advertisement

LETTER: Love man's best friend and support Proposition B

Monday, October 4, 2010 | 1:02 p.m. CDT

I encourage readers to vote "YES" on Proposition B, in support of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. This act requires large-scale breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with the basics of sufficient food, clean water, veterinary care, and adequate housing and space to exercise.

Missouri is the puppy mill capital of the nation — home to an estimated 3,000 puppy mills that breed hundreds of thousands of puppies, far more than any other state in the country. As a proud Missourian, I find that distinguishing feature to be shameful, but easily changed. Dogs in puppy mills are confined to cramped wire cages, and spend their lives churning out litter after litter of puppies. Some have never felt the feel of grass on their paws. Most never get any exercise, socialization or human interaction. This act has nothing to do with the meat industry, as many are saying. It is not the American way to treat man's best friend this way. As someone who has known the love of a dog, as someone who has come home from work and realized my dog was waiting there for me at the door the whole time, I cannot find the treatment of these dogs in my state to be even remotely acceptable.

If you have ever known the love of a dog and how unconditional that love is, please vote yes on election day for Proposition B.

Spencer Miller lives in Marshall, Mo.


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

Mark Foecking October 4, 2010 | 4:26 p.m.

"This act requires large-scale breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with the basics of sufficient food, clean water, veterinary care, and adequate housing and space to exercise."

Actually the current regulations do that. Look:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/curren...

Nothing in Proposition B requires that animals be socialized. They could still be left in their kennels their whole lives (except for when it was being cleaned), and not be touched by a human other than the vet. All Prop B would do is to mandate somewhat more space, a kennel design that many animal care professionals say would cause problems, and limit the number of dogs any breeder could have.

If the dogs are being adequately cared for (and again, what you want would not be addressed by Prop B) there should not be a limit. This limit would force many legal and licensed breeders to shut down, and require many thousands of dogs be placed in homes, (or mostly likely euthanized).

Most of the abuses occur at unlicensed facilites, which Prop B would not address. These facilites operate outside of the law, are already illegal, and would not follow Prop B rules any more than they follow the current ones.

We need more, and more effective enforcement of the existing laws. Prop B will not have the effect of lessening animal suffering. In fact, it may increase it by driving more dog breeding underground. It is a weak, redundant proposal, which adds little of substance to the existing animal welfare regulations. It has little to recommend it and the potential to do a lot of damage, both the to dogs it purports to help, and to responsible Missouri breeders.

DK

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 4, 2010 | 6:01 p.m.

"We need more, and more effective enforcement of existing laws."

Yes we do, and that's what's wrong with so many situations today. Existing laws are deemed inadequate, but often the problem exists due to their not being enforced. So we pass a more stringent law, but since good enforcement still isn't there how much good does that do?

Sorry, I forgot, it does do some good - for us. We can pat ourselves on the back (figuratively and/or literaly) and tell ourselves how wonderful we are, but nothing much will have really changed.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 4, 2010 | 6:02 p.m.

@Spencer Miller:
Your letter and the premise it perpetuates is greatly flawed.
So flawed, that you have convinced me to vote No on Proposition B.
You lump legitimate, legal, law-abiding, caring people who are in the dog raising industry into this 3,000 number and proclaim them all to be villians by categorizing them under an HSUS/PETA branded negative moniker. You should be ashamed of all the HSUS and PETA "goose steppers" and not ashamed of the good, hardworking dog industry workers of Missouri.
If you want to appeal emotionally to people's sense of humanity, then advocate for better enforcement of the 22 pages of regulations and laws already on the books. Go after the illegal, unlicensed, poorly run puppy breeders. Why go after an entire industry, which provides a decent source of income for private citizens? Is it that HSUS and PETA have a bigger agenda that's being hidden by the supporters of this HSUS generated Proposition B?
Don't be ashamed of Missouri or the Missourians who are properly making a living in the dog, animal, livestock or agricultural industries. Be ashamed of yourself for advocating the destruction of private, already legislated, businesses.
It is both fitting and proper to vote No on Proposition B and send a clear message to keep HSUS and PETA away from Missouri animal and agricultural business.
Any decent person deplores animal abuse.
However, in this case, Spencer Miller, you are abusing people with deceit.
("HSUS is DECEIVING YOU"):
http://www.mofed.org/Hand-outs-Printable...

(Report Comment)
wes scribner October 4, 2010 | 6:16 p.m.

SUPPORT THIS AND ALSO
BEWARE!! Do Not purchase any pets from Kara Crass dog breeder. I adopted a puppy early this yr from her and it got diagnosed with a disease.Rare or not when i contacted Kara to refund my money and use the 1 yr warranty she denied my request for a refund on my puppy. Ive spent a thousand bucks already to find out what my poor puppy had. Every month for the rest of his life i have to bring him to the vet to get a hundred dollar shot. Do the math! All i asked for was a refund on the cost of the dog to help with medical bills and was denied. DO NOT PURCHASE A PET FROM THIS COLD BREEDER. I will do what ever it takes for my voice to be heard.Its just a wrong way to do business.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 4, 2010 | 9:06 p.m.

@wes scribner:
This is one of two of the only comments you have ever posted on the Missourian. Both comments are a complaint about one dog you got from a reputable source. There are more than 3,000 reputable sources in Missouri and countless numbers of animal transactions. Take these people to small claims court for all I care. Why use what you consider a bad experience to advocate the closing down of an entire licensed, regulated industry?

Now for me.
I really only care about myself, wes, and I need to share with you the following story.
(So, I hope you have some good advice for me as well):
I once won a golfish at a carnival.
One week later, the goldfish was dead.
When I went back to the carnival site, to get my dead goldfish replaced, those evil carnies were long gone.
I think HSUS and PETA should advocate that every carnival in Missouri should be closed down.
Will you help me close down all carnivals in Missouri? Then we can take on the circuses, the aquariums and then the fish mongers.
With your help, we can put them all out of business.
If you can't see it fitting and proper to do this just for me, do it for goldie.

(Report Comment)
Anne Hogan October 5, 2010 | 7:49 a.m.

Current Missouri regulations concerning puppy mills are complicated, vague, and confusing. As a result, it is difficult for law enforcement officers to identify and prosecute violations. The problem is not just a lack of enforcement, but the lack of good, clear legal standards that facilitate enforcement.

Furthermore, it is not just unliscened and unregulated breeders that are the issue. The USDA’s Office of Inspector General just issued a report saying USDA kennel inspectors are guilty of witnessing horrible animal suffering at puppy mills, but not doing anything to stop that suffering, often because they feel constrained by weaknesses in current law. The Better Business Bureaus of St. Louis, Springfield and Kansas City all combined on a report earlier this year saying the exact same thing happens in Missouri, and that unless something changes puppy mills will continue to abuse and neglect their dogs and sell the puppies to unsuspecting families. The Missouri state auditor has reported similar problems in multiple reports, since at least 2001.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 5, 2010 | 8:21 a.m.

Anne Hogan wrote:

"puppy mills will continue to abuse and neglect their dogs"

Define "puppy mill". Prop B doesn't. It simply uses that term in its title without any reference to what is considered a puppy mill. Without definition, it is simply a pejorative term to elicit an emotional response.

"USDA kennel inspectors are guilty of witnessing horrible animal suffering at puppy mills, but not doing anything to stop that suffering, often because they feel constrained by weaknesses in current law."

Then fix that, and that alone. Hire more inspectors and follow up on violators more aggressively. But don't tell an otherwise legal and responsible breeder they can't have more than 50 breeding females, if they can otherwise meet the care and space requirements. I suspect they are in the great majority here.

Really, I'm not against the care standards given in this prop. However, they aren't all that different from what exists now (and I don't find the current regs vague at all - have you read them?). If there are enforcement problems with the current law, then fix those. I imagine that could be done legislatively, to boot, and few legislators would vote against it.

DK

(Report Comment)
Dana Schikora October 5, 2010 | 8:29 a.m.

Don't purchase from Tanner's Puppies located in Cassville, Missouri. I did and it cost me $3,000.00 to save his life. Do they care - NO. Does the vet with his rubber health certificate stamp care - NO. I am in Florida and if I was a Missouri resident, I would vote yes. I do agree that there needs to be more inspectors. Did the Department of Agriculture care about my case - NO. I have also found a gentleman in Virginia who purchased 2 puppies through this "broker/breeder" and both puppies died. This group sent out 128 dogs in 2009. Only puppy mills produces those numbers. Get the laws in place and then tighten up the enforcement.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 5, 2010 | 9:34 a.m.

Dana Schikora wrote:

"This group sent out 128 dogs in 2009. Only puppy mills produces those numbers."

That's a bit more than one dog every three days.

A breeder with 50 breeding females, breeding once a year (Prep B allows two breedings in 18 months), could produce 300-400 dogs in a year. All legal under prop B.

So why do you support it?

DK

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 5, 2010 | 11:36 a.m.

If I had my way, the only dog breeders would be those who did so based on love of the breed, rather than as a profession.

However, Proposition B is a way of allowing the smaller well organized and well run breeder to operate while closing down the big factory farm commercial operations...otherwise known as puppy mills.

Proposition B is targeted at the large, puppy mill operations. It prohibits more than 50 breeding dogs, which if the organization is a small mom-and-pop organization, would allow each dog to get 20 minutes of attention a day (for an 8 hour day). I don't think 20 minutes is enough, but it's better than what the dogs get at the big commercial farms, where they get no individual attention, period.

It is a good step--it doesn't drive out the smaller or hobby breeders; it does stop the big puppy mill/commercial dog farms.

I'm sorry that such a letter of love is met with such disdain, primarily by those who are in the business for a buck and could care less about the dogs. All they want is their way of making money, pushing dogs out like so many sacks of potatoes.

Once this bill goes into effect, the larger operations will end up closing down. The number of inspectors we have would then not be overwhelmed by the large number of facilities in this state. The inspectors could work more effectively--especially if those in the public monitor their work (all the reports are available online).

Oh, and don't think anyone who says that you convinced them to vote No is truthful--Mr. Shapiro has been making the rounds of the web sites. I rather expect that he is a puppy mill owner, or associated with one.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 5, 2010 | 12:11 p.m.

Maybe this will help clarify this issue. It won't sway the Neanderthals lurking here though..only a large club can accomplish that..

RESPONSIBLE BREEDERS VS. DOG-FARMERS:

A responsible dog breeder IS NOT IN IT FOR THE MONEY.

A responsible dog breeder wants nothing more than to improve their particular beloved breed.

A responsible dog breeder breeds for QUALITY..

THEY DO NOT BREED FOR QUANTITY.

A responsible breeder does not house their dogs in pig-pens and chicken coops all the time whining about how much they love their 'babies'.

A responsible breeder considers ALL their dogs as part of the family, which means that their dogs spend much of their time INSIDE the house WITH THE FAMILY.

Responsible breeders do not live/breed in motorized recreational vehicles or in trailer-parks.

A responsible breeder's dogs are visible to the public ... they are not housed off-site or in the woods or in a lean-to back behind BillyBob's corn field.

A responsible breeder NEVER EVER 'CROSSBREEDS'.

A responsible breeder DOES NOT BREED THEIR FEMALES TO DEATH.

A responsible breeder employs a responsible veterinarian for ALL medical/surgical needs and does not hack off tails and ears with tin shears.

A responsible breeder does not allow fleas ticks mats sores untreated wounds rotting teeth or any other third-world nasties ANYWHERE NEAR THEIR DOGS.

Responsible breeders do not sell their 'unwanted' dogs at auction, or take them out 'back the barn and shoot them, or gas them with papaw's truck exhaust and toss the bodies in a ditch.

A responsible dog breeder is licensed, regulated inspected and therefore PAYS THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES.

Anyone else is a fraud, a sham, an embarrassment a troglodyte sub-human throwback.

A RESPONSIBLE FARMER DOES NOT BREED DOGS!

THEY ARE TOO BUSY DOING THEIR REAL WORK!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 5, 2010 | 12:33 p.m.

("--Mr. Shapiro has been making the rounds of the web sites. I rather expect that he is a puppy mill owner, or associated with one.")

Stating that I must be a "puppy mill" owner, or associated with one, is like me accusing you of being a mod, 60's secret agent from Great Britain or at the very least his wife.

Sorry, Mrs. Powers. I'm not a puppy mill owner, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Select last night.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 5, 2010 | 12:58 p.m.

("Proposition B is not about animals or about cruelty, it is an assault on property rights, small businesses, and the free market. It employs a proven strategy for stripping rights from the people and empowering the elitists: 1) find an innocent lovable party - puppy, 2) make them a victim with an emotion-stirring label - puppy mill, 3) make "more government" the solution - Prop B. If voters take a broader and thoughtful perspective and if they insist that freedoms be protected and that policies be logical rather than emotional, then American ideals will win, and Prop B will fail in November.")
http://www.joplinindependent.com/display...

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 5, 2010 | 1:16 p.m.

Terry Ward said:
"A responsible dog breeder IS NOT IN IT FOR THE MONEY."

I reply:
Terry, who are you to tell them how much money they are allowed to earn or the size of their work force and payroll? Sounds like an Obama strategy to vilify an entire industry to me.
(You're gonna need a bigger club.)

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 5, 2010 | 1:45 p.m.

Dork..

If you libertarian twerps hate this country so much you should move to Russia.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 5, 2010 | 2:01 p.m.

Actually, I misspoke.
Russia is a country of laws.

Make that Afghanistan.
There you can ignore the law or make your own law and your 'freedoms'
will be absolute.

Pack light..

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 5, 2010 | 3:19 p.m.

So, Mr. Shapiro, did the person who wrote this convince your to vote against Proposition B? Or haven't you been hither and yon writing comments against Proposition B?

As for Emery's "property rights" assertion, I'm assuming you're quoting it because you agree with it. If so, you're saying that the dogs are nothing more than bags of carrots, and it's OK to treat them this way?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 5, 2010 | 3:56 p.m.

Now you done did Terry, obviously knowing nothing of libertarian beliefs. If person A is not harming someone or that person's property, then there should not be a law imposing upon person A. Like it or not, dogs are person A's property, not some group community property. This isn't to condone conditions that may (or may not) be less than desirable, but apparently existing law with a handful of regulators isn't working for the pro-Prop B side. What makes you think more laws will make the situation better?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 5, 2010 | 4:45 p.m.

@Shelley Powers:
I have been posting articles which expose HSUS and PETA and Proposition B for what they truly are.
Posting these articles, coupled with the responses of ProBers, HSUS, PETA and their obedient sheeple, like yourself, have convinced me to vote No.
(Afterall, decision making is a process of observing, researching, discussion and feedback.)
Ultimately, it's all about picking sides when it comes time to vote, Shelly, and the arguments, stance and agenda of sheeple like yourself don't stand a chance against those who do research on HSUS and PETA who are actually going to hurt the law-abiding good agricultural, livestock and dog industry folk of Missouri.

Now onto another sheeple:
Anne Hogan said:
"Current Missouri regulations concerning puppy mills are complicated, vague, and confusing. As a result, it is difficult for law enforcement officers to identify and prosecute violations. The problem is not just a lack of enforcement, but the lack of good, clear legal standards that facilitate enforcement."

So another words, Anne Hogan, Missourian lawmakers are hacks and they need the likes of HSUS/PETA, and their out of state money and influence, to emotionally manipulate voters and advance their own activistic agenda.
There. I fixed it for ya.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 5, 2010 | 4:56 p.m.

@John Shultz:
Speaking of Terry Ward?
I can smell a Prog a mile away!

Hey, Shelley Powers:
Do you think maybe this guy's kid sister had anything to do with him clarifying his position?
("She acknowledges, however, that the audience Friday might have been confused by Carnahan's answer to the question as he stated that -- in general -- he's against over burdensome regulations on agriculture.")
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyrf...

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 5, 2010 | 6:17 p.m.

Shelly Powers wrote:

"It prohibits more than 50 breeding dogs, which if the organization is a small mom-and-pop organization, would allow each dog to get 20 minutes of attention a day (for an 8 hour day)."

That's assuming the mom-and-pop have nothing else to do beside love on their dogs. In reality, Mom and Pop will be cleaning, arranging vet care, doing paperwork, arranging and witnessing breedings, etc. The dogs would be lucky to get much attention at all, other than being taken from their runs every day for cleaning, and seen by the vet.

Plus, Prop B does not mandate "attention". Mom-and-pop's animals could sit in their runs, ignored, just as you say the puppy mills do, and there's nothing anyone could do about it.

Here's a suggestion. Drop Prop B from the ballot, and petition for a bill that would require breeding dogs (or any dogs) to be walked, socialized, and stay in their owner's houses at least x hours/ week. Don't let anyone own more dogs then they can give attention to for x number of hours/day. And don't let anyone make monetary profit from breeding a dog.

That would be the straightforward, honest way of getting what you want (or at least trying). You're making a lot of assumptions about what Prop B will do that are not spelled out in the text. If things aren't spelled out in the text, then it's illogical to assume they will come to pass.

"Once this bill goes into effect, the larger operations will end up closing down."

Where will these dogs go? Are they better off at the end of a needle than in their present situations? I'd imagine some might be, and some wouldn't. But by shutting all these breeders down, you'd sentence the vast majority of those dogs to death, happy or not.

"The number of inspectors we have would then not be overwhelmed by the large number of facilities in this state."

There are 12 inspectors for about 1,150 licensed breeding facilities subject to inspection. That 100 facilities/year/inspector, or about two/week. They're not overwhelmed.

The 3,000 figure we've seen is an estimate of all facilities in MO, licensed or not. Since inspectors don't even know, in many cases, where the unlicensed facilities are, there's not much they can do until someone makes them aware (what MoBark.com is for).

What Prop B legislates and what its supporters assume it will do are quite different things. It is being promoted as a cure to a problem that is significantly outside of legal control (except, in some cases, by better inspection and enforcement). It does not address socialization, or mandate anything but basic, arms-length care (which is already addressed in the current regs). The way it is being promoted is misleading and fraudulent. Voters should read the current regs, and prop B, and decide whether prop B will really do all the things proponents say it will. I think most are intelligent enough to see it won't.

DK

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 5, 2010 | 8:32 p.m.

Possibly someone can point to ONE law in any area that accomplished-instantly ..badda bing..-everything associated with it's original intent.
EVERYTHING has to start somewhere.

Laws, in civilized societies, are for the most part intended to fix problems or to 'right wrongs'.
The passing of ANY law is a beginning of a solution..not an end...

This is not the case in say, North Korea, where laws emerge absolute..an 'end' to themselves... and Vlad the Impaler to the straggler..

There aren't..and never will be.. adequate 'resources' to entirely stop child abuse or murder or drunk driving or identity theft.

According to y'all's snarky logic, WHY pass a law prohibiting what will NEVER be adequately enforced?
'Jeeze, Mommy...some kids are STILL SMOKING!!!!'

Thanks God you geezers didn't have your paws on the wheel when THOSE laws were passed..

Otherwise we'd all still be rootin' around in Deliverance country.

But thats okay for you, yes?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 6, 2010 | 12:19 a.m.

Mark, Proposition B is a very good start.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 6, 2010 | 12:24 a.m.

Sorry, hit return too soon.

Mark, the bill is very good, not only to close puppy mills, but also ensure a healthier way of life for the dogs in the remaining breeders. In addition, Proposition B provides more enforcement "teeth", which means being able to finally shut down so many bad breeders this state has.

Between both, we'll have made a good, solid dent in the puppy mill industry. We'll finally have a comprehensive set of laws that will finally bring this despicable trade to a close.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 6, 2010 | 12:30 a.m.

Oh now, this is lovely. And spreading everywhere:

From Talking Points Memo:

"Anita Andrews from Alliance For Truth told TPM that it’s a “deceptive, lying bill” that is “trying to purposefully get rid of the breeders.” The state of Missouri, she said, has been given a bad rap as “the puppy mill capitol” of the U.S. but “in truth we have the best ribbon breeders in the country.” And, Andrews said, the state already has anti-cruelty laws on the books.

“They don’t like animals,” she said of the Humane Society of the United States."

They don't like animals...priceless.

from

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.co...

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 6, 2010 | 12:33 a.m.

Oh, and here's a video of one of those "blue ribbon kennels".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdI2U6dgA...

This is the _best_ of the kennels, and it looks like a soulless slice of hell.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 6, 2010 | 3:38 a.m.

Shelly Powers wrote:

"but also ensure a healthier way of life for the dogs in the remaining breeders."

You still haven't told me why you think so. Prop B says nothing about an animals quality of life. They can still sit in their runs and only rarely interact with a human.

"This is the _best_ of the kennels, and it looks like a soulless slice of hell."

I wouldn't assume they are all that way from one sample, would you? And actually, conditions in a Prop B legal kennel needn't be all that different. The only major difference is all the dogs would be in runs on ground level. You'd still see nursing bitches looking out with "sad, soulless eyes" from their whelping boxes (I'm also not convinced that all of them are sad - humans can be notoriously bad judges of the state of an animal). You'd still have littermates held together in smaller enclosures awaiting transport. There could still be hundreds of dogs in any one facility.

This isn't really a first step toward anything except making purebred dogs more difficult and expensive to get. I'd never own a purebred (I don't even have a dog), but since there are so many people that want them, the market for these animals is not going away. Prop B will simply drive more of it underground, where conditions will not be monitored, and animal suffering will increase, not decrease.

Emotion is no reason to jump into something. Our divorce rate is a prime example of that. Consider the long range implications of what this bill will do. It may help a few animals in a few places. It won't get a handle on the larger problem of abuse in unlicensed facilities. Only better enforcement can do that, and it's not necessary to pass this for that to happen.

DK

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 7:02 a.m.

Ray Shapiro seems to have an opinion on EVERYthing. I looked back on previous letters to editor out of curiosity, to see if my suspicion was correct. From everthing about a mosque on ground zero to puppy mills, he is a self-proclaimed expert. Life is too short to be so angry. I bet the anger is all over your face, and people can see it from a mile away. Let go, man. Find a hobby. Start an exercise program. Volunteer at a puppy mill............

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 7:03 a.m.

Ray Shapiro needs to find a hobby............

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 7:05 a.m.

Just before Sophie passed away, Oprah—and thousands of drivers—saw a billboard just off the Kennedy Expressway in Chicago that read, "Oprah: Do a show on puppy mills. The dogs need you."

The man behind the billboard is Bill Smith, founder of Main Line Animal Rescue. Every year, Bill and several volunteers rescue hundreds of abused, unwanted or abandoned animals, rehabilitate them and adopt them out to families. Many of the animals Bill rescues come from puppy mills, which he describes as places where bad breeders care more about the profit they make from puppies than the health or welfare of the animals. He says the dogs in puppy mills face deplorable conditions including inbreeding, minimal or no vet care, limited shelter and overcrowded cages.

"We were so frustrated ... and no one seemed to be helping them," Bill tells Oprah. "I know that you're a huge animal lover. I just thought that you would be able to spread the word and educate a lot of people.

God Bless Oprah!!!

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 7:07 a.m.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bx5jc_at...

watch this and see oprah exposes puppy mills!!!!!

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 6, 2010 | 7:22 a.m.

John Mancini wrote:

"dogs in puppy mills"

Would someone please define "puppy mill" in an objective, quantitative way?

Because if you don't, it's a meaningless word just being thrown around to apply to whomever and whatever one doesn't like.

If you can't objectively define it, then don't use it. It adds nothing to the discussion.

DK

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 6, 2010 | 9:58 a.m.

LOL at John Mancini, telling Ray to get a hobby because he's a frequent commenter, then squirts out four posts of his own in five minutes...

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 11:09 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 11:11 a.m.

Puppy mills are hateful, evil places...truly. Dogs are treated likes livestock...not given love or attention or affection. This is not how God intended. This is not authentically American.

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 11:18 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 11:19 a.m.

Oprah already proved the point that puppy mills are morally wrong. This discussion should not even be happening!!!!

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 11:20 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Mark Foecking October 6, 2010 | 12:35 p.m.

John Mancini wrote:

"Dogs are treated likes livestock...not given love or attention or affection. This is not how God intended."

Show me one place in the Bible where God commands us to love our dogs.

Show me where Prop B mandates that breeding dogs receive love and attention.

If you can't do this, then you shouldn't be saying these things.

You still haven't defined "puppy mill", BTW.

DK

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 6, 2010 | 12:39 p.m.

John Mancini says:
"Ray Shapiro needs to find a hobby..."

Sorry John Mancini, I thought this was the Hobby Lobby chat room. But, being that I got you attention, John Mancini:
Are you an Oprahphyte?
Did you know that Oprah is an Obamaphyte?
Are you an Obamaphyte too?

Do you believe that mother, Oprah and Obama are the only sources of information any well-rounded, educated person needs to know?

Is being a good American now like Mother, Oprah and Obamapie?
The business community is hurting enough, thanks to this kind of Chicago style politics and quick shod law making.

Research the true agenda of the likes of PETA and HSUS.
Then Vote No on Proposition B.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Missourian...

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 8:20 p.m.

Mark says, "Show me one place in the Bible where God commands us to love our dogs."

Well, I can't. If you believe dogs should be loved and treated well, vote yes. If you don't, like Mark, because God doesn't command us, vote no. But I can't give you a Bible verse.

A recent poll said that 89 percent polled voted yes for Prop B. This will pass. It's inevitable. I understand some people's livelihoods are on the line. But those livelihoods are based on the suffering of innocent dogs. So, Im sorry.

I would imagine those strong against this have connections to dog breeding and puppy mills.

Missouri has more puppy mills than any other state. Oklahoma enacted a similar law earlier this year. This will pass. If you don't believe me, just wait and revisit this. I know it will pass, because the word "Cruelty" is used in the proposition (which the opposition tried to get removed unsuccessfully in court). The word alone assure Prop B victory.

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 8:25 p.m.

Mark, I know this Prop B doesn't mean the dogs have to be loved....just treated in a better way than they are now.

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 8:30 p.m.

According to wikipedia..."A puppy mill, sometimes known as a puppy farm,[1] is a commercial dog breeding facility that is operated with an emphasis upon profits above animal welfare and is often in substandard conditions regarding the well-being of dogs in their care.[2][3] Similar types of operations exist for other animals commonly kept as pets or used as feed for other animals. The term can be applied to operations involving other animals commercially bred for profit, e.g. "kitty mills."[4] There are an estimated 4,000 puppy mills in the U.S. that produce more than half a million puppies a year.[5]

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 8:33 p.m.

Ray Shapiro believes dogs should not be treated with a decent standard of care and love. That is truly sad. Ray Shapiro will be on the losing side on this issue. Prop B supporters are flush with 2.7 million in funds and are flooding the TV markets with ads. The opposition is sorely lacking in money.

With 89 percent approval currently in polls, it would be an absolute miracle for the opposition if it won.

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 6, 2010 | 8:34 p.m.

Ray, despite your personal beliefs, do you foresee this Proposition winning or losing?

What do you think will happen?

(Report Comment)
Shirley Rosenstein October 6, 2010 | 8:43 p.m.

I went back in the archives to see if it is true Ray Shapiro is on here constantly, and has an opinion on everything. It indeed is true.

I dont know if Ray Shapiro is a biggoted rightwing extremist. I dont know if he loves the Tea Party.

Find constructive activities Ray. Join a gym. Find self-esteem and self-love. Dont base your worth on tearing down others. this isn't about dogs or mosques at ground zero...love yourself. Believe in yourself.

Get a hobby dude. that doesn't involve name calling.

(Report Comment)
Shirley Rosenstein October 6, 2010 | 8:44 p.m.

I don't really care about dogs, I just think it's sad Ray Shapiro is such an angry, bitter man.............

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 6, 2010 | 9:43 p.m.

Shirley you jest.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 6, 2010 | 10:42 p.m.

John Mancini said:
"Ray Shapiro believes dogs should not be treated with a decent standard of care and love."

John Mancini: Knowing what I know, if I didn't care enough about pups, people and politics, I'd be asking people to vote Yes on Proposition B.
There's a more appropriate way to address the plight of any and all animals being illegally abused. If Proposition B passes, there will be an increased killing of healthy dogs, black market breeding and greater disposal of the unsellable pups and older dogs.
The agenda of HSUS, which is the spawn of PETA, reeks of an insidious plan for the future of Missouri dog, livestock and agriculture businesses. But you know this already.
Commercials paid from HSUS monies are monies conned from those who are easy marks of the carefully selected horrific images of a money hungry anti-business lobbying group. And in America, you are free to lead the populace around by a ring in their nose, if you have enough money and sob story to do so.
However word is getting out that Proposition B is a sham and I trust that of those who will actually show up at the polls this, November, will have done their homework and will care enough about pups, dogs, the people who depend on this industry for their livlihood, and the future of Missouri's livestock and agricultural industries.
Under these circumstances, Voting No on Proposition B is the most righteous thing to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qbc2J0zZ...

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 7, 2010 | 3:02 a.m.

John Mancini wrote:

"Mark, I know this Prop B doesn't mean the dogs have to be loved....just treated in a better way than they are now."

Actually it doesn't mean that at all. Read it. It says nothing about treatment - just space. The remainder of prop B duplicates existing regulation.

Tripling the space requirements won't necessarily make for happier dogs. If they're in runs all their life, they'll just lie around most of the time anyway. It's not like they have to be taken out and walked, or spend quality time with their owners. Prop B says nothing about that.

In short, they'll still be commercial animals, not pets. If you want them to be treated like pets, come back with a proposal that says that, explicitly, and let people vote on that.

Here's another unintended (is it?) consequence. Limiting professional breeders to 50 dogs may require that one of the owners take an outside job to make ends meet. This means they have even less time with their animals than they do now. Of course, this depends on the particular breeder and the worth of their puppies, but here is one way how the economic consequences can come back to hurt the dogs.

Proper and aggressive enforcement of present law is preferable to passing a poorly written law with the potential to do a lot of damage. We should reject this and come back with a proposal that truly addresses the concerns of those worried about conditions in breeding facilities.

DK

(Report Comment)
Shirley Rosenstein October 7, 2010 | 5:09 a.m.

Sounds to me like triple the space requirements is a HUGE deal. Like the dogs can actually turn around in the cage now. The new commercials are heartbreaking. The public will vote YES, I would predict.

If breeders have to get second jobs, that's their problem, they should know better than to treat dogs like livestock anyway. Raise cattle or pigs if you want to make a living off of animals.

Ray Shapiro is clearly wrong is his beliefs. I just feel like he must some ulterior agenda like connections to the evil puppy mill industry. I can't help but wonder...............

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 7, 2010 | 8:24 a.m.

Shirley Rosenstein wrote:

"Sounds to me like triple the space requirements is a HUGE deal. Like the dogs can actually turn around in the cage now. The new commercials are heartbreaking."

Triple the space doesn't matter as much as you think. You're equating more space with more activity. If there isn't anything for the dogs to do (and again, prop B doesn't say anything about that) they'll just have some more places to lie around.

They are now required to be able to turn around in their cages, and lie out full length in any direction without touching the cage or another dog. There is video on a "blue ribbon" kennel that's been floating around here, with nursing bitches looking out of their whelping boxes with "sad, soulless" eyes (of course, they're NURSING, so they're not going to jump up and come to you). These dogs have a lot of space. You also don't know if they are exercised, or what happens to them other than what you are allowed to see.

Same with the commercials. All you're being shown is one side of an argument (typically the worst side). Look at both sides, and use your head, not your heart.

Ray has no connections to the "puppy mill" industry. Neither do I. I'm a researcher at MU (who doesn't currently work with animals, although I have extensive experience with all kinds of animals both as pets and as research subjects).

"Raise cattle or pigs if you want to make a living off of animals."

Here we go with the "speciesism" again. You don't think the feelings of a cow or pig are just as important to that animal as the feelings of a dog? Pigs, especially, are considered more intelligent than dogs, and people find they make wonderful and loyal pets.

Here's where my experience with animals gives me my perspective. I've socialized *rats* before, for example. They're quite good pets, actually. Do you know they purr?

My mother had a pet duck that followed her everywhere (even in the house - they put down towels). The duck slept beside her bed. The duck would attack her shoes if she put them on to go out (Don't Go!!!), and the duck would let me pick her up and she'd stand on my hand like a raptor. If anyone unknown to her knocked or entered the house, she'd quack and carry on like a dog would. Lots of ducks are raised for meat.

I can go on and on. My point is, that to be consistent, if you say all dogs must be treated like pets, every other commercial animal has to be. If not, you're practicing bigotry, just because you love dogs so much. I hope you can look beyond and understand that.

DK

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 7, 2010 | 8:48 a.m.

John Mancini wrote:

"But I can't give you a Bible verse."

Then God has nothing to do with prop B.

"Mark, I know this Prop B doesn't mean the dogs have to be loved....just treated in a better way than they are now."

Prop B does not add anything to care standards except more space. And it's space that is considered by a lot of animal professionals to be less than desirable for breeding animals. An indoor-outdoor kennel, while emotionally appealing, isn't necessarily the best or safest for the dogs or their pups.

And see my above post - unless the animals are given some kind of enrichment or attention, they'll just lie around like they do now (and of course, look "sad" for the camera). Nothing in prop B mandates that.

"A puppy mill, sometimes known as a puppy farm,[1] is a commercial dog breeding facility that is operated with an emphasis upon profits above animal welfare and is often in substandard conditions regarding the well-being of dogs in their care"

Do you have a figure for the percentage of Missouri's licensed breeders that fit that definition? I've only seen evidence of perhaps two dozen out of 1,150 or so. Don't you think it would be better to fix, or shut down, these, rather than shutting down most of the breeders in the state and putting all of their dogs down?

Also, many of the unlicensed operations that are raided are small operations. The last one I saw in the news was only 45 total dogs (pups and breeders). Size of a facility has nothing to do with animal treatment, and it's a mistake that prop B supporters assume it does.

"With 89 percent approval currently in polls"

Unfortunately, this issue doesn't matter enough to most people that they'll research it deeply. The same can be said for votes on many other issues. We shouldn't complain about the government we gat if we're too lazy to really delve into the issues.

DK

(Report Comment)
Janet Gatson October 7, 2010 | 11:48 a.m.

I used to work in a "puppy mill" in this area. I have seen the horror for myself. I had to quit the job and report it the authorities. Some dogs never left their cages...matted fur. Mange and no medicine. Collars growing into their flesh. Water the color of sewage. Cages full of feces. I don't care what kind of fancy logic Ray and Mark use on these comments, no amount of logic will erase the horrors I have seen for myself in Missouri...in this area of Missouri. I have even seen the owner put a metal pipe down the throat on one dog to remove his ability to bark. That's when I quit and realized this IS NOT humane.

I know the truth. I wonder if Ray or Mark have walked through a puppy mill. Suffering is easy to rationalize with "researcher logic". But what I saw and felt in my inner gut, no amount of logic "can make right or erase"

Please vote yes on Prop B. I have lived and been a part of the puppy mill industry. It's all true...............

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 7, 2010 | 12:09 p.m.

@Janet from another planet:
I once checked into a hotel in LA awhile back.
Let me tell you, it was disgusting.
The lobby was dirty and full of flies.
The bathrooms smelled real bad.
The rooms were not cleaned in weeks.
The bed sheets had wet stains,
The mattresses had bed bugs.
The "free" breakfast had maggots crawling over the sticky buns.
And I could see in the eyes of the people staying at the hotel their sadness and disgust.
I never had these problems at those smaller hotels. You know, the ones with no more than 20 rooms.
I am now on a quest to close down all hotels with more than 20 rooms.
Someone has to save the guests.

(Report Comment)
Helen (not the actress) Hunt October 7, 2010 | 12:52 p.m.

Here are a series of links that may help

<CALI SCHWARZENEGGER http://tl.gd/6c10sk VETOS ASPCA PETA HSUS FARM ASSAULTS AB241 MO.PROP B God #nokill farms dog cat

{MISSOURI BEFORE U VOTE YES TO ASPCA Prop B "PUPPY MILL LEGISLATION" U SHOULD READ THIS http://tl.gd/66dj4n (aspca peta hsus cat dog)

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

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 7, 2010 | 2:27 p.m.

One more quick point since I have a minute:

Shirley Rosenstein wrote:

"If breeders have to get second jobs, that's their problem, they should know better than to treat dogs like livestock anyway."

They might have to get second jobs because of prop B, not in spite of it. If they can no longer sustain their operation because of the 50 breeder limit, their need for employment may take them away from their dogs more than if they had 100 and were able to take care of them full time. Their dogs might be worse off, not better.

DK

(Report Comment)
Janet Gatson October 7, 2010 | 3:29 p.m.

Please youtube Oprah's shows on puppy mills. They will open your eyes like never before.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 7, 2010 | 4:29 p.m.

Yes, Janet from another planet, everything one needs to know can be exclusively found on Oprah.
She is a goddess to many.
All worship goddess Oprah.
You get a car. And you get a car. And you get a car.
Hey. I think even Obama must have learned a thing or three from your goddess, Oprah the Winfrey.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 7, 2010 | 4:31 p.m.

The logical fallacy that everyone talking about "puppy mills" is committing is, essentially, labeling any breeder with more than 50 )or whatever) breeding dogs a "puppy mill".

You have no reason to say that except for the evidence from a few bad breeders. I am as unhappy about those conditions as any of you, and these operations should be fixed or shut down. (BTW, there is a separate set of existing laws covering animal abuse that could also come into play with some of these places). But what you are guilty of is extrapolating those conditions onto any large breeder.

That is misleading, unfair, and dishonest. You are slandering an entire industry for the actions of a few bad apples.

You should be ashamed of yourselves.

DK

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 7, 2010 | 5:54 p.m.

Prop B is a vote based on the values of Missourians. If a majority feels more than 50 dogs per operation is appropriate , so be it. If they don't feel puppies should be a "crop" in Missouri, so be it. The values of the people will decide the issue.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 7, 2010 | 6:16 p.m.

Hey Mancini:
How many businesses currently have more than 50 well taken care of dogs on their private property and will be forced out of business thanks to HSUS advocating for how small a business these hardworking folks must now rely on for their life's blood?
How many healthy dogs will be killed because of the shutting down of legitimate well-run dog industry ventures?
And, why more legislation instead of better enforcement of the 23 pages of laws, rules and policies already in place?
What's the real agenda behind this proposition?
I'll be voting No on Proposition B, thank you very much.

(Report Comment)
Sha-NeQua Jackson October 7, 2010 | 8:27 p.m.

Puppy mills are concentration camps for dogs and Missouri is the concentration camp capital (of dogs) in the United States.

(Report Comment)
Sha-NeQua Jackson October 7, 2010 | 8:28 p.m.

This is like the civil rights movement for African-Americans in the 60s, but for dogs. All living things, man and animal deserve humane decency.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 7, 2010 | 9:10 p.m.

("Sha-NeQua Jackson says:
This is like the civil rights movement for African-Americans in the 60s, but for dogs.")

Ray Shapiro say: If you believe that Oprah and Sha-NeQua want civil rights for dogs, then Vote Yes on proposition B. If you believe that civil rights issues are about human beings, then Vote No on Proposition B.
Then get a Proposition which helps enforce current humane treatment laws and regulations and a proposition which protects those who are decent entrepreneurs.
Say No to Proposition B.
Say No to HSUS.
Say yes to saving properly run businesses.
Say yes to better enforcement of current laws.
Stop needless layers of regulations which only help "Animal Rights" activists advance their hidden agenda.
http://petdefense.wordpress.com/tag/anim...

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 8, 2010 | 11:25 a.m.

Ray Shapiro obviously endorses suffering of puppies. That is obviously the truth. The only ones all worked up on here are either Tea Partiers or right wing fundamentalists, or breeders whose living depends upon the suffering of puppies

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 8, 2010 | 2:07 p.m.

John Mancini:
How do you come to the conclusion that I endorse the suffering of puppies?
What I do not endorse is the passing of Proposition B.
It will cause suffering of animals AND people who depend on the services of those who run their businesses well and can contribute to the economy of this state via their well-run, already legal ventures.
Proposition B is actually anti-business and anti-dog. It will cause private losses within the business community and create more suffering and animal deaths. It only benefits government and National Animal Rights Activists like HSUS with little regard for the consequences of misguided disguised animal welfare legislation.

I have always believed that the worth of a society can be gauged in the manner in which it protects the most vulnerable of its peoples. I have also always believed that the manner in which we treat animals is indicative of the way we treat people.

There are also natural and man-made purposes for animals.

When we interfere with natural purposes of the animal kingdom, we often get ourselves into conflicts with each other.

Whenever I ask why our local Humane Society on Big Bear kills healthy dogs and cats, I am told it's because they don't have enough room or they blame people for not neutering or spaying these animals. They in effect, blame pet owners as irresponsible people, elevate themselves to a guiltless, all-mighty level and proceed to kill healthy dogs and cats because of lack of space. (They never just say that they're paid by the city to kill healthy pets, and gladly accept the money to do so while taking the city off the hook for not having a dog pound.)

This concept can be applied to why people might believe Proposition B is such a good idea.
It gives people the opportunity to feel god-like by thinking that they are sparing animal suffering and declaring all "larger" business breeders as irresponsible, or inappropriate. This hubristic attempt at animal population control fails to realize that there is plenty of space for animals. We just want to protect ourselves from animals running freely in our society and conquer them with domestication and find solace having them depend on us for their food, comfort and care. It is all ego driven, power driven or money driven.

Proposition B is just another example of the Animal Rights fanatical activists to regulate Animal Population Control.
What they fail to realize, or just don't care about, is that it reduces those who have the acerage to run a successful, sizeable business into the ranks of the most vulnerable. It neuters their fellow man's ability towards real entrepreneurship. For this reason alone, supporting Proposition B is a slight against reputable, decent, hardworking business people who provide a service.

Dogs have rights? So does man.
Enforce current laws and put truthful propositions before the people.
Vote No on Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Janet Gatson October 8, 2010 | 3:36 p.m.

Ray Shapiro said: If you believe that Oprah and Sha-NeQua want civil rights for dogs, then Vote Yes on proposition B.

Am I not the only woman who thinks this is racist. Sha-NeQua said nothing about Oprah....why does he group her with Oprah? Because her name SOUNDS black? And just because she's black, that means she even likes Oprah?

Racist.Racist. Racist.

Vote yes on Prop B. Don't vote with a racist Tea Partying Radical Fundamentalist

(Report Comment)
Janet Gatson October 8, 2010 | 3:37 p.m.

I agree with the statement that puppy mills are "concentration camps for puppies" . Citizens, how can you vote against that! vote yes on prop B

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 8, 2010 | 4:00 p.m.

@Janet from another planet:
Thanks for the label.
"Racist Tea Partying Radical Fundamentalist."
Did you get that from an Oprah show as well?
("Janet Gatson October 7, 2010 | 3:29 p.m.
Please youtube Oprah's shows on puppy mills. They will open your eyes like never before.")
Be smart, don't be a kook, Janet from another planet, do the right thing and Vote No on Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 8, 2010 | 6:01 p.m.

Janet Gatson wrote:

"Don't vote with a racist Tea Partying Radical Fundamentalist"

What's with the name calling? Am I a racist Tea Partying Radical Fundamentalist?

Just shows how depleted your side is of logical arguments.

"I agree with the statement that puppy mills are "concentration camps for puppies" . Citizens, how can you vote against that!"

Perhaps because it's not true?

DK

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 8, 2010 | 6:18 p.m.

Mark, click Report Comment and let the Missourian figure it out. If Planet Schmanet Janet can't debate without personal attacks (check the policy if you don't like it Janet), then the Missourian can take her out behind the woodshed.

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock October 9, 2010 | 8:20 a.m.

If you love dogs then vote NO on B. I urge people to visit alliance for truth and compare the two bills. There are errors on the Missourian article that compares them. I like to point out that she doesn't distinguish between legal large scale breeders and illegal. If Missourians really want to crack down on puppy mills then they should buy directly from the breeder and visit where they came from. Do not trust HSUS.

(Report Comment)
Marq Summers October 9, 2010 | 10:57 a.m.

I think that one thing that people need to do is stop giving their donations to HSUS and other groups. They do zero for the shelters. If people want to dontate, go to their local shelters and offer cash, cat litter, cleaning supplies, food. Offer to volunteer to help in their shelters. We had friends in St.Louis who wanted to adopt a dog. The fee was $400. They said that the process to adopt a pet was worse than adopting a child. I work in the kennel industry and would like to see a mandatory retirement age for the breeding dogs. Bitches would be retired after age 6. Most dogs start to lose productivity at this age. A non producing dog costs kennels thousands in feed costs. HSUS could set up an on-line rescue network. Kennels could contact them and send them the retirement dogs. HSUS refuses to come to the table. They use people in the entertainment industry in their ads. They say that kennels exploit dogs for profit. Their ads do the same. They take a poor little puppy and hold it for all to see. Please donate! Help stop the pet population! Your dollars will help to spay/neuter. NOT!!!! Thousands of kennel dogs in Missouri will face death to meet the 50 dog mandate. HSUS says prop b is necessary because the shelters are all full of dogs and that it is because of over production in Missouri. We pointed out that there will be nearly 50,000 dogs that have to be taken out of the kennels. We stated that they would face euthanasia. Oh NO! Now HSUS states that they have 200 rescues ready to take all these dogs. What is wrong with this picture folks? Why aren't these so called 200 rescues taking the poor dogs out of the shelters? 200 rescues take in 50,000 dogs?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 9, 2010 | 12:11 p.m.

The poll, Janet, the poll.
This is Missouri, Janet.
Show Me the Poll.

You claim that you heard about a poll yet there's no
who, what, where, when, how or why for this poll.
I've already tried to help you do the righteous thing by asking you to vote No on Proposition B.
I'll even point you to the person you should ask about this poll you speak of.

Just remember that even she is not likely to release the details of how the poll was conducted, or when it was conducted or even who compiled the results.

However, do me this little favor, Janet. (Considering that I did not flag your accusation that I am a ""Racist Tea Partying Radical Fundamentalist.")
Make certain that you also read the comments following Barbara Schmitz's propaganda.
The first one begins:
("Barbara - get your facts straight...")

And they only get better after that.

Then, may I suggest that you clear your head of all those awful images you saw on Oprah, see the light of reason and Vote No on Proposition B and figure out a better way to help save the animals.
http://www.semissourian.com/story/166562...

(Report Comment)
Karen highland October 10, 2010 | 12:43 a.m.

Janet Gatson, If you were working at that kennel, why weren't you doing your job and cleaning the water bowls daily? Why were there dogs on your watch that were matted, that you oh so obviously did not groom?
Why was there feces in the pens? Clearly, you were not NOT NOT doing what you were paid to do.Simply put, you caused that situation as much or more than the dog owner did. I would have fired any employee that overlooked, or ignored any one of those situations!

(Report Comment)
Matthew Marshall October 10, 2010 | 8:14 a.m.

Because the word "cruelty" is in the proposition (that voters will read), right or wrong, this will surely pass. I know the opposition took it to court, to get it removed, but were unsuccessful.

Of course breeders will be on here, more vociferously than anyone else. But I too, have seen the 89 percent in favor of voting yes poll on prop B.

It will be an absolute MIRACLE if it wins in November

Ray Shapiro comments on EVERYthinggggg. why soo many opinions? hmmmmmmmmmmmm

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 10, 2010 | 10:44 a.m.

@Matthew Marshall:
I'm usually pretty good at researching supporting documentation for my own views and opposing views.
The earliest reference to any "poll" which ProBers are referring to seems to be from an article in the Riverfront Times:
("Schmitz points to a recent poll showing a staggering 89 percent of Missouri voters support Proposition B. "Most people love their dogs," she says")

Schmitz is a ditz.
Any poll that is based on the question, do you love your dog? I would hope would get a high "Yes" count.
Details of this poll, and the other questions asked, have not been made available.
Where's the link to the details of this poll?
Did the poll ask if responders were in favor of a Proposition which is going to hurt Missouri's economy and impedes on the ability of good people from making a living?
Don't be a ditz.
Vote No on Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Juanita Bynum-Schrader October 10, 2010 | 9:06 p.m.

Ray Shapiro is a buffoon. His comments are outrageous and redundant. I have decided not to read these comments anymore due to his tirades and name-calling. He needs to be banned from these message boards. Columbians really don't care what he thinks.......... The Columbia Missourian needs to ban him. Force him to take his antics and tirades to another paper...........

(Report Comment)
Juanita Bynum-Schrader October 10, 2010 | 9:10 p.m.

Let's make a Proposition C....please don't allow Ray Shapiro to fill up these message boards with chicanery and deceit.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 10, 2010 | 11:14 p.m.

Juanita, and calling Ray a buffoon is any better than what he says? Ray and I have had our disagreements in the past, but you're the one looking like a five year-old at the moment.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 11, 2010 | 12:44 a.m.

Juanita Bynum-Schrader said:
"Let's make a Proposition C....please don't allow Ray Shapiro to fill up these message boards with chicanery and deceit."

Ray Shapiro says:
If Juanita Bynum-Schrader added more fiber to her diet, she just might realize how a No vote on Proposition B will actually be more beneficial for the state of Missouri.
A yes vote will only cause more black market activity and dump more dogs into dispair.

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 11, 2010 | 11:07 a.m.

Ray Shapiro needs to get off here. He is just TOO much. Take a xanax and enjoy life. Get a hobby, like carpentry or gardening. It might help your anger problem.

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 11, 2010 | 11:08 a.m.

Dogs are suffering in puppy mills. It's better some be euthanized now to meet the upcoming 50 quota, then ongoing suffering. This bill enjoys 89 percent approval; it's a sure thing, Ray Shapiro.

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 11, 2010 | 11:09 a.m.

It is my opinion that Ray Shapiro's group of an
African American woman in a previous post on here with Oprah (even though she didn't mention Oprah at all) is racist. Just because she is black, she likes Oprah? Explain yourself, Ray Shapiro!!!!

(Report Comment)
Harold Samson II October 11, 2010 | 11:15 a.m.

I don't feel strongly about this issue either way, but Ray Shapiro's silly comments have 100 percent convinced me to vote YES on prop B. Thank you Ray for helping convince me. It's what best for the dogs and people of Missouri

(Report Comment)
Harold Samson II October 11, 2010 | 11:17 a.m.

The 89 percent approval spoken of on here, I have verified on the net myself. Victory is assured to pass Prob B. Dog breeders better start preparing now. The fight is already over.

Ray Shapiro's lies on here are clearly seen for what they are....lies of the dog breeding industry (who have everything to lose...so they are coming out swinging).

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 11, 2010 | 1:03 p.m.

("Harold Samson II claims:
The 89 percent approval spoken of on here, I have verified on the net myself.")

And yet not one proponent of this supposed "poll" which was most likely not taken by an independent source, most likely was taken before the actual Proposition was even written and before people had an opportunity to do some research on HSUS, (the spawn of PETA), can produce the who, what, when, where, when, why and how of this supposed poll.

I have seen mention of flying pink elephants on the net.
It doesn't mean they exist.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 11, 2010 | 1:30 p.m.

Harold Samson II posted:
"I don't feel strongly about this issue either way, but Ray Shapiro's silly comments have 100 percent convinced me to vote YES on prop B. Thank you Ray for helping convince me."

Samson:
What would it take for me to convince you that you have bad reading comprehension and researching skills?
Or do you not feel strongly about those issues either?

(Report Comment)
Leticia May Johnson October 11, 2010 | 5:27 p.m.

As a proud, African American woman, I had been told about Ray Shapiro's comments on here concerning a black woman and Oprah winfrey. I wanted to judge for myself if the claims made by my sisters at church were true concerning racism. The black woman was in no way connected to Oprah and stated she even liked Oprah. Because I'm black, you can assume I like Oprah? How racist and stereotypical!!!

Many blacks in my AME church don't like Oprah because they don't see her as a true Christian. I agree with them.

Ray Shapiro, stop spouting your racism on here and issue an apology. Thank you, a proud black American woman (who doesn't like Oprah Winfrey)

(Report Comment)
Leticia May Johnson October 11, 2010 | 5:28 p.m.

I meant to say she didn't even write that she liked oprah.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 11, 2010 | 5:56 p.m.

Leticia, you might want to scroll up the thread and search for the first mention of Oprah (hint, it ain't Ray). If you can't connect the dots from there, nobody can help you. You might want to print this out and show your sisters at church to see if they read the thread properly or not.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 11, 2010 | 6:12 p.m.

Harold Samson II wrote:

"lies of the dog breeding industry"

Let's look at a few other lies being tossed around.

The mistreated animals that make such good pictures for the "pros" are typical of the industry.

This bill gives the impression that there are no care standards currently in place. That is quite false. Prop B doesn't even change them very much.

Limiting breeders to 50 females will make them treat their animals more like pets.

It's all about the dogs.

Any more lies?

DK

(Report Comment)
James Browning October 11, 2010 | 9:14 p.m.

When the breeding industry lost in court to take the word "cruelty" out of the proposition on the ballot, you lost the battle right there. The average citizen will see the the words "puppy" and "cruelty" in the same sentence....it's over and you know it. For it or against it....it's gonna pass.

(Report Comment)
James Browning October 11, 2010 | 9:14 p.m.

this proposition enjoys 89 percent approval

(Report Comment)
James Browning October 11, 2010 | 9:19 p.m.

Ray Shapiro October 7, 2010 | 9:10 p.m.
("Sha-NeQua Jackson says:
This is like the civil rights movement for African-Americans in the 60s, but for dogs.")

Ray Shapiro say: If you believe that Oprah and Sha-NeQua want civil rights for dogs, then Vote Yes on proposition B. If you believe that civil rights issues are about human beings, then Vote No on Proposition B.

Mark, take a better look. He didn't say Oprah first, but Ray said Sha-NeQua and Oprah.....when Sha-NeQua said nothing about Oprah. Just because ShaNe-Qua has a black sounding name means she should be grouped with Oprah!

How racist!! Mark, are you racist like Ray????

Get your reading glasses on Mark!

(Report Comment)
James Browning October 11, 2010 | 9:26 p.m.

The man behind the billboard is Bill Smith, founder of Main Line Animal Rescue. Every year, Bill and several volunteers rescue hundreds of abused, unwanted or abandoned animals, rehabilitate them and adopt them out to families. Many of the animals Bill rescues come from puppy mills, which he describes as places where bad breeders care more about the profit they make from puppies than the health or welfare of the animals. He says the dogs in puppy mills face deplorable conditions including inbreeding, minimal or no vet care, limited shelter and overcrowded cages.

"We were so frustrated ... and no one seemed to be helping them," Bill tells Oprah. "I know that you're a huge animal lover. I just thought that you would be able to spread the word and educate a lot of people."

The billboard certainly worked. "It is my belief that when you actually see this, America, with your own eyes," Oprah says, "that you are not going stand for it."
To see what goes on at puppy mills, Lisa Ling brings a hidden camera and joins Bill on a tour of puppy mills in Pennsylvania. According to The Humane Society of the United States, there may be as many as 10,000 puppy mills operating across the United States.

Lisa and Bill also visit two pet stores. Many of the dogs born in puppy mills end up in pet stores or sold on the Internet. Lisa and Bill want to trace puppies' paperwork back to specific puppy mills. At the first store, they find a cockapoo puppy, and at the second, Labrador retriever puppies.

While the owner of a store they visit denies his dogs come from puppy mills, Bill says most at pet stores do.

"The fact is, what they're doing is not illegal," Lisa says. "But the objective I think here is to raise awareness. People go into the pet stores, and they see these cute little puppies not knowing where they come from and what they go through."
Lisa and Bill spend the next two days tracing the pet store puppies back to their breeders. Bill has fostered relationships with hundreds of breeders across Pennsylvania. He asks them to give him the dogs they no longer want or, worse, the ones they're planning to kill. Bill says these breeders most often want to get rid of older females and younger males. Breeders only need one or two male dogs to breed with every 20 fertile females, so young female dogs are valuable in puppy mills.

Lisa and Bill head to the breeder where the black cockapoo was born. The breeder tells them its mother is one of the dogs in cages outside. Lisa and Bill then followed the breeder into a building full of cramped wooden crates stuffed with dogs. "The spaces are so small, the mothers are stepping all over their babies," Lisa says. Bill says he thinks many of these dogs have never walked in the grass though they live on a 60-acre property.

(Report Comment)
James Browning October 11, 2010 | 9:27 p.m.

Oprah has this on her web site

(Report Comment)
James Browning October 11, 2010 | 9:30 p.m.

Although all 50 states have anti-cruelty laws intended to prevent neglect and mistreatment of dogs, most large-scale breeding facilities continue to operate in ways that mock these laws. In many cases, dogs in puppy mills are kept in physically and emotionally damaging conditions under which an individual pet dog would never be allowed to suffer. Anti-cruelty laws are seldom applied to puppy mills as long as the animals have the rudimentary basics of shelter, food, and water. Puppy mill dogs are often treated as agricultural "crops" and not as pets.

from HSUS

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 11, 2010 | 10:51 p.m.

James, when you say "most large-scale breeding facilities continue to operate in ways that mock these laws" it seems to me you've just admitted that there are existing laws that can be enforced and Prop B is unnecessary.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 11, 2010 | 11:08 p.m.

James Browning, please do cite where the poll trumpeting 89% approval for Prop B came from. The only reference I've been able to find is an op-ed from Barbara Schmitz, the campaign manager for Yes! on Prop B, in the Southeast Missourian, as well as an unsourced claim on the Yes on Prop B website. Based on the number of Vote No on Prop B signs I saw while driving in rural Missouri on Sunday, I have a feeling that 89% figure is inflated or due to some poll trickery.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 12, 2010 | 12:20 a.m.

("Proposition B opposition
Don't be fooled by the slick television ads or the Hollywood celebrities. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not your local pet shelter but an east coast fundraising organization. Very little (less that one-half of 1 percent) of the money it raises is used to rescue dogs and cats but rather to finance an extremist agenda that is targeting pet breeders, livestock producers and hunters.")
http://www.semissourian.com/story/166944...

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 12, 2010 | 8:01 a.m.

James Browning wrote:

"Puppy mill dogs are often treated as agricultural "crops" and not as pets."

Possibly because some breeding dogs are not pets? Most domesticated animals aren't. They're commercial animals. They can still have a good life if they are well fed, housed, and have good vet care.

And once again, nothing in prop B mandates that they have to be treated like pets.

DK

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 12, 2010 | 11:04 a.m.

It is not the American way to treat dogs like wild animals, Mark. If that's what you want, move to North Korea where they eat them.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 12, 2010 | 11:21 a.m.

John Mancini wrote:

"It is not the American way to treat dogs like wild animals, Mark."

They don't. They treat them like domesticated animals. Most are just not pets. That's not to say they couldn't become pets if someone wanted them as such, and that's not to say that some breeding dogs aren't treated more as pets than others.

Because an dog that's otherwise well-fed and in good health does not behave like a well-socialized pet does not mean it is unhappy. That's simply your interpretation of the dogs behavior, and it's based on your experience with a particular subset of dogs. Your emotional response to a less-socialized dogs behavior is yours and yours alone. And it is absolutely irrelevant to any particular animal's contentment with their life.

DK

(Report Comment)
Doctor m Rosset October 15, 2010 | 2:22 a.m.

Prop B lowers the standards all across the board. Missouri laws are the best in the country as they are very specific. In fact if this bad bill is voted in you will kill thousands of dogs as the people will not be able to keep over 50. This bill is totally intended to kill off all dog breeding. 1. It says unfettered access to the outside at all times and then it says you must keep your kennel between 45 and 85 degrees. This temperature will be impossible to maintain if all dogs must have access to the outside at will. This means puppies in bad weather must have access and will probably die from the cold. Newborn puppies must be kept at 92 degrees as 85 degrees is too cold for newborns, but under this proposition you would be fined and called an abuser if you keep them at 92 degrees. This bill just says the dog must be fed once a day, but Missouri law says every 12 hours with nutritious food in quanities that are appropriate for the age and breed of dog. Prop B does not require sanitation of the kennel or of the food bowls whereas the Missouri law states the food bowls must be sanitized and water accessible 24/7. This bill was intended to do one thing only and that was to put responsible breeders out of business. Missouri laws for licensed kennels is extremely specific spelling out kennel space, feeding requirements, temperature requirements, socialization requirements etc. Missouri already has 22 pages of regulations. They already do shut down illegal operations when they find them. I suspect there are not as many as HSUS would have the world believe. There are only 1400 registered Kennels in Missouri but HSUS keeps saying their are 3000 this is part of the lying to the public advantage. Beware of the HSUS as they are a not at all interested in the welfare of animals. They are only interested in moving this country to a vegan diet and removing all animals from the concept of ownership. Please note that the new food Pyramid being promoted in our public schools has done away with meat. It is now recommending and all plant diet despite the fact that doctors and health experts say the growing child needs the complex proteins and essential nutrients that can only be found in milk, egg, and meat products.
Next they will say you can only raise 50 cows as you cannot give them equal time throughout the day. I see a lot of the regular HSUS paid zealots posting here. But know that in the poll taken in Missouri 79% said NO to Proposition B

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 15, 2010 | 10:49 a.m.

I'm with you, Spencer!

The "So called Alliance for Truth" is full of it & should really be called "Alliance for LIARS!" Want some REAL Facts about animal welfare in Missouri? Visit www.MAAL.org
(The Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation website)

There is a reason why Missouri has 3 times more commercial breeders than any other state in the union. Our laws are the weakest & we are the CESS POOL OF THE WORST BREEDERS in the United States. The Opposition to Prop B is just trying to scare you. Prop B won't take away your cattle, chicken horses, pets, etc. It only adds & clears up regulations already on the books. This regulation is IN ADDITION TO and does not replace the current laws. It makes the current laws easier to enforce & adds penalties besides just fines to offenders.
~
~
~

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)
QuaShawn Jenkins October 15, 2010 | 11:18 a.m.

Puppy mill cruelty cannot be tolerated in our great state any longer. It is absolutely inhumane and intolerable. Suffering is suffering, and inhumane is inhumane (despite the red herrings of the opposition that are intended to confuse).

(Report Comment)
QuaShawn Jenkins October 18, 2010 | 11:09 a.m.

puppy mills are concentration camps for puppies

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 20, 2010 | 9:47 a.m.

Mr.Foecking:

A 'puppy mill' is the product of an irresponsible dog breeder.

SPONSIBLE BREEDERS VS. MILLERS
A responsible dog breeder IS NOT IN IT FOR THE MONEY.
A responsible dog breeder wants nothing more than to improve their particular beloved breed.
A responsible dog breeder breeds for QUALITY..
THEY DO NOT BREED FOR QUANTITY.
A responsible breeder does not house their dogs in pig-pens and chicken coops all the time whining about how much they love their 'babies'.
A responsible breeder considers ALL their dogs as part of the family, which means that their dogs spend much of their time INSIDE the house WITH THE FAMILY.
Responsible breeders do not live/breed in motorized recreational vehicles or in trailer-parks.
A responsible breeder's dogs are visible to the public ... they are not housed off-site or in the woods or in a lean-to back behind BillyBob's corn field.
A responsible breeder NEVER EVER 'CROSSBREEDS'.
A responsible breeder DOES NOT BREED THEIR FEMALES TO DEATH.
A responsible breeder does not 'debark' their dogs by ramming a steel pipe down their throats.
A responsible breeder employs a responsible veterinarian for ALL medical/surgical needs and does not hack off tails and ears with tin shears.
A responsible breeder does not allow fleas ticks mats sores untreated wounds rotting teeth or any other third-world nasties ANYWHERE NEAR THEIR DOGS.
Responsible breeders do not sell their 'unwanted' dogs at auction, or take them out 'back the barn and shoot them, or gas them with papaw's truck exhaust and toss the bodies in a ditch.
A responsible dog breeder is licensed, regulated inspected and therefore PAYS THEIR FAIR SHARE OF TAXES.
ANYONE else, no matter what they claim, is a fraud, a sham, an embarrassment to the profession.

(Report Comment)
Gloria Young October 20, 2010 | 7:01 p.m.

Ray Shapiro
No body convinced you of anything. You’re comfortable in your self-righteous belligerence towards people who believe differently than you. You made your decision when you realized your bottom line might be impacted by having to provide humane care to the animals under your care.

John Shultz
Your argument does not hold water. Just because some people do not obey the law does not mean that there should be no laws.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 20, 2010 | 7:24 p.m.

Gloria:
While I might have a large bottom, I can assure you that I have no bottom line.
I am merely journaling on a Proposition so that I can make the best decision when I vote.
If you haven't heard by now, I'll be voting No on Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Gloria Young October 21, 2010 | 8:53 a.m.

Ray Shapiro
There now. See? That’s the type of self-deprecating humor that keeps our egos in line so that we may engage in reasonable discussions. Will I convince you of my side, likely not. Will you convince me of yours, likely not? Can we still have a civil conversation, I think so. I confess it seems like you’re doing an awful lot of arguing and even engaging in some hateful speech. If your true intention is to get “both sides” then I applaud your effort, but you seem to have already made up your mind.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 21, 2010 | 10:13 a.m.

Ray, you & I may not see eye to eye on Prop B, but I do agree with Gloria.... You can be really funny sometimes.
You wrote somewhere: "I may not be a puppy miller, but I did sleep at a Holiday Inn last night!" I thought that was a hoot & was ROTFL.

(Report Comment)
Gloria Young October 21, 2010 | 2:43 p.m.

I'm dissapointed no one else caught the "Airpane" line..

(Report Comment)
Jack Lisette October 26, 2010 | 8:13 p.m.

I am a party-line Republican and have never voted for a Democratic presidential, Senatorial, or House of Representatives candidate. But I am in full support of Proposition B. Just because I am a die-hard Republican doesn't mean I can tolerate the suffering of dogs and puppies. Because I am a Republican, I will vote Yes. Because I am a GOP lifelong follower, I am compassionate, and will vote yes on prop B.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 26, 2010 | 9:03 p.m.

Jackie Baby:
If you're so sure that more than 50% of Republicans are for Proposition B, why all the spamming?
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/accoun...

Don't worry about it.
With so many Republicans, if Progressive Dems don't show up to vote Yes on this & for Robin Carnahan, (the Cattle Queen), and if there are as many anti-business Republicans out there as you tout, then the Proposition will surely pass.
Relax, don't sweat it.
http://twitter.com/shelleypowers/status/...
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20101...

(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