TODAY'S QUESTION: Is there too much money coming from out-of-state to support Proposition B?

Sunday, October 3, 2010 | 7:11 p.m. CDT; updated 4:00 p.m. CDT, Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Supporters of Proposition B in Missouri have raised about $2.38 million, with almost 97 percent of that money coming from out-of-state, according to a recent Missourian article.

Proposition B, called the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act" by its supporters, would place additional regulations on dog breeders in the state.

The campaign supporting the measure plans to use $1 million for television commercials starting this week in several Missouri markets.

Missourians for the Protection of Dogs is leading the in-state campaign for the proposition. Of the more than $2.3 million the group raised, more than $1.16 million came from the Humane Society of the United States, as of Sept. 27.

Large donations worth $200,000 and $250,000 came from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in New York and Best Friends Animal Society in Utah, respectively.

“This is a nationwide issue,” campaign manager Barbara Schmitz said. “There are people who understand the depths of the problems in Missouri.”

By contrast, the two political groups opposing the measure — The Alliance for Truth and MOFED PAC — have raised about $66,000.

Barbara York, the president of the Missouri Pet Breeders Association, said the vast majority of the money for the campaign against the measure came from in-state.

"We're in the fight for Missouri," she said. "I don't think outside entities should have any say whatsoever in how Missouri lives."

Is there too much money coming from out-of-state to support Proposition B?

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.


Ray Shapiro October 3, 2010 | 10:24 p.m.

HSUS and ASPCA working together in Missouri:

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 4, 2010 | 1:57 p.m.

Define too much money?

When you consider that Missouri puppy mills are responsible for more dogs in pet stores than any other commercial dog fars in any other state in the union, is it surprising that those who deplore puppy mills would invest as they can to stop this deplorable industry?

Over 68% of the dogs in dog stores in New York City are from Missouri. We have puppy brokers in this state that handle 90,000 puppies a year. 90,000 puppies a year!

You ask how much is too much money, when you should be asking, how many puppies is too many puppies!

This industry treats the dogs like they are so sacks of potatoes--commodities, that can be packaged up, so many to a carton, and shipped out in semi-trucks.

What is there about any of this that is good for the dogs? Good for the dog buyers? Good?

This is an industry run by a few who are in it for the easy bucks. They don't care about the dogs, they certainly don't care about the dog owners. They just want to cheaply grow their product and push it out to the rest of the country.

So, how much money is too much money to stop all of this? Frankly, I don't think there can be too much money to stop this despicable practice that is such an embarrassment to Missouri.

(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 4, 2010 | 3:31 p.m.

@ Shelley Powers
quote: "This is an industry run by a few who are in it for the easy bucks."

Sorry to correct you, but this is no easy job. The licensed, professional breeders don't just feed and water every other day or two, and pull out puppies from underneath a building and sell them for high dollar.

The fact is that in order to produce a healthy, happy, well socialized puppy, a lot of time and money are involved. The costs involved in raising a healthy litter of puppies continues to sky rocket, as everything else in the world. You can not produce healthy puppies with little to no money investment. You have to spend a lot of money to ensure healthy puppies. 'Easy money' is the farthest thing from the truth, and that statement was made with no experience what so ever in this business, and is only parroting what the animal activists have brainwashed you to say.

Vote NO on Prop B!

Make sure to be registered to vote by this Wednesday!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 4, 2010 | 10:25 p.m.

("The campaign supporting the measure plans to use $1 million for television commercials starting this week in several Missouri markets.")

Just saw one of those one million dollar commercials on KOMU-TV.
It was obvioulsy an HSUS/PETA stylized piece filled with an emotional appeal to "save the puppies" only instead of asking for an outright financial donation to HSUS, they are asking for a YES vote on Prop B.
Do some research on Proposition B and you'll be convinced to Vote No.
Don't be suckered into the HSUS and PETA agenda, just because they have the money to run ads...

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 5, 2010 | 8:06 a.m.

connie, then if the costs are so high to raise puppies, you must look at Proposition B with relief.

Now you can go back to growing carrots.

People talk about the ads, I want to link a video made of a commercial dog farmer in this state. No, this isn't one of the "bad" breeders. This is one of the good ones, a "blue ribbon kennel":

Look at the dogs. No hope, no joy, nothing but a cage all their lives, as they whelp litter after litter of puppies. Rare human contact, no playing, no balls or rag ropes to tug at -- nothing but breeding machines.

And the puppies? Little or no human contact, no socialization. A dog that has had no socialization in its first six weeks does not make a good dog. They have temper problems, have trouble showing affection, and some trust issues with humans.

Dogs are not carrots, they are not chickens, they are pets. They may be working pets, but they need the companionship, and yes even love, of people.

This soulless excuse for a "farm" is the best this state offers. Happy puppies? Seriously?

Yes, Ray, showing video of actual dogs rescued from a puppy mill was so bad. How dare they show the reality of puppy mills?

After all, it's all about business, right?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 5, 2010 | 8:26 a.m.

Shelly Powers wrote;

"No hope, no joy, nothing but a cage all their lives, as they whelp litter after litter of puppies."

And this practice could continue under Prop B. The dogs would simply have a little more space and not be bred as often. Nothing in prop B says anything about socialization or human contact.

If you want a bill that requires socialization of breeding dogs, then petition for that. But you don't have that here. Why, then, do you support it?


(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 5, 2010 | 10:41 a.m.

@ Mark Foecking

"No hope, no joy..." I thought you were discussing Rose Nolen's latest column (or, come to think about it, most of her previous columns).

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 5, 2010 | 12:48 p.m.

@Ellis Smith:
Good observation.
Rose Nolen and Shelly Powers must be part of that "hopey-changy" brigade.
Novermber's right around the corner and they can all be rest assured that just like Missourians voiced their opinion about ObamaCare, so too will they Vote No on Proposition B and help keep legal dog industry businesses intact.
Remember their endgame.
Control the food supply, you control the people.
Getting a foothold via Proposition B is just their first step in Missouri.
Interfering Marxists/Socialists/anti-private business, all of them.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 5, 2010 | 1:03 p.m.

("Proposition B will be on Missourian's November 2, 2010 ballot. No matter how it is promoted it is fundamentally the product of ignorance. It reflects ignorance about breeders, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the power of the free market, property rights, and liberty. It is being driven by propaganda rather than truth and depends on emotional appeal rather than the achievement of meaningful reform.")

(Report Comment)
Linda Hurley October 6, 2010 | 4:11 p.m.

From the Examiner article: "Missouri is known as the "Puppy Mill Capital of America" with 3000 commercial dog breeding factories providing 40 percent of all dogs sold nationwide to pet stores. The state has a long standing reputation for allowing puppy mills to ignore laws, waive penalties, and a failure to document inhumane treatment of animals..."

I think that makes it a national issue. Something responsible dog breeders in Missouri or any state should be ashamed of. Thank you Joe Plumber for bringing attention to this deplorable situation!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 6, 2010 | 5:02 p.m.

("...Missouri already has the best animal welfare laws in the country. Proposition B side by side with the present Missouri laws does its best to reduce the care of animals. Missouri laws says animals must be fed twice a day. Proposition B says once a day is enough. Missouri law says animals must see a vet twice a year and immediately if any injury is apparent. Proposition B says only once a year to the vet is allowed. Proposition B states despite age all dogs must have unfettered access to the outside despite the temperatures which can get below freezing. Missouri laws say all dogs must be exercised properly and not subjected to wet, freezing, temperatures. This proposition B most egregious error is that all dogs despite their age must be kept in temperatures between 45 and 85 degrees. Missouri Law says all newborn puppies must be kept at 92% which is the temperature necessary for their survival. This law is badly written and HSUS knows it. Daily HSUS keeps increasing the number of kennels in Missouri by lying. They also said they did the intake and raids on kennels that had already decided to close their doors due to the age of the owners. HSUS did not force the closures they were normal closures due to the laws of Missouri. For nearly five years now HSUS has with impunity lied to the public and spread slander about Missouri kennels knowing full well that the USDA and Missouri inspect and regulate these kennels regularly. Proposition B does not do one thing to remove illegal or substandard puppy mills. What it does do is make owning more than ten female intact dogs a commercial venture which is about numbers not substandard care. This means home raised dogs have to be cared for with the excessive requirements that would turn a home and yard into an industrial complex just to raise your high quality puppies. That is why responsible breeders and dog owners object to this really stupid law which in court the supporters of Proposition B agreed it was a badly written overly vague and generally bad law. This is not about raising healthy quality puppies it is about removing responsible breeders from the land. Otherwise why were numbers added as they have no effect on the care animals receive. As for HSUS they have lied to the public again and again about Missouri, their laws and their dogs. This whole puppy mill idea and term came from HSUS. They first called Ohio the puppy mill capital, then Pennsylvania, then Illinois, all the while spreading lies about every state and every dog breeder....
Posted by: Dr.Rosset | October 06, 2010 at 07:03 AM comment section, LA Times")
courtesy of Joe McLoughlin, Chinese food connoisseur and aficionado.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 6, 2010 | 5:31 p.m.

@ Ray Shapiro:

If the present law is good (and I'm not arguing that it isn't) then if there's a problem it has to be with enforcement.

Forget those adorable doggies and kitties for a moment. An endemic problem in this country is that existing laws or regulations are NOT enforced.

So what's the knee-jerk (or just plain "jerk") reaction when something goes wrong? The first thought seems to be to pass new legislation that's not only tougher on offenders (if they're found) but more burdensome to those who were obeying the existing law.

In pre-revolutionary France a law was passed making it a capital offense to steal bread. I'd say that was a tough law. Folks continued to steal bread (maybe because they and their families were starving). If a law is perceived to be wrong then it won't be obeyed.

We recently saw this with the BP oil spill. Big bad BP cut corners, but where was the regulatory agency that was supposed to be checking BP's operations?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 6, 2010 | 6:06 p.m.

Ellis Smith says:
("@ Ray Shapiro:
If the present law is good (and I'm not arguing that it isn't) then if there's a problem it has to be with enforcement.")

I'm not hearing HSUS, PETA or any of these animal rights activists advocating for better enforcement of current laws, licensing or regulations. There's already 23 pages of legalities on the books. If HSUS and the PETA sheeple wanted to help Missouri with better enforcment of current laws, instead of having an agenda to destroy private animal and agricultural industries, then they might even get a bit of my goodwill.
This of course would require vegans to eat meat & wear leather and for Wayne Pacelle to resign from his CEO position and work at a Missouri Hog farm.
Instead, all they have to throw at us is an emotional campaign that large, legal, successful dog breeders are bad people and that Missourians are backward hicks.

(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 6, 2010 | 10:53 p.m.

@ Shelley Powers

You apparently need more carrots in your diet, as you can't see the TRUTH that is right in front of you.

I'll grow you some carrots if you peel me a grape with your sad, judgemental story on how I'm such a bad breeder. HA!

You people love to blanket all the breeders with the same racists material. You know absolutely nothing about the industry. The more you talk, the more you reveal how dumb you truly are when it comes to animal husbandry.

Get something that has validity instead of copying and pasting Wayne's beliefs. "Speak for those that can't speak for themselves.".....was that for the animals?....or was that intended for people like you that has no individuality or cognitive thinking?

Vote NO on Prop B and save Missouri's Agriculture!

(Report Comment)
Shirley Rosenstein October 7, 2010 | 5:12 a.m.

Speak for those who can't speak for themselves, like Connie said, was well put and beautifully worded. That is the epitome of social justice. Vote yes on Prop B friends! Like polls say............89 percent support it.

(Report Comment)
Helen (not the actress) Hunt October 7, 2010 | 1:01 p.m.



(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 7, 2010 | 4:35 p.m.

Shirley Rosenstein said:
That is the epitome of social justice.
Like polls say............89 percent support it.

Well what else would you expect from those polish socialists?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 7, 2010 | 4:45 p.m.

Hey Shirley:
I'll show you my poll if you show me yours...
Do you support Proposition B?
Total responses: 3211
Source: The Missourian

(Report Comment)
John Mancini October 12, 2010 | 11:08 a.m.

Shelley Powers comment was awesome. Ray Shapiro's comment was inherently flawed. No amount of logic makes the suffering of dogs ok. It is not ok.

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock October 12, 2010 | 8:38 p.m.

Shelly Powers are you the same ShellyP that comments on the Show Me Progress website? Humm kinda funny you visit and blog on a progressive website that is blasting the chamber for "supposedly" taking money from foreign sources but you support HSUS which is funding Prop B with almost 99% money from outside of Missouri.

(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 12, 2010 | 10:15 p.m.

Prop B, the HSUS Agenda, and the Hitler-Like Spider
By Frank Losey

Satan sometimes “masquerades as an angel of light” in order to try and deceive us. (2 Corinthians 11:14)
“Come into my parlor said the spider to the fly.” This ‘invitation’ sounded sincere to the fly, so why not venture into the parlor of the spider. However, once inside the “parlor” of the spider, the fly found itself caught up in a web of more than lies, and that led to unexpected and dire consequences for the fly.
With respect to the Proposition B Ballot Initiative, the Humane Society of the U.S. (HSUS) may be reprising the role of the spider, as it spends millions of dollars spinning a web of its propaganda as to why Proposition B is a “no-brainer” for everyone to support. After all, who in their right mind would support cruelty to puppies?! But wait a moment. In a Court of Law, one must “Swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” However, in the court of public opinion, the HSUS is not required to take that oath.”
The following is an illustrative list of the “truths” that HSUS has never told the public or elected officials, and these omissions may call into question the credibility of the HSUS ‘spin’ and ‘propaganda,’ especially as it relates to Proposition B, and to the totality of the ‘Master Agenda’ of the HSUS.


(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 12, 2010 | 10:16 p.m.

Part 2
by Frank Losey

The Federal Animal Welfare Act and Missouri Statutes already address the types of cruelty that the HSUS suggests are lacking in Missouri.
Despite repeated written requests that I have made to Mr. Wayne Pacelle, the President and CEO of the HSUS, to identify his repeated but unsubstantiated statement that there are over “3,000 puppy mills” in Missouri, he has never provided a specific list of those ‘phantom,’ unnamed kennels.
The Missouri Pet Breeders Association was the first major state pet breeder association to publicly condemn substandard kennels, and it did so over four and a half years ago. It also publicly condemned all forms of animal fighting - not just dog fighting - before the Vick Trial. Again, despite repeated written requests for the HSUS to publicly acknowledge such condemnations by responsible breeders in Missouri, the HSUS refused to do so.
The HSUS may very well have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying at the Capitol in Washington DC and at state capitols throughout the U.S., but has spent precious little on direct care of dogs in local animal shelters, such as those located in Missouri. This fact is supported by the claims of the HSUS that it was responsible for the passage of more than 25 federal statutes, more than 500 state statutes, and more than 25 other state ballot initiatives.


(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 12, 2010 | 10:17 p.m.

Part 3
by Frank Losey

The majority of these 550 plus statutes and ballot initiatives had to do with issues other than dogs and puppies, which suggest that the agenda of the HSUS is like a cancer that is not isolated, but will spread to other issues that affect the ‘American way of life, as opposed to just dogs and puppies.
HSUS spent nearly $6 million in support of the ballot initiatives in California and Ohio, which had nothing to do with dogs. They affected farmers! And the ballot initiative in California has caused the price of eggs to sell for up to $7 a dozen!
HSUS is currently opposing a ballot initiative in Arizona which would affect the right of Arizona to control “wildlife issues.” Is it the role of the Washington DC based HSUS to dictate what Arizonians do in their State? If so, then why not allow HSUS to control whatever it believes is best for all Missourians - not just breeders, but ALL MISSOURIANS?! Perhaps, Missourians should be wary of HSUS’ spider-like advice!


(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 12, 2010 | 10:18 p.m.

Part 4
by Frank Losey

Mr. Pacelle describes all “responsible breeders” as “puppy millers;” all “family farmers” as “factory farmers,” and all “responsible hunters” as “poachers.” Since he describes all “responsible hunters” as “poachers,” one is left to wonder what is his unspoken position on gun control?!
The HSUS has already contributed, according to the Missouri Ethics Commission, over $1.75 million towards its “direct” lobbying efforts in support of Proposition B, which Mr. Pacelle describes as a “political campaign.” However, the HSUS has never mentioned how much, if any, it has contributed to local animal shelters in Missouri. Additionally, Mr. Pacelle and the HSUS have been orchestrating “fund raising parties” not only in Missouri, but from coast to coast - from California to a gala event in New York City - to raise millions of dollars to run TV advertisements in Missouri which focus on the ‘HSUS spin’ in support of Proposition B, rather than telling the “Truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.”
The Missouri Ethics Commission data confirms that individual contributors, who reside outside of Missouri, have cumulatively contributed, with the urging of the HSUS, well in excess of one million dollars - one single contribution was for $250,000 - for the HSUS sponsored “Vote Yes on Prop B” campaign in Missouri. In fact, approximately 95 percent of all financial contributions in support of Proposition B have come from contributors who reside outside of Missouri! And again, no mention by the HSUS of any financial support of a single animal shelter in Missouri.
The HSUS published and presented to President Obama its “Change Agenda for Animals.” The “Change Agenda” is incredibly comprehensive, and it would affect almost every aspect of the American way of life in that it includes a total of 102 “Action Items” for 20 different federal departments and agencies such as the Departments of Defense, State, Justice, Treasury, Commerce, Interior, Health and Human Services, Education, Transportation and Agriculture, as well as the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency. (As a military retiree who served on active duty throughout the entire period of the Vietnam War, I personally and professionally was appalled to read Action Item Number 89 of the “Change Agenda.” This Action Item advocates that the Department of Defense curtail certain types of training for military doctors and medical personnel who must treat the battlefield wounds of our young men and women who are so honorably serving our Country in Iraq and Afghanistan.)


(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 12, 2010 | 10:18 p.m.

Part 5
by Frank Losey

If Mr. Pacelle and the HSUS truly cared about the rights of law-abiding citizens, why does he refuse to condemn those who explicitly violate the “Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act” - a Federal Terrorism Act; and why did he describe, in writing, the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act to be an “unjust law?”
Employees of the HSUS and the Humane Society of Missouri orchestrated in November 2009 the confiscation of 25 horses from a person who owned a livery and riding stable in Arkansas in a manner befitting Hitler’s Storm Troopers. The confiscation was based on allegations that the horses were abused. Felony criminal charges were filed against the owner of this “Animal Enterprise,” and the owner was required to post a $20,000 bond to stay out of jail. In February 2010 the horses were returned to the owner, and in August all criminal charges were dropped against the owner without a trial. The owner has now filed a complaint with the FBI and has alleged that employees of the HSUS and the Humane Society of Missouri violated the “Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.” Could this be the reason ‘WHY’ the HSUS will not condemn those who violate the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act?
The parent company of Ringling Brothers Circus filed a lawsuit earlier this year in the District Court of Washington DC. The lawsuit alleged that the HSUS, and one of its most senior attorneys, engaged in RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) related activities that included money laundering. That allegation is based on findings of a judge that dismissed an original lawsuit against the parent company of Ringling Brothers that had been filed by the HSUS and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Does this RICO-RELATED LAWSUIT raise a question as to the ethical conduct of the HSUS?
Although the HSUS is not a pedophile, its agenda touches children as young as 5-years-old. In this regard, it has published and distributed a Humane Guide for Kids, and this guide includes a section that tells children as young as 5-years-old how to call elected officials and urge them to support the HSUS agenda - an agenda that goes far beyond dogs and puppies. Parenthetically, didn’t Hitler try and ‘brainwash’ young children?


(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 12, 2010 | 10:19 p.m.

Part 6
By Frank Losey

The HSUS has been buying small quantities of shares of food manufacturing companies and fast food companies in order to try and alter the manner in which these companies prepare and distribute food products. When the HSUS urged McDonalds to alter its menu, McDonalds, in essence, told HSUS “Thanks, but no thanks,” because it preferred to focus on “science” rather than the HSUS rhetoric.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has assigned a case file number to its audit investigation of the Humane Society of Missouri (HSMO) (2010-003995), which has joined forces with the HSUS in support of the Proposition B Ballot Initiative. The IRS audit is based upon documentation that establishes that the Humane Society of Missouri has exceeded the substantial part threshold for “TOO MUCH LOBBYING” by a tax-exempt, public charity. If the IRS determines that the Humane Society of Missouri has engaged in “TOO MUCH LOBBYING,” the IRS may rescind its tax-exempt status and assess back taxes and penalties against the Humane Society of Missouri because of non-compliance with the Internal Revenue Code and IRS Regulations.
The IRS has also assigned a case file number to its audit investigation of the Humane Society of the U.S. (29-920112). The IRS audit of the HSUS is partially based on over 1,275 pages of documentation that detail the breadth and magnitude of the lobbying activities of the HSUS, and which indicates that the HSUS has expended over $200 million on lobbying - an amount that far, far, far exceeds what the HSUS has spent on direct care of animals in animal shelters. If the IRS determines that the Humane Society of the U.S. has engaged in “TOO MUCH LOBBYING,” the IRS may rescind its tax-exempt status and assess millions of dollars of back taxes and penalties against the HSUS because of its non-compliance with the Internal Revenue Code and IRS Regulations.


(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 12, 2010 | 10:20 p.m.

Final comments by
Frank Losey

The Office of the Inspector General for Tax Administration for the Department of the Treasury has also assigned a Case File Number (55-1005-0025-C) to its own internal review of the lobbying activities of the HSUS.
Even though Mr. Pacelle founded the Humane Society Political Action Committee, which has filed over 2,300 pages of lobbying related information with the Federal Election Commission; and even though Mr. Pacelle and his two most senior Vice Presidents have lobbied members of Congress extensively; and even though the HSUS claims responsibility for the passage of more than 25 federal statutes, these three senior HSUS Executives may not be in compliance with the Lobby Disclosure Act, A federal statute, because a search of the records maintained by the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary of the Senate do not reflect receipt of lobbying reports from those three individuals, notwithstanding the explicit requirements to do so as set out in the Lobby Disclosure Act.
The above list is illustrative of how pervasive the HSUS has become in trying to influence and affect the American way of life of not only the hard working, tax-paying, caring, federally licensed and inspected breeders, but also farmers; cattle, hog and chicken ranchers; horse owners; hunters; military personnel serving in ‘harm’s way;’ food manufacturers; fast food restaurants; elected officials; the American public; voters; and even our 5-year-old children, and in so doing, the HSUS has not ‘Told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.’
Before you cast your vote on Proposition B, ask yourself: “Do I do as the HSUS from Washington DC tells me to do, even though the HSUS may not have told me the whole truth; and may be a TAX CHEAT; and may have violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; and may not have complied with the Lobby Disclosure Act, or do I do what is best for my children, the State of Missouri and the United States of America?”
Just as many conscientious Germans lived to regret the alluring rhetoric of Hitler; and just as the fly died as a result of the alluring rhetoric of the spider, voters in Missouri could live to regret accepting, at face value, the alluring rhetoric of the HSUS. VOTE NO on Proposition B on November 2nd!

Frank Losey

(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 12, 2010 | 10:21 p.m.

Who is Frank Losey?

Franklin W. Losey is an attorney licensed to practice law in the States of Ohio and Kentucky and also licensed to appear before the U.S. Supreme Court who has submitted written legal briefs that have been considered by the U.S. Supreme Court. He has served as a United States Air Force Judge Advocate; was assigned to the Pentagon as the Director of Civil Law, where he supervised over 100 military and civilian attorneys; provided legal guidance to the Air Force Chief of Staff and other General Officers assigned to the Pentagon. Since 1990 Mr. Losey has interfaced with Presidents of multi-billion dollar corporations, Members of Congress and their key staff, and senior members of the Executive Branch of our Government. During this period he successfully orchestrated actual statutory changes to Title 10 (Armed Forces), Title 18 (Crimes and Criminal Procedure - Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act), Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code), and Title 41 (Public Contracts) of the U.S. Code. He was also successful in effecting changes to regulations promulgated by the Department of Defense, U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Agriculture, OSHA, EPA and the International Maritime Organization and has spoken on behalf of the U.S. Government at an Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). Mr. Losey’s passion for representing responsible dog breeders is based on his commitment to repay Chaucer, his beloved Yorkie, who he treasured for over 18 years who came from a breeder in Missouri. Mr. Losey may be contacted via email at

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 13, 2010 | 1:41 a.m.

("Sponsors: Dennis Waits
("There Is A Huge Conflict Of Interest And Outright Corruption In Court. Our County Government Is More Than Broken!")

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 13, 2010 | 2:02 a.m.

@Allan Sharrock:
You mean this Shelley P?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 13, 2010 | 2:19 a.m.

And hey, Allan:
Maybe these lefty progs should leave the Democrat Party and start their own Socialist Party. They'll throw anyone under the train to advance their agenda.
Now I know why Robin Carnahan won't win. They don't want no Blue Dogs...

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 13, 2010 | 2:50 a.m.

("What Prop B is actually doing is creating it harder to have an animal-based business in Missouri")

("A sad side effect of the battle for Proposition B (puppy mills) is my sympathy for small farmers has tanked
2:23 PM Oct 8th via web
Shelley Powers")

(Report Comment)
Amanda Rudgar October 14, 2010 | 6:09 a.m.

H$U$ Lies.

They are about to take away the right to breed dogs at the FEDERAL level.

Future of Dogs: PUPS ­ Federal Anti - Hobby Breeder Legislation.

Read and follow instructions if you hope to retain the shred of freedom that remains as this country continues to dive bomb.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 15, 2010 | 10:59 a.m.

I would wager to say that all or most of the posters toughting no on B have an economic interest in this issue & could care less about the qualtiy of the dogs life. I see there names repeatedly on these boards. Looks like they are trying to save there own skins.

On the other hand...supporters of Prop B have nothing to gain financially. They are soley interested in the welfare of the breeding dogs. I'm a working class MISSOURIAN also & have halped raise thousands of dollars for this campaign. I know another MISSOURIAN personally who donated $100,000.00 of their own money. I've seen the fundraising first hand in Missouri & there is a HUGE support of Prop B with Missouri Money. We are also tremendously grateful that the rest of the nation cares enough about this issue to help Missouri pass this law. The Money from HSUS is a godsend. The breeders have money...the dogs don't unless caring individuals front it for them.

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
(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.











(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.