. I kept the mother and found homes for the puppies. Two were in the city "pound". It's absolutely stupid to me to spend a ridiculous amount of money on a dog. MILLIONS of dogs and cats are killed every year simply because they don't have a home. For every puppy born in a puppy mill, another puppy or dog dies. Think about that when you spend $1,200 or more for your next dog! I don't know what it currently is but in the past, up to 20% of the animals in shelters are purebred. It's time for people to do their research and not buy from bad puppy mills! This is just one more issue that is the American Cosumers' fault but then want the government to fix!! And, PLEASE spay or neuter your pet!!!

(Report Comment)
jake carter October 9, 2010 | 3:10 p.m.

The major red flag in the proposition is that HSUS, rescues, shelters etc.. are immune from their own mandates. What does this tell you? They could never operate under these guidelines. There are more and more that want to become "no kill." Do all these dogs in "NO KIll" get the kind of socialization that they want licensed kennels to provide? No! I volunteered here in COMO with a rescue group 2nd Chance. I found it odd that they went several miles out south west of Columbia in another county to build a shelter. Actually in a secluded area. When I saw it I thought of all the thousands of dollars that people had given them for this structure and how incredibly indadequate it was in size. They had several large breed dogs on cement in small runs. Several dogs were obviously lame. I had been to one of the main organizers homes. Yikes!!!! A house full of cats. It was awful. She also had large breed dogs crated in rooms. Needless to say, this was not my idea of humane treatment. The proposition should apply to everyone handling large numbers of dogs. I recently purchased a golden doodle from a licensed kennel. My wife has allergy issues. We were given full access to look things over. The owner had full vet records and I was able to contact the vet. They educated me and gave me excellent tips on the care of the pup. Their facility was actually nicer structurally than the old house that I grew up in. We had a great experience and I hate to see the good kennels get screwed over.

(Report Comment)
Helen (not the actress) Hunt October 11, 2010 | 12:57 p.m.

CAN YOU TRUST THE HSUS ?? heres a couple of links that may help...

INQUIRING MINDS WANT TO KNOW" what happens to the UNWANTED LEFTOVERS after the ASPCA, HSUS PUPPY MILL RAIDS? http://youtu.be/CvpL2vh3rrg

.FORWARD THIS GOOD READING! (ASPCA PETA HSUS) #nokill TO OBAMA, BIDEN EACH AND EVERY SENATOR, (cont) http://tl.gd/3668o7

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 15, 2010 | 5:22 p.m.

If you really are buying into the LIES on the so called "Alliance for Truth" site which really should be called "Alliance for LIES"... then you really need to do some more research! Stop listening to the PUPPY MILLERS REPLYING HERE! THEY ARE IN IT FOR THERE OWN SICK GREED!
.
I'LL TAKE MY FACTS FROM:
www.maal.org
www.hsmo.org
www.bbb.org (Even the BETTER BUSINESS BUREAUS SAYS WE NEED REFORM)

I'm a conservative,female, business owner & I run an ETHICAL business...I could CARE LESS if puppy mills shut down! I don't want that kind of money in Missouri & if you are so desperate for money that your willing to torture dogs for it.... then there is a special place in the afterlife waiting for you where it is REALLY HOT & NASTY!
.
.
MISSOURIANS.... WE LIVE IN THE SHOW ME STATE.... HOW ABOUT SHOWING SOME COMPASSION!
.
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 15, 2010 | 8:24 p.m.
(Report Comment)
Tina TENNEY October 18, 2010 | 1:51 p.m.

Wanye said, "It's a sad circumstance of our society that there are people who are willing to take advantage of other creatures...." Really Wayne ? Isn't that the entire premise of HSUS ? Show pitiful pictures of animals to solicite donations that then go to huge salaries & pension funds & lobbying to take away people's rights ? Nobody makes more money off of "puppymills" than HSUS. How much $ has HSUS been sucking up during this campaign ?

Do your research people of MO. You already have laws on the books to address bad breeders. What you need is the funding to enforce them. Is HSUS doing anything about that ? If Prop B passes what will happen to all the "over the limit" dogs ? Is HSUS going to take care of them ? Of course not. They will be dumped on local shelters & rescues because that's what HSUS does best. Mug for the cameras, stuff their pockets, dump the animals & run to the next money making/media opportunity.

(Report Comment)
Andrew Hansen October 18, 2010 | 2:41 p.m.

Obviously the demand for puppies is too high.

(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.

advertisements