advertisement

Prop B elicits strong emotions as vote nears

Thursday, October 7, 2010 | 5:35 p.m. CDT; updated 7:34 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Bill Sutton protests Proposition B outside Cafe Berlin, where CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, Wayne Pacelle, spoke on September 13. Sutton said he believes Proposition B will be the end of domesticated animals in Missouri, including beef, pork and chicken.

JEFFERSON CITY – Jon Kimes breeds dogs, and he's worried about Proposition B.

"I'm not as polarized as everyone else," Kimes said. "I appreciate the efforts put forth by the animal welfare people. But I think that this bill was put together by people who aren't very knowledgeable about keeping and breeding dogs and who aren't very knowledgeable about what the outcome of this legislation could be."

Kimes owns the Pluperfect Kennel in Kansas City. He breeds mostly Welsh corgis and calls himself an "avocational" breeder: he breeds dogs primarily for show, rather than for sale. The number of dogs Kimes keeps fluctuates from a half-dozen to double that number, or more.

"Because this law does a really terrible job of defining a puppy mill, it has the potential to impact every breeder," Kimes said. "And what frightens me a little bit is you can take an issue like this, where you have to have some in-depth knowledge, and you can paint it at an emotional level to appeal to every Tom, Dick and Harry who knows nothing about breeding dogs and word it in a way that people won't vote against it."

Supporters of the proposal on the Nov. 2 ballot say Missouri has a serious problem with abusive dog breeders that can only be addressed through legislation. They point to the dozens of raids conducted by the Missouri Department of Agriculture every year such as one on Sept. 21 in which more than 100 dogs were removed from an unlicensed breeding facility in Camden County after the owner ran out of money for food.

Another raid in February 2009 found nearly 200 dogs starving, sitting in their own feces and surrounded by the skeletons and decomposing bodies of other dogs, most of which were stuffed into dog food bags. The owner of the Newton County facility had previously been raided and charged with animal cruelty but had not been convicted.

According to the Missouri Department of Agriculture, similar raids have removed more than 3,700 dogs from substandard conditions since early 2009. 

"It's an agricultural model applied to dog production," Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, said. "These are factory farms for dogs."

Proposition B would prohibit breeders from keeping more than 50 adult dogs for breeding. It would also impose stricter shelter and care requirements for those dogs. Among other things, it would require that all dogs be given constant access to the outdoors, be raised on solid — as opposed to wire — floors, have climate-controlled indoor kennels and be bred only twice every 18 months.

As of September, there were 1,449 licensed breeders in Missouri. The average breeder keeps 44 female dogs for breeding.

Barbara Schmitz, campaign manager of Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, helped craft the initiative and gather signatures to put it on the ballot. She said the initiative was written to be as specific as possible.

"The laws are so vague right now, and there are many loopholes," Schmitz said. "What we're trying to do is to ensure not just that the standards are clear but that they are enforceable. If we have the provisions set up in a different way, say with regard to exercise, it's very easy for (breeders) to say, 'Oh, I was going to walk them in an hour, or I walked them two hours ago.'"

The proposition was sponsored by Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, a coalition of various animal rights groups that includes the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Humane Society of Missouri and the Humane Society of the United States.

The group began circulating signature petitions in early 2010 and submitted those signatures to the state on May 2. On Aug. 3, the initiative was approved by the secretary of state, and 10 days later it overcame a court challenge to stay on the ballot. The case hinged on the usage of "puppy mill" in the initiative's language, but Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem upheld use of the phrase.

The most active opposition has come from breeders. The Alliance for Truth, an organization formed to fight the initiative, has been endorsed by 18 elected officials in Missouri along with more than 100 breeders and veterinarians.

Hubert Lavy, 68, runs Tenderheart Kennels with his wife, Sharon, on their farm in Silex. The Vietnam War veteran says the law would cost him about $50,000 in renovation costs.

Todd Mason, who owns Eagle Valley Kennel in Wentworth, echoed Lavy's concerns.

"Two of our buildings will be obsolete, we won't even be able to raise in them anymore," Mason said.

Both Mason and Lavy said that their kennels house more than 100 dogs.

Other criticisms of the initiative have come from some agricultural organizations that claim the initiative is the first step in a larger attempt by animal rights advocates to impose more legislation on farming and livestock breeding.

In a statement, a representative for the Missouri Farm Family Agriculture Alliance wrote that the Humane Society of the United States is "anti-animal agriculture and anti-farmer. This proposal ... is dangerous for Missouri's agribusiness industry."

Similar statements have been issued by the Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Cattlemen's Association.

Proposition B itself applies only to dogs, and the Humane Society of the United States denies that it has plans to advance additional legislation.


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

Ray Shapiro October 7, 2010 | 5:50 p.m.

Any person who values voting should read through the comments on the following article's thread and call up the many agencies, organizations and businesses on the web which explain why Voting No on this porposition is actually the right thing to do.
Even thought the visuals of animals being kept in kennels might first lead you to voting yes.
For this proposition, it is very important to know what's really behind that emotional appeal.
Use your brain and your heart in making that choice to Vote No on proposition B.
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

(Report Comment)
Sarah Barnett October 7, 2010 | 6:18 p.m.

Proposition B is to protect dogs - the only people making it about more than that are those opposing the initiative. Looking a bit more closely at those funding efforts to stop Prop B. Fifty-four (or almost half) of the MoFed PAC contributor breeders with MDA licenses have had USDA violations within the past several years. Prop B makes enforcement more likely, under existing law, you need a tape measure, a calculator, and animal handlers to determine if the space requirements are being violated. I recommend reading the Dirty Dozen report http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2... and seeing what it is that is being protected by those opposing Prop B. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKQF0MvjV... The Humane Society of Missouri and more than 100 Missouri veterinarians urge a “YES” vote on Prop B - and hopefully you will do the same.

(Report Comment)
jake carter October 7, 2010 | 6:49 p.m.

This proposition has been condemned by several organizations including The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, The American Kennel Club, Farm Bureau and so on... I am a kennel vet. I service nearly 100 kennels in Missouri. Under this I would have to provide a comprehensive exam to each dog. 50x100= 5,000 dogs annually. How is this consititutional? Is there someone out there telling Ms Schmitz that she has to go to a dr. once a year? Also, "unfettered access" to the outdoors means that any dog could wander out at any time even in cold inclimate weather. A female could whelp outside and kill her pups. How does this fall under "humane?" Skipping breeding is just asking for a condition known as pyometra which is an infection of the uterus. Highly fatal Barbara! This will kill the kennel industry in Missouri and also our economy. What will it do to pet food sales and to the farmers who supply the materials to make the food. Why isn't HSUS and their buddies included? Why can they crate dogs and no one else? Go take a look at some of their shelters. We were told that several pitbulls from south of Hannibal, 200 to be exact, were being crated in a warehouse in St. Louis. How does this work? Why doesn't HSUS support their shelters? Where are the millions going that people give them? We know! Don't be fooled folks. They are activists! They want to end our meat consumption. This is the first step. VOTE NO! I will also be in the unemployement line.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 7, 2010 | 6:52 p.m.

("A Message From The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association: I quote some of what is said in this message from the MVMA concerning Prop B.
"...The ballot being proposed for this November would completely shut down our state’s properly operated, inspected and licensed facilities that have over fifty breeding dogs. We see this proposal as unfair and misguided. These properly and humanely operated facilities are providing families with pets under the guidance of extensive current regulations enforced by state government...")
item 9 from the following:
http://www.mofed.org/Hand-outs-Printable...
("On Jan. 14, the Humane Society of the United States launched a new organization in conjunction with AVAR inviting veterinarians to participate in an amalgamation of the two groups. It’s calls the Humane Society Veterinary Medical Assn., or HSVMA.")
http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/ve...

(Report Comment)
jake carter October 7, 2010 | 6:54 p.m.

Part II on Prop B
For those of you who plan to vote yes, I would like to know something. Will you come hold each dog as I administer the solution to kill it? 30,000 dogs will die with a yes vote!
ask Ms. Schmitz about that

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 7, 2010 | 8:01 p.m.

("The proposition was sponsored by Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, a coalition of various animal rights groups...")
I see a great divide and division between the Activists for Animal Rights vs. those who advocate for Animal Welfare and well-run Dog, Livestock and Agricultural industries.
Vote No on Proposition B.
Humane treatment of pets and animals is a noble cause and is appropriate, however we need to remember that animals are not included in the Bill of Rights and the agenda of fanatical Animal Rights groups have the desire to put animals above people.
We need better enforcement of the 23 pages of laws, rules and regulations currently in place.
Proposition B advances the agenda of fanatical Animal Rights groups which will destroy dog, animal, livestock and agricultural industries.
HSUS is the spawn of PETA.
http://www.shihtzu.org/Info/peta_hsus.as...

(Report Comment)
Sha-NeQua Jackson October 7, 2010 | 8:20 p.m.

Who is this Ray Shapiro...is this HIS newspaper?

(Report Comment)
Sha-NeQua Jackson October 7, 2010 | 8:21 p.m.

Jack,I will glady help you hold the dogs as you kill them. Better that, then they have to suffer miserable lives at your hand.

(Report Comment)
Sha-NeQua Jackson October 7, 2010 | 8:25 p.m.

Ray Shapiro's comments are offensive and utterly despicable. Puppy mills are concentration camps for dogs.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 7, 2010 | 9:19 p.m.

("Sha-NeQua Jackson says:
Ray Shapiro's comments are offensive and utterly despicable. Puppy mills are concentration camps for dogs.")

Ray Shapiro asks:
1. Sha-NeQua, what's your definition of puppy mill?
2. Do you smell burning fur from those puppy mill ovens?
3. Are you Jewish?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 7, 2010 | 9:49 p.m.

Begging your pardon Sha-NeQua Jackson, but please highlight which specific phrase from Ray is offensive and utterly despicable? Logic, not emotion please.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 7, 2010 | 9:51 p.m.

Jon Kimes is the type of breeder that is purposely exempt from this bill. He is a small hobby breeder concerned about the quality of the dogs he's breeding. The only time he sells a dog as a pet is if the dog does not meet breed conformance. Then, he ensures the pet goes to a good home, and is spayed or neutered, as required of show breeders.

The specific part of the bill relevant to Mr. Kimes is the following, listed in the section detailing those breeders _not covered_ by Proposition B:

"hobby or show breeders who have custody of no more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those dogs and selling any offspring for use as a pet..."

In an earlier column Mr. Kimes stated that he has females that are show dogs that he must leave unspayed _but he doesn't have intentions to breed these dogs in order to sell the puppies at pets_.

He also mentioned that sometimes he keeps dogs until they are 8 or 9 months old, in order to test for hip dysplasia. But Mr. Kimes is not keeping these dogs for the express purpose of breeding them in order to sell their puppies as pets.

In other words, Mr. Kines, this bill does not apply to you.

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

Proposition B is not targeted at people like Mr. Kimes. The bill wording is such that it specifically does not apply to show or hobby breeders.

The others, though, with the "100 dogs" (or more)--to them, dogs are chickens. Or bunches of carrots. They are a crop, a product, raised solely for income. The only purpose for the female dogs is to breed puppies for sale--no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

With that many dogs, there is no individual time for the adult dogs: no affection, no playing ball, no companionable runs. No curled up on a warm rug, or snuggling next to their owners in bed or in a car.

The females are bred constantly, until worn out and discarded. The puppies have little or no socialization. There is no concern about quality of dog, or health of puppy.

Chickens with fur; carrots that bark.

Look at the Tenderheart Kennel's puppy photos. Oh, we have a couple with kids and on grass, to reassure everyone it's "not a puppy mill". But look down further -- lab females with pups in cages, on wire floors.

http://www.tenderheartkennel.com/current...

That's not caring for dogs--that's producing a product.

As for Mr. Mason, well, let his customers speak:

http://www.complaintsboard.com/complaint...

Proposition B is about the dogs. No more abuses, no more neglect, no more factory farms, and dogs living their lives in cages.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 7, 2010 | 10:29 p.m.

Shelley Powers says:
("Proposition B is about the dogs. No more abuses, no more neglect, no more factory farms, and dogs living their lives in cages.")

Is that what Proposition B will accomplish?
Exactly how will this proposition end abuse, end neglect, stop black market activity and free the dogs?
Read the dude's sign in the picture from this article.
It conveys what Proposition B really means:
Loss of countless jobs.
Millions in revenue lost.
Proliferation of Unlicensed Breeders.
Thousands of Animals Destroyed or Abandoned.
More Government Control.
-Now why would a guy who looks like Bill Sutton lie?

(Report Comment)
Joy Owens October 8, 2010 | 12:28 a.m.

Proposition B is misleading. Enforce the laws that are on the books. Every enforcement officer should be able to operate a calculator and measuring tape. Animal handling is not the job of law enforcement as Prop. B would have it. It is not that difficult to see a wire cage elevated off the ground. If citations are already written, why has nothing been done? why are we writing more laws?

Vote No on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 8, 2010 | 5:06 a.m.

Shelly Powers wrote:

"No more abuses, no more neglect, no more factory farms, and dogs living their lives in cages."

That is an assumption, not a assured fact.

I think it was Terry Ward that pointed out that laws often don't accomplish all for which they are written. I agree.

However, nowhere in Prop B does it say that animals have to be socialized. Why don't any of you get that? You're assuming that by limiting the number of breeding dogs, that they automatically will have more individual attention.

Nothing in Prop B assures this. You're expecting a law to do MORE than it is written for. If you can't expect this law to end all abuses (which is different from the pet-like treatment you're talking about) how can we expect this law to make breeders treat their dogs like pets?

Females can still sit in their runs all their lives under Prop B. They can still be bred many times. They can still be treated as commercial animals.

If you want breeders to treat their dogs like pets, then write a law specifically for that. Spell out the kind of care and socialization you want them to have. Have breeders and vets document the care. This is what you should be pushing for, if you're honest.

But you know that has less of a chance of passing than this deceitful, irrational, emotional campaign. Prop B adds little to care standards from what is already on the books, and will not accomplish what its supporters say it will accomplish. In fact, it is likely to create a larger black market than exists now.

More dogs will be helped, more quickly, by stepping up enforcement actions against both licensed and unlicensed breeders that have substandard care. To expect this poorly written law to legislate love is absurd.

DK

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 8, 2010 | 5:18 a.m.

Sarah Barnett wrote:

"I recommend reading the Dirty Dozen report "

Again the logical fallacy. The fact there are substandard kennels does not mean they are all that way. Plus, these kennels are in violation of current law. Prop B is not necessary to close these places - they can be closed now.

If there is an enforcement problem, fix that!! Don't rush in and pass a law that's likely to give us a large amount of unintended consequence.

Vote NO. Let the supporters of this bill come back and ask specifically for what they want. I might even support that.

DK

(Report Comment)
Helen (not the actress) Hunt October 8, 2010 | 7:36 a.m.

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

MUST READ! ASPCA PETA HSUS http://tl.gd/6a8b5g MISSOURI ANIMAL CRUELTY LAW #nokill Proposition B.cats dog farms horses

http://tl.gd/5v7q7v USA ITS OUR RIGHT! ASPCA PETA HSUS CAT DOG FARM GOD CHRISTIAN RESCUE) #nokill TO OBAMA, BIDEN SENATORS

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 8, 2010 | 9:17 a.m.

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.
Vote No on Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
gladys ayers October 8, 2010 | 11:10 a.m.

seems to me we dont need prop b..looks like Mo Dept Ag is doing their job, By the words in the article Mo dept ag has identified and removed 3700 dogs from unlicensed or bad kennels in the past year alone. Exactly how will Prop B help them?
rather than costing our state millions of dollars in lost revenue and infringing on the very heart of what it means to be an American. Why dont we simply support Mo dept ag and give them the inspectors and resources they need to enforce the laws they already have? And if you know of some deplorable kennel, simply call Bark Alert and let the inspectors do their jobs
Prop B isnt about protecting animals, it is about our future to even have animals. One just has to look at the ring leader of it the H$U$ to understand their agenda

(Report Comment)
Marq Summers October 8, 2010 | 11:56 a.m.

I am a kennel veterinarian. I have several kennels throughout Missouri and Illinois. Our clients have invested thousands of dollars to create state of the art kennels. These are family operations. Most are husband/wife operations whose sole income is the kennel. Their children work in these operations and learn compassion, responsibility and business skills. Many show dogs in 4-H and the business is used for the kids FFA project. These families send their kids to college with sales. They are licensed federally and through the state. I inspect them, the feds inspect them and so does the state. If they register pups through AKC, AKC also inspects them. Prop B will mandate that each dog has "unfettered" access to an outside pen. That means a pregnant female could walk out at any time.What happens if she whelps her pups out in that pen in zero degree weather? Dead pups!!!! The mandate limits 50 dogs max. What happens to the rest that they own over 50 dog limit. We are talking about thousands of dogs in Missouri that will be out. Will owners be forced to kill them? Would you like to hold those dogs while I put the needle in them? If you have the guts to vote yes, then you need to belly up to the bar and face the end results of your decision. It states "any domesticated animal" in the Prop B. That includes domestic livestock! They are after our meat supply folks!!! Are you ready to eat a McVeggie Meal? Wake up folks! HSUS, rescues, shelters , catteries, are all exempt. I've walked into worse catteries than any kennel. This targets our licensed inspected kennels. The space requirement would force every kennel out of business. HSUS knows this. That is why they came up with this. They want to end all dog breeding and domestic animal breeding. You are about to witness the Missouri Massacre of Duke and Dixie Purebred. No more dog shows. No more Man's Best Friend.

(Report Comment)
Anne Hogan October 8, 2010 | 12:41 p.m.

Prop B is ONLY about dogs - it will have no effect on other domesticated animals or livestock.

Additionally, Prop B prohibits possessing more than 50 unsterilized dogs for the purpose of breeding and selling the puppies as pets. There are over 200 rescue organizations in Missouri ready and willing to take surrendered breeding dogs and find them loving homes.

(Report Comment)
alice smith October 8, 2010 | 5:51 p.m.

"Prop B is ONLY about dogs - it will have no effect on other domesticated animals or livestock."

SO FAR.. don;t think for one minute that this won't extend further.. it will

"Additionally, Prop B prohibits possessing more than 50 unsterilized dogs for the purpose of breeding and selling the puppies as pets. There are over 200 rescue organizations in Missouri ready and willing to take surrendered breeding dogs and find them loving homes."

I'll bet there are.. will they give the dogs away for free? Even at $100 per dog that is a lot of MONEY.. Will the HSUS pay to castrate all of them and do house checks and take them back if they don't work out? This is a power grab having nothing to do with animals except to remove them from the care of man.. HSUS is a sly dog ( excuse the pun) whose "head honchos" are vegans and do NOT own even a single pet.. Ask Wayne Pacelle how many "rescue dogs" he owns.. NONE.. how many "rescue cats".. NONE.. his excuse.. // he travels too much.. heck I know airline pilots that own pets.. Wayne paltry travel schedule can never meet theirs.. and yet somehow they manage.. he does not..
Don't buy it...
NO ON PROP B

(Report Comment)
barb durtche October 8, 2010 | 6:15 p.m.

Please copy and paste the below link into your browsers and read some facts. Don't be swayed by emotion, tv ads, propaganda.
The current laws are actually MORE PRECISE than what HSUS/Prop B supporters are proposing.
Why new law then? It doesn't make sense.
Enforce current law....train those who need it. Doing these things would only help the situat ion much more than throwing a new law at it.
HSUS is only in this for more publicity therefore more donations.

http://www.totaldobe.com/propb_acfa.pdf

(Report Comment)
Cody Hobbs October 8, 2010 | 6:25 p.m.

This is not only about the agriculture in the state. It goes further than that. The dog breeding industry in state of Missouri is an approx 1 billion dollar industry. This includes breeders, the farmers that sell supplies to the dog food companies, the dog food vendors, vet clinics, and much more. If you take down an industry of this size it will no doubt take out millions of tax dollars. With this lack of tax revenues, our schools, police departments, and other state departments will suffer.

Also if Prop B. passes it will cost the tax payers of the state anywhere from a 1/2 million dollars to one million dollars!!! This is just away for more government control. Please Vote NO on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Elledge October 8, 2010 | 7:36 p.m.

The only place in the bill that mentions "domesticated animals" is part (9) which is a definition of "pet" and the only part of the bill that mentions "pet" is in that section that specifically excludes the animals affected by this bill. Why is that so difficult to understand?

So once again, it's about the dogs!

And changing subjects.....I've never known anyone to change their mind on a subject as a result of someone shouting at them. Just sayin'

(Report Comment)
Marq Summers October 8, 2010 | 8:55 p.m.

Many of these licensed kennels have achieved Blue Ribbon status with the state. They borrowed thousands of dollars to renovate their kennels. They would have to more than double the space again to meet this mandate. It is cost prohibitive. The mandate of "unfettered" access give a pregnant dog the ability to walk outside in freezing weather where she could deliver her pups. They would die. The space requirement is larger than most of your bedrooms. They have come up with a scenario that they know will end all kennels. They lowered the number to a point that you cannot survive. There is a whackadoo group in control that most of the average good hearted folks do not know about. They are on a vegan agenda. They want to take away your meat. They are a threat to our food supply. The pet food industry put $30 billion into the U.S. economy in 2009. They say Mo. is responsible for %30 of the pet pop. Do the math! Eliminate %30 of the pet food industry. That will whiplash back on the farmers who supply grain and meat to pet food. This doesn't even cover the 1500 families that will be unemployed. Many hire extra help. This will devastate Missouri economy. These kennels support their local towns by purchasing goods and services. What do you think this will do to all the vet clinics?

(Report Comment)
Marq Summers October 8, 2010 | 8:57 p.m.

You know I have to think about the golden calf story of The Bible. What must God think of us? We have children in horrible abusive homes, raised in meth labs, unclothed, living in the streets. We've let our education system tank. Here we are defending dogs when we have generations of suffering children? What the hell happened to America? Will they put missing poodles on milk cartons?

(Report Comment)
Amy Katz October 8, 2010 | 9:31 p.m.

Some of these comments would have you believe that current law is adequate to protect dogs in Missouri. If it were adequate, would these breeders still be in business? The following is from USDA reports:

One kennel (Jesse and Sonja Miller’s Walnut Creek Kennel) made the list because it noted on a proposed USDA program of veterinary care that the owner intended to dispose of unwanted dogs “by clubbing the dogs.”

S & S Family Puppies (owned by Brandi Cheney and Diana Stephenson, Milan) has more than 500 pages of Animal Welfare Act violations and enforcement records on file with the USDA, yet it remains both federally and state licensed.

A kennel operator on the dishonorable mentions list (Wendy Layman, Shadow Mountain Ranch, Rogersville) had her license revoked by The USDA for repeatedly violating the Animal Welfare Act, yet she remains state-licensed and continues to sell puppies over the Internet.

A kennel operator on the dishonorable mentions list (Tidwell, Ramblin’ Springs Kennel, West Plains), reportedly admitted to her USDA inspector that she performed invasive surgical procedures on her dogs, such as Caesarian sections, without a veterinary license.

This is the kind of cruelty that Prop B, a reasonable reform measure, will address. Who exactly supports this type of cruelty? For more, see http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs...

(Report Comment)
jake carter October 8, 2010 | 9:47 p.m.

HSUS contends that there are way too many puppies being produced and that all of the shelters in Missouri are full. I asked who would take the nearly 50,000 dogs that the kennels will have to eliminate to get down to the 50 dog mandate. In jumps HSUS! "We have 200 rescues that will take all of the unwanted kennel dogs!" Uh I'm sorry here folks but what is wrong with this? The shelters are full and no one will take them yet we have 200 rescues? I asked a state inspector and she told us that thousands of dogs are going to get the axe. She said HSUS position is to kill them. Wake up! A yes vote is a vote to murder innocent dogs.

(Report Comment)
Stella Romanoff October 8, 2010 | 9:49 p.m.

There are 1450 licensed breeders in Missouri; at 50 dogs each,that's 72,500 spaces. A pro-PropB website claims there are 200,000 breeding dogs in Missouri. The excess, then, will be 127,500 dogs.

That's 637 dogs for each of the rescues Anne says are ready to step in. I hope they don't plan to keep them in stacked crates.

(Report Comment)
Karen highland October 8, 2010 | 9:57 p.m.

HSUS is not the only one who can access inspection reports from the USDA. 4 of the “Dirty Dozen” no longer hold license. Comments are from the remaining 8 last inspections.
S&S had only 2 non-compliant items on their last inspection.
B&B was cited for 2 westies that were out of their pen playing around "they escaped". Cited for grass that the inspector thought was too tall. A dog bowl that the dog had chewed on the edge. there was a dog that was observed to have a “cloudy” eye.
In the third kennel, an dog house was chewed along the edge of the door it did not have a flap door There was bedding in the dog house, but according to the inspector, it “was not enough”
At the fourth,there was a sheltie that had an injured leg, it was treated by a vet, but the bandage, and dog had become dirty, possibly due to inability to bathe him with the cast being in place for over 6 weeks. There was a thin dog. There was an electrical cord that a dog might reach. A flap came off one of the outside doors to the facility There was a section of fence that the inspector deemed “structurally unsound”. OUTSIDE of the facility in non-dog area was “an accumulation of items” an old tarp, rolled wire, broken plastic buckets, an old straw bale, and old cardboard material There was also an unused dog crate. Imagine that at a kennel! APHIS official also found broken wires that “could” possibly cause injury to a dog. There was a tear in the linolium, “There were several wooden shelters that were no longer impervious to moisture. When the inspector applied water to the surface, the water did not “bead up” but soaked into the surface.”
WOW, THE INSPECTORS ARE NOT ONLY SKILLED ANIMAL HUSBANDRY SPECIALISTS,THEY ARE VETS, AND BUILDING INSPECTORS ALONG WITH THEIR UNCANNY ABILITY TO TELL IF GRASS IS TO TALL!
Smith’s kennel, there was a dog that had a cherry eye, no sign of infection, some broken wire.

(Report Comment)
Karen highland October 8, 2010 | 10:04 p.m.

6. Expired medicines were found in a building that was no longer in use. the facility owner disposed of the expired meds at the time of inspection.A maltese dog was found that was thought to be thin, the kennel owner had already made a vet appointment for the dogs the following morning. Once again, water did not “bead up” when the inspector applied it to a wooden surface. Dogs in one location were not provided shade. It should be noted that the dogs had free access to an airconditioned enclosure if they were hot.
7. SK’S kennel: A dog had a “cloudy” eye. 5 dogs had tartar buildup on their teeth. The “CEILING” in one room did not “bead up” when the inspector applied water to it. (Dang, and so many dogs spend time on the ceiling!) Some of the enclosures “bounced” when the dogs ran on them.
8.At this kennel there was a chow that was ungroomed. It was matted behind both ears.
9. Although he no longer holds a USDA license, Tiny Tails had no non-compliant items on the 1-20-2010 inspection.

The point of delineating the ciatations is to clearify what contitutes a “write_up” the vast majority of these altercations would have been easily “fixed” if the kennel owner had been given the oportunity. It seems however, that some inspectors are out to make a name of sorts for themselves. The inspector of record in 7 of the 12 cases, is relatively new to USDA and apparently envisions herself as a proverbial “jack of all trades”. This inspector has exhibited obsessive behavior, and harrassment techniques, similar to those exhibited by others with an animal rights agenda, as opposed to an animal welfare agenda.
Remember folks, things are not always as they may at first appear. You need to inform yourselves fully before jumping to conclusions. If you do not know the entire story, you cannot make an adaquate judgement.

(Report Comment)
Helen (not the actress) Hunt October 8, 2010 | 10:59 p.m.

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

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

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 9, 2010 | 8:03 a.m.

Marq Summers, I don't see your name as a veterinarian at the Truth for Alliance site. Which clinic do you work for?

(Report Comment)
Amanda Rudgar October 10, 2010 | 1:40 a.m.

Quality Breeding Is A Profession To Be Respected

Most animal rights members want to put an end to dog breeding. At the very least they believe dog breeding should only be done as a free service provided by hobby breeders to an elite few.

Several have said they do not believe there should be any dog breeding what-so-ever. None. That anyone wanting a dog should go to the pound or find a stray mongrel.

In any field we go to experts for advice and product, and those experts in turn are paid for the service and product they produce and provide for our purchase. Professional breeders are asking for nothing less. Hobby breeders could never meet the demand for quality purebred dogs. Hobby breeders have less experience. Hobby breeders usually have jobs outside the home therefore cannot possibly house train a litter of puppies. Not to worry though, Proposition B would put an end to raising a litter of puppies in one's home.

Experienced professional breeders of purebred dogs offer us the dogs lineage, medical history, breed character, and someone to fall back on should we need advice through the years. Some even offer training advice.

The obvious push is for dog lovers to own only mongrels, it must be, otherwise, why do animal rights groups try to force the public to select a rejected dog over one with specifically bred purpose? What sense does this make? Temperament begins with good genetics. Nervous, high strung, skittish, and aggressive dogs often have a genetic predisposition to behave that way, which is how many end up in shelters. Only a few are taken due to job loss, death of owner, etc. The rest are there because of irresponsible owners who acquired their dog on a whim and loved it only until the novelty wore off. Experienced professional breeders screen potential buyers to avoid this.

(Report Comment)
Amanda Rudgar October 10, 2010 | 1:41 a.m.

Most people cannot afford to spend hundreds of dollars on the intensive training required by shelter dogs. Not to mention the health issues. But for quality breeders to use great care in selecting only the most stable temperaments, the hardiest immune systems, and most balanced physiques they must keep several dogs, often more than ten. And they more than some vets, who are usually non breeders, are the most skilled in animal husbandry. For example, Alaskan Malamute puppies might perish if kept in temperatures as high as those proposed in Proposition B; but that temperature might be fine for a Chinese Crested. Or what if a dog knocks over it's water dish in the night or urinates in it's crate unless water is taken up at night? - Something only the breeder would know. Proposition B makes it a crime! I didn't leave water out all night for my child. I also did not give them free access to the outdoors 24 hours per day. I monitored their well being and made decisions accordingly. How would you like to be told you are too stupid to know when to let your own dog out?

Instead of belittling all breeders we should be respecting their talent, dedication, passion, and enterprising spirit to do what they love despite the attacks from those on the outside who have never bred even one litter of puppies to possibly understand the lost sleep, the tears, the high food and veterinary bills, the phone calls at all hours of the day and night, and the physical demand required to care for these dogs and ensure the survival of their beloved breed.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Elledge October 10, 2010 | 3:54 p.m.

"Most people cannot afford to spend hundreds of dollars on the intensive training required by shelter dogs. Not to mention the health issues."

I have two shelter dogs. Mixed breed mutts. All it took for them was a decent living environment, good food and a lot of love. Within two weeks they became the best dogs anyone could possibly hope for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdmlj98q3...

(Report Comment)
Joe McLoughlin October 12, 2010 | 8:38 p.m.

$50,000 in upgrading his operation? the most i've ever MADE in a year was half that, when i worked as a State inspector! i feel so sorry for the eedjit.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 12, 2010 | 8:57 p.m.

(“They still call me a puppy mill even though I do what they say I have to do,” Swofford lamented.")
http://www.neoshodailynews.com/news/x154...

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 15, 2010 | 10:45 a.m.

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)

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 15, 2010 | 8:55 p.m.

Marina Shane, if that's your real name.
How do you respond to this.
Or are you just a one-day wonder?
HSUS drone?
http://saova.org/MissouriBallot.html

(Report Comment)
Ruth Elledge October 16, 2010 | 5:50 a.m.

Just saw this explanation of what a puppy mill is posted elsewhere:
"OUTLAWED in some states--- SHOULD BE A FEDERAL LAW....Puppy MILLS are just that --- think of a LUMBER MILL --- MASS PRODUCTION... Puppy Mills breed designer, purebred animals in HORRIBLE CONDITIONS IN TINY CAGES FOR YEARS SOLELY for the purpose of economic gain---for purchase by pet stores---> THEN, when the animal is all used up, the puppy mill OWNER dumps their abused purebreds at city animal shelters to die---> after these babies have lived for the first 8-9 years of their liveS, since being born, in tiny, filthy cages, half starved to death, on wire flooring that they pee and poop through IN CAGES ONE STACKED ON TOP OF THE OTHER with the pups down on the bottom getting all the pee and poop from those above, with no grooming, with no beds, rarely do they get food and water.... then when they are sick or can no longer perform adequately as a breeder or stud dog, they are DUMPED TO DIE. We personally have adopted a number of puppy mill dogs. They have come to us with NO muscle tone and inability to jump up or down, no idea how to jump up or down, horrible halitosis and a very few soft teeth, terrified of people, little trust, no idea that they can leave their bed to run around and play, no idea what play is, no idea what a toy is, no idea what a treat is, no idea what good food is as they have learned to eat their own poop to survive. They come to us as "resource hoarders".... all need potty training, as they have learned to squat and pee where they are by living in a cage for years, some run the minute they get a treat to dig a little hole to try to save it for later by burying it, some hoard toys, some balls, some beds, some blankets, some food, some their poop for food, some hoard their new "people" who now show them love for the first times in their lives, the people that they now love not allowing any other dog near them----> all hoard something we have found, as this is natural for an animal that has only known survival and do not trust that love or food will be there the next day. PUPPY MILLS ARE THE WORST KIND OF ANIMAL ABUSE."

The current laws are not good enough, even if they were enforced adequately. That's why I'm voting YES on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 16, 2010 | 2:56 p.m.

Ray.... I will give you a blow by blow of what I think about your link tommorrow. I'm at work right now & can't type that much that fast! But i have a rebuttal for each & every point. Actually, I might post it online on as a static page so i can send a link for it!
_____________________________
.
The opposition here to Prop B is just spouting off a bunch of SCARE TACTICS from people with vested money interests in skimping as much as possible to make a buck.
.
Prop B calls for the following:
.
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
•require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles;

•prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and

•create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations?
_____________________________

GOOD breeders shouldn't have any issue with Prop B. It's just the ones that don't want to treat their dogs well & skimp on them that do. I'm sorry, but as a breeder if you can't do these simple things, then IMO You are a puppy miller! And i could Care Less what you think!

MISSOURIANS.... WE LIVE IN THE SHOW ME STATE....
HOW ABOUT SHOWING SOME COMPASSION!
.
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 16, 2010 | 3:30 p.m.

Marina Shane said:
("...But i have a rebuttal for each & every point. Actually, I might post it online on as a static page so i can send a link for it!")

Doesn't suprise me. I've been hearing quite a bit of static from ProBers lately.
Make certain you include details on that "poll" Barbara Schmitz keeps touting.
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 16, 2010 | 4:15 p.m.

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
Hey, RAY! The link you gave for the poll.... Can't find anything on that page about a "poll" by Barbara Schmitz. Can you send me a link that has that on it? Thanks!
.
I reread that page though, and Karen Strange of MOFED was quoted quite a bit toward the end of the article. She's so far in the pocket of the Puppy millers. Shame. She fights EVERY reform for animal welfare in Missouri. She even opposed a 30 day dispostition hearing for dogs involved in dogfighting. She opposed the Dangerous exotic animal registry last year (Which passed... did you know Missouri is also the fifth largest state for exotic animal business & growing fast to surpass it's numbers each year) The exotic registry requires that owners of dangerous exotic animals have liability insurance & register there exotic animal on a registry with Missouri. Karen Strange also opposed the Healthy Pet Act, giving recourse to consumers purchasing sick puppies from pet stores. She did though support the Horse Impoundment Act that Viebrock introduces each year, (And we oppose & defeat every year) which would have added another 30-60 days onto an already lengthy time to rescue sick & abused horses. Her track record is horrific. If it was up to Strange there would not be one law governing animal welfare in Missouri!
IMHO, Ms Strange's track record is horrific & hurts Missouri.
.
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)
Ruth Elledge October 16, 2010 | 7:03 p.m.

I usually spend my Saturday transporting rescue dogs. Today was no exception.

My first transport today was an eye-opener. I've seen puppy mill dogs at our local shelter when I volunteered there but today I helped transport 17 from a vet clinic that came from mills a week ago. I can't help but think these were in fairly good shape compared to so many. At transfer, we took them out, offered water which they wouldn't drink so I tried to dip my finger and put it to their mouths, no takers. Put them on the grass to walk around a bit and some laid belly down and froze, others tried to scamper to the concrete. None pottied of course. But what bothered us most was that they were easy to put into crates, but getting them out was a different story. Some would spread their front legs against the inside of the crate to try to stay inside, or cower at the back of the crate when we reached in. They were petrified, having had little or no human interaction during their lives thus far.

It was a very sad day. I'll never understand how anyone with a heart could ever intentionally cause those precious little souls so much pain. It was heartbreaking.

(Report Comment)
jake carter October 17, 2010 | 11:43 a.m.

If you go to facebook, go to Wayside Waifs page and hit the life or friend them. Go down the wall to the comments made by: Michelle Daniel. She talks about a no kill shelter and how it is in bad outdated conditions. It is called Halfway Home and is located in Kansas City. 150 dogs not able to get out and stretch their legs. Not enough hours or volunteers. Okay what is wrong here? I guess we know why prop b excludes them. I'm calling USDA. You folks condemn kennels? Lets start a witch hunt on the rescues and shelters.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 17, 2010 | 2:23 p.m.

HEY.... RAY! You asked for it... here it is!
(I created a BLOG just to post this rebuttal online for you!:)
.
A link for easier reading:
http://marinashanelewis.wordpress.com/i-...

(Report Comment)
jake carter October 17, 2010 | 3:11 p.m.

Who do you trust? Veterinarians or pencil pushers at HSUS?
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id...

read the article in the link

(Report Comment)
Janice Swofford October 17, 2010 | 3:15 p.m.

http://www.neoshodailynews.com/news/x154......
I made comments in this newspaper, they were taken out of context and in this article http://hslf.typepad.com/political_animal... the quotes I made were turned around completely. Who lies now.

This quote is misleading to say the least.
The same is true of Janice Swofford, treasurer of the Southwest Chapter of the Missouri Pet Breeders Association. Swofford told a Neosho Daily News reporter that she would have to “give up” her breeding kennel if Proposition B passes because her kennel is indoors and does not have outside runs. Yet, according to the same list of licensed Missouri kennels, no breeder by the name of "Swofford" holds a current state kennel license. This indicates that she is either an illegally unlicensed breeder or has ten or fewer breeding females. If she is exempt from current licensing requirements, she would be exempt from Prop B as well.

I am licensed by the state of MO and have been for 16 yrs. You can look up my inspections, but you won't find any infractions. I currently have a small kennel but it is over the 10 dog limit so I will be affected by the new laws. I show dogs in AKC dogs shows, I have a certified Therapy dog who goes with me to nursing homes to visit the residents. I have donated a Border Collie to a young man who does 4-H who lost his dog to a farm accident, they are showing 4-H and doing very well. I have also donated another Border Collie to a new program who is training them and giving them to disabled farmers. My indoor kennel was designed so my dogs didn't have to be outside in the harsh MO climates. They wouldn't have to be in the rain, mud, snow or ice storms. They do have a big outside play yard, they don't have access 24/7 but I do let them out in groups to play, they love it, they have swimming pools to play in, slide to play on and a big ring to jump thru. I do genetic health testing on my adults to insure I produce healthy puppies for the new families. I have vet care 24/7 if needed, and he comes out to the kennel to check on my dogs yearly. I try to do things correctly and still it isn't good enough. Oh yeah, I am proud when people come to see my puppies,I don't have a problem when they come. A person was quoted in Springfield, when asked what Prop B is, they said" to close down all breeders" not bad breeders just all breeders.

(Report Comment)
jake carter October 17, 2010 | 5:20 p.m.

They did this very thing in the state of Tennessee. Down the road they moved the number down to 20.

(Report Comment)
jake carter October 17, 2010 | 5:26 p.m.

Ruth
What is a baby puppy supposed to do? Did you raise children of your own? An 8 week puppy is comparable to a tiny infant child. This is the problem with alot of people who get puppies and have no concept that they are babies. It takes time to socialize them. You offered water? Is it possible that your water is different from the water they were raised on and tastes differently? Same with food? How many puppies go to owners who try to feed them people food and their kids pull their fragile legs. I think alot of you live in this fantasy land. Too far from the farm. You've lost a sense of common rationale.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 17, 2010 | 5:43 p.m.

Talk about being in the pocket of the puppy millers!
No wonder Mr Carter is against Prop B.
.
Quote from Jake Carter: "I am a kennel vet. I service nearly 100 kennels in Missouri..."
.
Well, doesn't that explain his motivations! MONEY. How much MONEY he can make off the breeders. It's not really about the welfare of the dog is it? It's about the MONEY! If the Puppy mill(s) he services go out of business, he'll make less MONEY.
So in his eyes a dog doesn't deserve to see a vet once a year, even though it had babies. Following that logic... then watch out pregnant women around these people. If it was up to them you wouln't get prenatal/afterbirth care!
.
STOP THE CRUELTY!
VOTE YES! on PROP B!
.
STOP THE CRUELTY!
VOTE YES! on PROP B!
.
STOP THE CRUELTY!
VOTE YES! on PROP B!
.
STOP THE CRUELTY!
VOTE YES! on PROP B!

(Report Comment)
Ruth Elledge October 18, 2010 | 6:52 p.m.

To Jake Carter:
Perhaps you should stop attempting to read something that hasn't been written. No where in my post did I say the dogs were 8 week old puppies, they were all adult dogs, several years old, most were females and all had previous litters of their own. Transports are stressful for all dogs, whether they come from a puppy mill, a shelter or have been in foster for a while and they need to stay hydrated. They weren't forced to drink, it was offered.

Now I'll wait to see how you twist or change my words in this post! LOL

(Report Comment)
Ruth Elledge October 18, 2010 | 7:04 p.m.

I've seen so many opponents of Prop B insist that the current laws are good enough.

Following is a comparison between Prop B and the current ACFA, written by a friend of mine:

"Prop B will be in addition to current law. Almost all MO commercial breeders are USDA licensed and under ACFA, USDA regs apply to them.

USDA does not require solid resting surfaces (ACFA does but again this applies to only about 2% of breeders who will be affected by Prop B per numbers given by MoDA). Otherwise, ACFA and USDA regs are pretty much the same and under them, it is currently legal to keep dogs caged their entire lives. There is a provision for exercise but all that's required is that the breeder have an excercise plan on file from their vet. There is no way for an inspector to know if the dogs are receiving such or not. Also, now "exercise" can be met by housing dogs together as long as each dog has the minimum space (6" taller, wider, longer than the dog) if housed separately. There is nothing in the current law that states the dogs ever have to be let out of their cage. As for dogs housed individually, they need only be given twice the minimum space to meet the exercise requirement and again, never have to be let out of their cage. Thus, it is perfectly legal for breeders to keep dogs in wire cages stacked on top of one another their whole lives. Prop B would prohibit wire floors and the stacking of cages.

As far as temps, current law states temps shouldn't be below 45 or above 85 during a 4 hour period. No inspector is going to stay 4 hours at a facility so that provision is totally unenforceable. Prop B sets temp max and min without the 4 hour provision.

Current law allows dogs to be bred every heat cycle. Prop B would limit such to twice in an 18-month period.

Current law states a vet must visit the facility annually. Prop B states the vet must hand check every dog and can't just do a walk-through. Prop B also calls for prompt vet treatment.

Also, Prop B creates misdemeanor crimes for violations unlike current regs which have administrative penalties only. I have a letter from USDA stating such (and remember, 98% of these breeders are governed by USDA, not ACFA) and their only recourse is to revoke a license which takes a minimum of 1 to 3 years.

With Prop B people like the Schindlers would be held accountable for neglecting animals. Now, nothing is happening to them and their violations have been noted in inspection reports for almost a year."

Vote YES! on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
jake carter October 18, 2010 | 9:59 p.m.

Ruth
Why has HSUS exempted themselves, shelters, rescues from this? No one seems to be able to answer this question?
Where is the kennel that HSUS built? May we tour it? Missouri veterinarians would like to see the production and medical records. I recently read comments made about a no kill shelter in Kansas City. "Sad conditions""Less hours because of a lack of volunteers" "150 dogs and only 3 got to be walked so they couldn't stretch and relieve themselves" I am told that there is a movement of veterinarians that are going to push USDA to put a cap on "no kill" numbers. Live out a life of misery in a no kill tiny run? You are pointing a finger at licensed kennels? I have a feeling this dog is about to bite you in the behind Ruth.

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance October 18, 2010 | 10:21 p.m.

HSUS is the strawmen these pathetic proponents are beating on. No don't look at us, look at the shiny nickel over here. These people are in insulting your intelligence. Apples meet Oranges. One shelters unwanted and abused pets, the other sells animals. Anyway I thought the Humane Society euthanize animals, where do you get this no-kill run from?

Nice try. Vote Yes.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer October 19, 2010 | 7:31 p.m.

The animal rights industry has marketed the puppy mill word well. The Humane Society of the United States has carefully crafted Proposition B using the buzz-words 'puppy mill' and 'cruelty' to describe regulations intended to put excessive controls on legal, licensed (already regulated) dog breeders, labeling them forever as puppy mills. NO other state has so insulted and degraded an entire industry that brings needed revenues into their states. Does Missouri have an economic death-wish? Or an extra half million dollars per year to waste on redundant and punitive regulations?
Vote NO on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
mark anderson October 28, 2010 | 1:29 a.m.

The upstanding Christian morals of HSUS at work.

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%...

(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