LETTER: Prop B 'sounds cruel'

Tuesday, September 21, 2010 | 7:53 p.m. CDT; updated 12:15 p.m. CDT, Monday, October 25, 2010

I am infuriated at Prop B. Has anyone read and compared it to the current laws?

All these accusations the Prop B campaign is throwing around — where are the statistics to back this up? On the "Charlie Brennan Show," Barbara Schmitz said there were kennels with stacked cages that allowed feces and urine to go down on the animals below. This is strictly prohibited in the current regulations. I, as a licensed breeder, want this accusation verified.  The only instance of this in a licensed facility was with a shelter, which is exempt by Prop B. If these facilities house just as many dogs as a breeder does, why are they exempt? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

This Prop B sounds cruel to me. Take a look at it and think. It states dogs should have unfettered access to outside — fine. But when it is negative 20 degrees outside and you have a dog having puppies for the first time, she really isn't sure what is going on and runs in and out and in and out. What if the first puppy is born outside, and she cleans it and leaves it outside? How long do you think it would survive?

But if a licensed breeder ties the door shut to keep her inside in the heat, they can be considered a criminal and could potentially do jail time for this. How is this not cruelty?

Who came up with this stuff and why? You know the Humane Society of the United States, which is backing this, has no vet on its board.

They also say there are more than 3,000 puppy mills in Missouri. Where did that number come from? There are a little more than 1,400 licensed facilities in Missouri. Where did they find the rest? Are they withholding information from our current regulating entities? I want the rest of them shut down. I am licensed, I follow the regulations and am inspected up to four times a year, unannounced. If I have to operate this way, they should, too.

Those not licensed and regulated will not be affected by Prop B because they are already operating illegally. And if those pushing this through know where they are, why aren't they shutting them down?

They have not proven any of their accusations with evidence. When will they be held accountable for their accusations? I also have the freedom of speech, but I don't go around picking on a particular group or trying to make laws against things I don't like.

Another issue is that giving dogs clean food and water daily is stated in the current regulations. Also, Prop B states the words "domesticated animals." If you look up the definition of this it also includes sheep, goats, horses and cattle. What do you think will happen next if they are allowed to manipulate the public into what they want them to think to further their efforts at controlling much more than what seems to be the topic here.

As a breeder I am not opposed to change. I want to do whatever I can to improve conditions for my pets. I love every one of them; they are my confidants and friends. I know their quirks and what they like to eat. I know where to scratch that sweet spot and which ones like to swim. I know who loves to play in the water hose and who doesn't. I know my animals, do they? No.

They have never been here on my property, and I don't want them here. They are not welcome and as an American land owner, I have the right to say who is welcome and who is not. Don't I? Or are they taking this away from me as well as my 25 dogs that would have to be put down if this passes.

Has anyone thought of what happens to the overage dogs if Prop B passes? Nov. 3 will be a black day across the state for the ones who happen to live on the wrong property because a few (many of which are not Missourians) think they shouldn't be allowed to live and procreate as God intended them to.

They accuse us of back-to-back breeding as well. Dogs only cycle twice a year. They are pregnant for 63 days. They raise their puppies for six to seven weeks and won't cycle again until their bodies are ready for it. Even if they cycle, they may not take if the conditions are not right for it. Skipping cycles causes many health issues in itself. I can think of two life-threating infections this can cause. Again, this, according to Prop B, is less cruel than the natural alternative.

Again, look at all the issues, really do the work, call experts, find out what is really going on here. I am a 10-year kennel owner. These are the issues I have with Prop B, and I hope you understand that animal rights and animal welfare are two different things. Just because my dog wants to play in the street, that doesn't mean I should let him.

Stacy Farley is a dog breeder in Lancaster.

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.


faith tate September 22, 2010 | 7:24 p.m.

I live in Memphis and I too have been reading on this. Please everyone needs to vote no. I live on a farm and enjoy my animals. I dont want this to invade my farm. Stop this before we all suffer. Human and animals alike.

(Report Comment)
mark obrien September 22, 2010 | 8:56 p.m.

Stacy, you are delusional. Read your own arguments against the bill:

- "It states dogs should have unfettered access to outside — fine. But when it is negative 20 degrees outside and you have a dog having puppies for the first time, she really isn't sure what is going on and runs in and out and in and out. What if the first puppy is born outside, and she cleans it and leaves it outside?"

How often does this truly happen? If a mother dog has appropriate maternal instincts (as a wolf does), do you really think they'd abandon a pup? Would they even have come into season in November/December to have a helpless litter in January or February, the only months we can really get to -20?

And you're arguing against clean water for dogs? Really? You're arguing against it because the Humane Society has no vet on it's board? Are you a vet? How many vets are for this bill? Did you state that statistic? Did you refute the bill with ANY statistics of your own?

Prop B will pass and bad breeders will be forced out of business. I truly hope you're a good one and wish you luck -- I take you at face value that you really do love animals as much as I do, and hope they're not just a paycheck for you.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro September 22, 2010 | 9:33 p.m.

Wow, Mark obrien.
You make your Missourian debut by calling a nice sounding dog breeder from Lancaster delusional over her concern about how Proposition B will impact her livelihood.
She identified herself as a 10-year kennel owner and you come on this site as a first-time commenter and call her delusional.
Are you a psychiatrist?
Why'd you wait until this issue to pop on board?
Are you an HSUS agent?
Personally, her concern resonates with my understanding of the impact of HSUS on the good people in this particular dog breeding industry and I'm pretty certain that I am not currently having a delusion.
Maybe we should give some credibility to folk like Ms. Farley.

(Report Comment)
Kara Crass September 23, 2010 | 2:20 a.m.

Oh my, Mark O'Brien, you really should not comment on things you know nothing about. I have raised dogs for 22 years and I can tell you that first time mothers most certainly have their puppies outside in the cold a lot. It is not uncommon at all and is one reason, we as good breeders, have to be on our toes and watching them every minute. Are you even reading what you are typing? You don't know much about dogs and nature, that's obvious. You are giving dogs, human actions and emotions "abandon a pup", they are animals, they don't realize the cold is bad for a puppy!!

And good grief: "would they even have come into season in November/December to have a helpless litter in January/February?" You do realize dogs come into heat every 6 months, and they don't pick the months right? They can come into heat any month out of the year, it just depends on when they were born. It is nature, it is a natural cycle, they have hormones and come into heat to breed to procreate. They don't sit around and think what time of year it will be when they have their puppies. They come into heat, have the urge to breed and they do. There is no thought process behind it for them. She clearly DID NOT argue against clean water. She pointed out the fact that we already have regulations in place that require us to provide clean water and sufficient food. That doesn't take a degree to figure out, just go to the MO Dept of Ag and read the 23 pages of regulations that dog breeders already have to follow. This proposition does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to stop puppy mills. They don't follow the current regulations and will not follow more. Why should they, no one knows where they are and if this goes through, they won't have any competition. This proposition has absolutely no provisions in place to find and shut down puppy mills. It's main focus is to mis-lead people into thinking breeders don't have to provide their dogs with minimum, basic care, so it can slip in the number restrictions and the space requirements. Not to mention raising puppies on the ground, which is so unsanitary it is just unbelievable.
Please, Mark, take the time to read up on basic animal husbandry before you criticize someone that knows what they are doing.

(Report Comment)
Anne Hogan September 23, 2010 | 10:05 a.m.

Prop B would simply require basic care and shelter for breeding dogs at puppy mills. The requirement for access to an outdoor area wouldn’t apply to nursing puppies or any dog less than 6 months old, and Missouri law has special provisions for pregnant and nursing mother dogs.

Prop B would also create more opportunities for enforcement of these humane care standards, to protect dogs at both licensed and unlicensed puppy mills.

(Report Comment)
Kara Crass September 23, 2010 | 12:44 p.m.

Actually, the requirements in Proposition B apply to ANY breeding dog over 6 months of age. There are no exclusions for nursing mothers. They are also required to have "constant, unfettered access."

Missouri actually already has 23 pages of regulations for breeding dogs, that cover the basic humane care given them. The nonsense in Prop B about food, water, veterinary care, temperature, exercise and shelter we already have a regulation for. The sub standard and unlicensed facilities don't follow the regulations we already have, they won't follow new ones!

Trying to make this a focus on the basics of care, is just a way to slip through the real purpose, to limit a person's right to own over 50 dogs and the ridiculous space requirements.

If this were really only about the basic, humane care of dogs, it would apply to ALL dogs!! Why then are shelters, rescues, humane societies, hoarders, dog groomers, boarding kennels, hunting dogs and veterinarians exempt? This will affect anyone with over 10 dogs. So if you have 1 or 9, you can treat them anyway you want and it doesn't matter?

Who draws the line of humanity? You can have 1 dog and starve it and keep it in a tiny crate it's whole life, but have 51 and treat them wonderfully and you have committed a class C misdemeaner because you are over the allowed limit?

We already have enough regulations, we don't have the money to enforce what we already have, so why add more? This proposition will cost tax payers 1/2 million dollars a year to enforce. Wouldn't that money be better spent paying for more inspectors to enforce the laws we already have? The state started a program this year, "Bark Alert", to help find and shut down the illegal puppy mills and it's working!! They have already shut down several unlicensed facilities this year and are working to shut down more. Why not give more money to this program and actually do something that will affect the puppy mills.

This proposition will only affect legally licensed breeders who are already in compliance.
Please take the time to be educated and know all the facts before you vote.
I respectfully ask you to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B!!

(Report Comment)
Jenny Thrasher September 23, 2010 | 2:04 p.m.

Good for you, Stacy! Good letter! To respond to Mark O'Brian's comment above, the Missouri Veterinarian Medical Association has come out in Opposition to Prop B, right from the beginning, because they know how bad this will be for Missouri's dogs. In fact the only vets who have endorsed Prop B are those vets who work for the HSMo, who just happens to be pushing the legislation, and their colleages. Coincidence? Nope.

Other issues with Prop B include the fact that there are no medical exemptions included in the various requirements. Current law includes medical exemptions under each section so that in the event that an animal would be harmed rather than helped, the Attending Vet of Record can write the exemption, have it approved by the State Vet, and then keep the paperwork on file for the Kennel. Prop B does not allow for this at all. There are also no exemptions for nurseries, and the temp requirements- which are identical to what is on the books already- have no exemptions for nursery facilities, where current law does. In explanation, newborn pups can't regulate their body temps, and must be kept at an ambient temp of around 92 degrees to keep their temp above 97. If their bodies drop below 97 degrees, they quit eating, become unable to digest food, and will die within 48 hours. 85 degrees is inappropriate. The mother dog can't be expected to keep the pups warm 24/7 for 2 weeks- she has to get up and move, eat, potty, and every time she would go in or out of a door in the dead of winter (as per the Exercise requirement of Prop B), those newborns would have a rush of cold air blown over them in an already too chilly room.

The proponents of Prop B have already admitted under oath during the trial over this that they knew the "kinks" weren't worked out of the legislation and it really wasn't ready to go into effect as it stands, but since they already had so much money involved in it, they were going to go ahead. Now doesn't that sound like what they are saying about Puppymillers? That they are in it for the money at the animal's expense. This is a matter of public record, so anyone who wants to have a look at the transcript of the trial is welcome to purchase a copy from the Cole County courthouse.

Prop B must be voted on AS IT STANDS. It cannot be tweaked, adjusted, or fixed to allow medical exemptions until the end of the next legislative session. That's a whole year of flawed law requiring Kennel owners to force harmful conditions on their dogs until legislators could vote in amendments (to an amendment, mind you) to make living conditions safe for all dogs again! To simplify- the voters of Missouri are being lied to in order to pass legislation that will cost around a million of our tax dollars to implement, then have to waste even more tax money to pay our legislators to have to fix the flaws the next session. Why not just save several million up front, help dogs, and
VOTE NO ON PROP B!!!!!!!!!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro September 24, 2010 | 2:44 p.m.

H$U$ and PETA sheeple should read through this site and consider the real implications of Prop B, in Missouri.
Advocate for the enforcement of EXISTING laws...Why create more legislation which will hurt the good breeders? Or is your real mission to eliminate an entire industry and then move on to a few others?

(Report Comment)
Deanna Henry September 24, 2010 | 4:53 p.m.

You MUST understand who the people are behind this bill and what their TRUE objective is. An article series on what Missourian will face on the November ballot kicked off with Part 1 about Prop B.
Know and understand who and what these people are. They don't give a damn about puppies. The DO give a damn about power and control.

(Report Comment)
Holly Binder September 24, 2010 | 5:04 p.m.

I'm still trying to figure out why any reputable dog breeder would oppose it.Stacy wrote, "Nov. 3 will be a black day across the state for the ones who happen to live on the wrong property because a few (many of which are not Missourians) think they shouldn't be allowed to live and procreate as God intended them to." She is totally right that dogs should be able to live as God intended-walking on grass, raising their pups using their innate animal instinct, cuddling with their owners-rather than spending their years in cramped cages completely without human contact, repeatedly bearing young for profit. Stacy's dogs may not live in that environment, but many do.Several breeders have expressed concern over Prop B. If you're as reputable as you say you are, then what are you so concerned about? Reputable breeders should not be afraid of it, because you should already be doing what is outlined in Prop B-resting your dogs, giving them clean food/water, space to play, and veterinary care.You're hopefully doing a little more-like cuddling them, allowing them to play with kids and cats so you know they are safe to go home with families. Most people want a dog that will become part of the family. It is in the best interest of the breeder to raise dogs that are capable of being safe, socialized members of a family, so you have repeat customers and a good reputation. Reputation and word-of-mouth advertising is priceless!I love dogs. I have a list of pure-bred dogs I hope to own during my lifetime. As a consumer, I want breeders, puppy-millers, whatever you call yourselves, to understand the viewpoint of your consumer. If, as a breeder, you are not even capable of following the basic standards of care outlined in Prop B, then you're not a reputable breeder, and I will not purchase from you. If you sell puppies who require $1000 in veterinary care the first week of ownership due to intestinal parasites and respiratory infection, you're not a reputable breeder and I will not purchase from you. If your puppy is afraid of GRASS, you're not a reputable breeder, and I will not purchase from you. If I cannot come to your house and see where the pups with mom and pick one out, you're not a reputable breeder. If you think of your dogs as products, you're not a reputable breeder. Reputable breeders sell happy, healthy, socialized dogs to families who they know will care for them well. You will question me about where the puppy will live, because as a reputable breeder, you care about the livelihood of the dog just as much or more than you care about the money you will get for the dog.This dog lover will never purchase from a mass facility. My friends and family will never purchase from a mass facility. If you're a smart breeder, you'll vote "yes" too and shout it loud and proud. The proponents of Prop B are dog lovers, and it's our almighty dollar you want! So get smart, shape up and realize your customers want Prop B passed & followed!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro September 25, 2010 | 3:50 a.m.

("Holly Binder says:
The proponents of Prop B are dog lovers...")

I contend that so are those who oppose two wealthy organizations which perpetuated Proposition B.
Those being HSUS and PETA.
Why not advocate for enforcement of current laws and get HSUS and PETA out of Missouri?

(Report Comment)
Pat McCann September 25, 2010 | 12:15 p.m.

Holly, dear, if you are being paid to represent HSUS on the internet--it might be wise to review their proposed laws and cite their provisions accurately. You see, dear, Prop B does not allow dogs to be on grass--too likely to have living parasites and zoonotic diseases. Yickky things that you and your fellow HSUS experts who nothing about animal husbandry, don't want to see--in any legislation that they write. Dogs MUST always be on HARD surface flooring, Holly, according to HSUS.

Please try to avoid being overly dismissive with phrases like "As a consumer, I want breeders, puppy-millers, whatever you call yourselves, to understand the viewpoint of your consumer." All these words show is that you do not know the different categories that HSUS uses in polite conversation because as far as HSUS, and you dear, are concerned anyone who breeds dogs is a puppy miller. So let's just get things out in the open as they should be. While you may be a consumer of chocolate, potatoes, and tofo, you are definitely not a "consumer of dogs"! You have never bought a dog even as a pet and would ONLY consider a shelter dog that has either been confiscated from authorities or surrendered by its owner. That pretty much removes you as having any criteria or standards for pet ownership because if you ever wanted a dog at all, you would pretty much settle for the bottom of the barrel.

On the other hand, there are many small scale breeders who are very selective about the homes where their puppies go to live. Many of them use references, home inspections, and criminal background checks. The condition of their home, and the behavior of their family reflects the sort of care that they are likely to provide for a dog--and many people who want a dog would make horrible, irresponsible dog owners--evidenced by the number of dogs surrendered by their owners at shelters around the country. Many of these same small scale breeders also take a dog back for any reason at any time PERIOD.

So, Holly, dear, it may be time for you to find out exactly what is happening in the world of dogs before you assume a position of knowledge. Frankly, my dear, you have a lot to learn before you post.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro September 25, 2010 | 12:52 p.m.

("houndlover (anonymous) says...
...H$U$ does not donate but a pitiance to local shelters BECAUSE what they REALLY are is a HUGE lobbying machine with an agenda to ultimatly, step by little step, remove our constitutional rights of choice in animal ownership, dietary choices, and choice of hobbies and entertainment. That other bulk of their $$$$ that does not go to salaries and pensions goes to political contributions and extensive and crafty lobbying campaigns to limit and financially and practically squeeze out farming, hunting & fishing, research, and animal ownership.
Should their unrealistic demands for pet ownership be placed on human habitation a huge percentage of parents would lose custody of children due to "abuse" ( substitute child for animal).
Failure to comply w/ regs like 7 complete air changes per HOUR, temps. never over 85 ......or you are an ANIMAL ABUSER, get real! These kind of regs. are unrealistic for a huge percentage of our population !!!!!! AKA - make it illegal for all those to own pets! Also promoting laws making it illegal to tie a dog out (often coupled with local laws prohibiting or limiting fencing) These are the kind of incrimental steps that HSUS promotes and politicians with NO ANIMAL HUSBANDRY EXPERIENCE, BUT who have accepted political donations form GUESS WHO are promoting!
The wording of legislation being proposed in state after state is all identical and consistently linked to H$U$ backed legislators.

It is irrelevant WHO supports Humane Watch !!!!! HUMANE WATCH fills a necessary void to give a wake up call to an apathetic population who fails to check out the hidden agenda of the Animal Rights Movement. They are working to protect Our CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS TO FREEDOM OF CHOICE which the Animal Rights Movement ( with major player H$U$) are working to incrimentally take away.

Take of your rose colored glasses folks!")
source and more:

(Report Comment)
Danel Gipson September 27, 2010 | 12:02 p.m.

Who are you kidding people? Why is it that people continue to breed animals when there are millions out there getting euthanized EVERYDAY, even pets that are "full-blooded w/ papers"! Many are even the animals from litters in your own breeding facilities! It sounds to me that breeders are making excuses because they are too lazy to get of their butts and get a job and earn real cash instead of making their pets do it for them! I rescue animals all the time because of people like you! I have a papered Cane Corso right now because the original owners no longer wanted him because they were getting divorced and were about to put him to sleep! I also have a full-blooded Staffordshire Bull Terrier that I rescued from a trailer a breeder shoved her in when they didn't want to deal with her anymore because she was the runt of the litter. When I got her, she was covered in feces!!! My most recent rescue is a papered Razorsedge Pit Bull Terrier that was rescued from a puppy mill. In the last 3 months, he's been treated with Demodectic Mange and an umbilical hernia, not to mention the emotional and psychological trauma he has dealt with everyday from being neglected and unsocialized! Now, can you still tell me that YOUR business is still legit and is just so great!!! My 3 dogs are just 3 in MILLIONS that end up at the end of a needle or in a gas chamber ALL THE TIME!!! I WILL vote YES on PROP B, so that breeders are finally put in their place once and for all, now go get a job and quit using these poor animals that HAD NO CHOICE to begin with in this nasty, filthy "job" you call a business!!!

(Report Comment)
Pat Van Osten September 29, 2010 | 11:03 a.m.

Where are all of these puppies being sold? Shelters and animal control facilities are euthanizing as fast as they come in. I was just wondering. This is just my opinion. I just came back from Europe and wanted to throw up when I see what we are producing as dogs. In London dogs are allowed on public transportation. I saw pit bulls on the underground who did not even resemble what we are breeding. German Shepards in Germany are well bred not like the hip dysplasia dogs we are breeding. I think people should ask what kind of dogs we are breeding? We are breeding inbred and unhealthy dogs. Most golden, rottie, and GS rescues have to do hip surgeries on most of their dogs. If you cannot breed healthy, sound temperament, and socialized dogs, then you should not be breeding. We are just breeding for money and the animals are paying with their lives. I am not saying other countries do not have problems, they do, but we are the only country who have puppymillers, turning them out by the hundreds of thousands. Do most of these dogs go to dog auctions and flea markets? What do people think about Hunte Corporation? Even if you did not have any breeders at all, this company turns out more than enough to sell all over the U.S. We are in such deep trouble in this country. Basically now, dogs are being bred to die. “Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight.”—Albert Schweitzer

(Report Comment)
Crystal Bradley September 30, 2010 | 10:42 a.m.

Why doesn't Hsus just come out and put on the bill that they want to shut down and steal everyone that has a pet , a cow, a sheep and so on. Why are they so mamby pamby about everything and just tell it like it is. They want to make sure no American can own a dog, in reality they don't care about the dogs. They are going after livestock and farmers ability to produce food. Check out California's laws on owning or running a veggie or fruit stand. It's always obvious who writes on places like this, the brainwashed zombie's who have no clue what's going on in America. No offense to them as they possibly really don't know. The more I read about this the more I understand what the Good Breeders are going through. Why doesn't Hsus take all the millions and millions they con out of citizens every year and give that to breeders so they can buy that huge luxury home for their dogs. They could also hire private vets to go out there if a flea is found on a dog and get rid of it. They could also hire a dog sitter to go sit and groom one or two dogs every single day. They could buy choice steak oops I mean tofu and other non meat things dogs don't really want to eat. They could also put to have every inch of space a dog walks on paved so they would never again be able to touch they ground like they want. They could give 100,000.00 to every breeder and still have enough for their salaries and parties.
They could also pay a couple of grand every time a dog doesn't have a litter.
Someone asked what is going to happen to all the dogs past 50 dogs a kennel? They will probably go to friends and family to help them get started in the dog breeding business.
Would a cattleman say. Oh sure come take (steal) most of my herd. Wow you'll let me keep a few if I clean up all the cow patties everyday and put them on cement and only breed them every other year? Sure that sounds lovely. Hey the next bill you'll let me keep 10 cows this year? Wow your just to generous! I'll lose the farm but at least I can have a few cows to take care of outside my apartment. Oops the darn apartment manager said I have to get rid of my cows. Guess I'll just have another tofu burger and crawl away.
That's what they want America ! Wake up and think !!
Have to many fish in your fish tank? They don't have enough room to swim. You'll need 12 sq ft for every tiny fish. And the tank must be emptied and cleaned everyday. Set the poor fish free. Don't let them breed, have them spayed or neutered. That included the poor fish stuck in that pond with mud in it! What happens if there are over 50 "intact" fish do we have to have the rest killed?
Do you understand how silly this is?
Vote NO on letting the govt take over and ruining American farms and for goodness stakes don't let them regulate that a kennel has to be a certain temp in order to have most of the innocent puppies die when it's way to cold for them.
It should be called "Animal haters bill"

(Report Comment)
Danel Gipson September 30, 2010 | 5:08 p.m.

Anyone that has been following the current laws that are in place for breeders, shouldn't even be bothered by this bill. This bill only ENFORCES what should already be in place in these homes and facilities! The animals have no voice and we are that for them---their only one!!! They didn't get to decide to be placed in a breeding facility to make money for the goodness of people so they may put food on the table!

(Report Comment)
Danel Gipson September 30, 2010 | 5:10 p.m.

And Stacy-If you don't want them on your property, that only tells me that you have something to hide and I just pray to God that you are one of the first to be taken down by this new bill! Good luck and I would suggest you better start cleaning up your act!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro September 30, 2010 | 5:34 p.m.

("We need legislature that will effectively allow for the investigation and prosecution of the abusers and neglectful individuals that are being motivated by nothing but greed. This legislation does not address the flagrant disregard for life these unlicensed facilities are guilty of practicing. There is some redundancy in the wording of this bill that mirrors the rules already in place but the public is being led to believe there are no rules in place regulating the commercial facilities.

This is one more instance where the apathy of the majority is being exploited in an attempt to promote a private interest's agenda. These private interest groups count on the fact that the majority of people will simply say yes to something without actually knowing the full ramification of what their support may mean. I have said it before, it is like eating something because it looks pretty. Once you get it in your mouth, it is too late.")

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 11:16 a.m.

Ray Shapiro is hateful and rude on these posts!! Get a hobby Ray...come on dude. Get a life!!!

(Report Comment)
jake carter October 12, 2010 | 11:06 p.m.

Call Barbara Schmitz 573-263-9226 and ask for a tour of the commercial kennel that she built in St Louis. Ask to see her data that has been collected at least a minimum of 5 years and ask to see the vet records along with her licenses. She does have all this right? This thing has been tested? I called all day today and guess what? No one answered the phone except auto. Sorry we are not at our desk. You know if any citizen tried anything that had to do with the government we would have to have rocket scientists, economists, engineers etc... to even be able to propose this to the state. What in God's name is this farce!

(Report Comment)
jake carter October 12, 2010 | 11:13 p.m.

Before you inflict anything on the rest of the state, focus on Columbia. You want to inspect something? Try the Columbia 2nd Chance group. Yep! Guilty as sin. Crate their large breed dogs all day while they go to work for 8-10 hours. Lame? hmmmmm Central Humane Society? let's talk about total mismanagement of funds. How do you tank a business? Invite that bunch in. Good thing someone brought Dr. Allert on board. Wonder why they don't want to take a stance on Prop B. "afraid of the fall-out" I would be too. They have had a pretty decent relationship with the good kennels. Some of those kennels have deep pockets and are friends with the folks in COMO that have even deeper wells. Get the picture?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 12, 2010 | 11:28 p.m.

("jake carter says:
Before you inflict anything on the rest of the state, focus on Columbia. You want to inspect something?")

jake carter: You talkin' to me?
Are you talkin' to me?
Why are you talkin' to me?

I already know quite a bit about CMHS, 2nd. Chance, PAWS, etc. What do they have to do with any of us inspecting the HSUS agenda or the disastrous impact of Proposition B?
And why are you telling people to call a Pro-Ber who you convey won't answer her business phone or release details on her supposed ambiguous poll?

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 15, 2010 | 4:51 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'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!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 15, 2010 | 5:37 p.m.

The righteous thing to do for the protection of all dogs in Missouri is to address how to better enforce the current 23 pages of laws, rules and regulations already on the books.
Proposition B advances the HSUS, spawn of PETA agenda and will do more to hurt Missouri's economy then help it.
Research what will actually happen to Missouri and its dog population should this Proposition pass.
Research HSUS, thoroughly.
Vote No on Proposition B.
Let the Animal Welfare Groups work with Law Enforcement and those who are Professional Breeders and Industry Leaders in partnering together for the best solutions to the most humane way to handle this service industry. Keep the fanatical, Animal Rights Activists out of the equation and protect dog, animal, livestock and agricultural industries in Missouri.
Missouri's future is at stake here.
Do your homework on this Proposition before you vote.
I have...and I hate homework.
Vote No on Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 18, 2010 | 10:20 a.m.

I do believe that November 2, Missourians will show their compassion & pride & ethics by voting YES on Prop B!
Why would every Humane organization in Missouri endorse & support Prop B?
Because they are the ones who have to deal with the aftermath of it. Besides HSUS, HSMO (Humane Society of Missouri, ASPCA (Association for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), and MAAL (Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation) all support & fund Prop B. Does it happen that a good portion of the money comes from HSUS? Yes. THANK GOD! Dogs have no money to run ads in their own defense! But a good chunk of money also comes from Missourians! Hundreds of thousands of dollars have been raised just this month alone by MISSOURIANS supporting Prop B who have no vested interested other than the welfare of the dogs.
Also, for those of you who do not know the difference, Most of the groups involved with Prop B are ANIMAL WELFARE groups, not AR groups. The Definition of "animal welfare" is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and when necessary, humane euthanasia.

As a Missourian, living in the "Puppy Mill Capital of the US", I know we need to add to & clear up out current legislation. Prop B will help do that. It will add to the current ACFA (Animal Care Facilities Act) & make the current laws clearer & easier to enforce.
I also honestly believe that anyone who understands the big picture and horrific impact PUPPY MILLS have in the state of Missourican, can only come to one conclusion & Vote YES.
Please join me on Nov 2, 2010.
VOTE YES! on Prop B!

(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.