advertisement

A comparison of current and proposed dog breeding laws

Thursday, October 7, 2010 | 5:45 p.m. CDT; updated 7:35 p.m. CDT, Tuesday, November 2, 2010

What laws currently regulate breeding facilities?

The Animal Care Facilities Act is a Missouri statute that regulates conditions of care for dogs and cats. This act defines its standards of adequate housing by regulations of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. These standards are defined in the federal  Animal Welfare Act,  enforced by the USDA, that details how animals used for commercial or research purposes must be treated. Breeders licensed with the state are inspected by the Missouri Department of Agriculture according to the standards of the Animal Care Facilities Act; breeders licensed with the federal government are inspected by the USDA according to the standards of the Animal Welfare Act. Dog breeders in Missouri must be licensed by either the state or USDA.

Do federal regulations differ from those at the state level?

The main difference between the Animal Care Facilities Act and the Animal Welfare Act as they apply to dog breeders is the amount of time allowed between access to food and water and the authority to determine veterinary standards. For example, the state requires that dogs have access to water at least every eight hours and food every 12 hours, and the director of the Missouri Department of Agriculture determines the appropriate amount of health and veterinary care for dogs kept in facilities licensed through the state. The federal act requires that dogs have food once a day and water at least twice a day for one hour at a time, and the facility’s attending veterinarian determines health standards for dogs in USDA-licensed breeding facilities. Under Proposition B, breeders would have to feed dogs at least once a day and provide continuous access to water.

Who do the existing and proposed law apply to?

The state act applies to all owners of dogs and cats, including breeders licensed through the state. The Animal Welfare Act applies to USDA-licensed breeding facilities and determines standards for many animals, including dogs.  Proposition B would apply to any person or facility with more than 10 sexually intact female dogs that are used for breeding, regardless of whether the facility is licensed with the Missouri Department of Agriculture or the USDA.

How will Proposition B affect current laws?

Proposition B would add restrictions to existing laws. For example, both state and federal rules in place require that pets be given food and water in “a safe receptacle, dish, or container.” Proposition B would keep this requirement in place, but commercial dog breeders would be required to follow additional standards in care such as solid floors, unfettered access to the outdoors and larger space requirements.

Which breeders would the standards in Proposition B apply to?

Proposition B regulations apply specifically to anyone who owns more than 10 female dogs older than 6 months with sexual organs intact and who breeds these dogs to sell the offspring as pets, defined in the initiative as “any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.”

The proposition states that no person can have more than 50 dogs that are each older than six months and have intact sexual organs if that person intends to sell these dogs’ offspring as pets.

Who would be exempt from Proposition B?

The proposed law lists specific facilities and circumstances when the requirements would not apply:

  • Dogs that are not used for breeding with the intention of selling offspring as pets.
  • Dogs that are being examined and tested for lawful scientific research.
  • Dogs that are being transported.
  • Dogs whose enclosure is being cleaned.
  • Dogs that are engaged in supervised outdoor exercise.
  • Dogs whose lives are in imminent danger.
  • Retail pet stores.
  • Animal shelters, as defined by the Animal Care Facilities Act.
  • Dogs that are bred, raised and sold for hunting purposes.

The following chart details specific regulations included in Proposition B and compares them to current USDA standards:

Current law according to the Animal Welfare Act

Standards proposed under Proposition B

Dogs must have access to uncontaminated, nutritious food at least once a day, unless more is necessary for the particular dog. Dogs must be fed enough food to maintain a normal condition and weight.

Dogs must have access to nutritious food at least once a day. Dogs must be fed enough food to maintain good health.

Dogs must have water no less than twice a day for at least one hour at a time.

Dogs must have continuous access to drinkable water that is not frozen and is free from debris and contaminants.

Breeders must have an attending veterinarian and formal arrangements for regular visits. No set time period between required visits is defined.

Dogs must be examined by a licensed veterinarian at least once a year and must be treated promptly if they become ill or injured.

One of the attending veterinarian’s duties is to provide guidance to the facility’s personnel regarding euthanasia, which the act defines as humane destruction “that produces rapid unconsciousness and subsequent death without evidence of pain or distress.”

If needed, dogs must be euthanized humanely, as defined by the American Veterinary Medical Association. The euthanasia must be conducted by a licensed veterinarian.

Dogs must be provided with a sanitary facility that protects them from extreme weather. Temperatures cannot fall below 45 degrees or rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit for more than four hours, and the enclosure must be ventilated to provide for dogs’ health and well-being. Enclosures do not have to have a solid floor, but if the surface is composed of mesh or is slatted, it must be constructed so that the dogs’ feet do not pass through any openings.

Dogs must have “constant and unfettered access” to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor. This enclosure may not be stacked above or below the enclosure of another animal, must be between 45 and 85 degrees Fahrenheit and must be cleaned of waste once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure.

Dogs must have enough space “to turn about freely, to stand, sit, and lie in a comfortable, normal position and to walk in a normal manner.”

 

Dogs must have enough space to turn in a complete circle and stretch their limbs without touching another enclosure or animal. There must also be at least one foot of headroom above the tallest dog in the enclosure. Indoor enclosures must provide at least 12 square feet for each dog up to 25 inches long, 20 square feet for dogs between 25 and 35 inches long and 30 square feet for dogs 35 inches long and longer, the dog’s length being measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail.

Dogs in outdoor areas must be protected from the elements and must have access to a shelter large enough to meet space requirements for indoor enclosures.

Dogs must have “constant and unfettered access” to an outdoor area that provides at least twice the square footage required of indoor floor space. This area must have a solid surface, be adequately drained and provide some protection against the elements.

The Animal Welfare Act does not specify a limit on litters within a time period.

Dogs may not be bred to produce more than two litters within an 18-month period.

 

 


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 | 6:03 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 commenting on an LA Times article")
http://www.mofed.org/Hand-outs-Printable...

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 8, 2010 | 11:39 a.m.

According to the AKC and others, puppies should be kept at 85-90 degrees for first week of life, decreasing from that point on. However, if the mother is available, then ambient temperatures should be about 75 degrees (differs based on breed of dog), with a heating pad under the whelping areas, so puppies can have an additional areas of warmth. Drafts should be prevented.

If the puppies are orphaned, then special care will need to be provided, such as heat lamps and heating pads. Proposition B does not impact on any of this.

What will impact on the puppies is if the kennel is poorly built, poorly maintained, and the breeder is indifferent. Now Proposition B can help on this, by helping to shut down these disreputable kennels.

Think about this: are the animal care organizations of this state indifferent to animal health and well being? Answer: absolutely not.

Haven't you all seen the many times when the Missouri Humane Society has rescued dogs? Haven't you watched as big burly guys tenderly carry out little puppies? Saw the new stray shelters opening up in St. Louis and elsewhere?

These animal care organizations, in addition to over 130 veterinarians and scores of businesses, churches, and individuals, are for this bill. Emphatically for this bill.

Now, who do you think _really_ cares about the animals? The breeders who perpetuate the misery? Or the organizations and people desperately trying to save these dogs from misery?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 8, 2010 | 2:41 p.m.

PS Thanks for doing a side-by-side. The more people have _facts_ the more they can decide the correct course to take.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 8, 2010 | 3:22 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.

Missourians love their pets and hate to see animals abused. Dog breeders, and I have met a number of them, raise dogs because they love dogs and enjoy seeing others find just the right dog for their family. The goal of these small business people is to satisfy the public's longing for pets at a cost most can afford. My family used to raise basset hounds, and I remember that even a single flea bite on an otherwise perfect puppy meant an unacceptable price penalty along with the determination to find and fix any problem. If a puppy had anything more serious, they might just be refused. It simply does not pay to mistreat animals. But the best breeder would be hurt the most by Prop B.")
http://www.joplinindependent.com/display...

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 8, 2010 | 3:35 p.m.

("HSUS readies launch of new veterinary association
Group merges with AVAR to form alternative to AVMA")
http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/art...

("Why should we not lock fists with the HSUS in its bid to win our hearts and minds through this nascent splinter group?

It’s my belief that veterinarians disposed to such lures may want to more carefully consider shifting their allegiance. Though most of us may not be aware of it, the HSUS is increasingly wedded to the goals of organizations like PeTA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), especially as the HSUS’s leader, Wayne Pacelle, is widely regarded as an emergently militant voice with respect to animal rights.

Despite his indefatigable drive to promote the image of the HSUS as a moderate one in tune with mainstream welfare groups, he is rejected by most of these.

Furthermore, Pacelle’s successful courtship of AVAR in forming the HSVMA speaks against this public relations strategy. That’s because AVAR’s mission is very much in line with that of PeTA’s.")
http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/ve...

(Report Comment)
Janet Gatson October 8, 2010 | 3:42 p.m.

If Missouri has the best animal welfare laws in the country, why are we the puppy mill capital of the US? California recently enacted humane laws for chickens, so I know this is a lie.

The lies of opponents of prop B deceive with false logic. Misery is misery. Puppies are suffering in Missouri concentration camps for puppies aka puppy mills.

Vote yes on Prop B. Dont like cruel dog breeders fool you...they have too much to lose to be impartial. Ray Shapiro is a Tea Party right-wing Fundamentalist who posts on here ten times a day. He is in the 11 percent, according to a recent poll, who will vote no on prop B. The other 89 said they will vote yes. 89 percent of those polled think Ray Shapiro is wrong......absolutely wrong. And no amount of hyperbole or "logic" makes suffering right.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 8, 2010 | 4:10 p.m.

@Janet from another planet who said...
("89 percent of those polled think Ray Shapiro is wrong...")

Show me the poll, Janet from another planet, show me the poll.
When was it conducted? Who conducted it? Who was asked? What was asked? Where did it take place? Have any independent polls been cited, with a large cross section of respondees, recently?

As voters learn more about the insidious agenda of HSUS and the consequences of Proposition B, more and more folk will realize that Voting No is actually the most righteous thing to do. Even with Oprah's horrible pictures in their minds.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 8, 2010 | 6:15 p.m.

Shelley Powers wrote:

"over 130 veterinarians and scores of businesses, churches, and individuals, are for this bill."

130 vets out of how many statewide? 8,000 or so?

The American Veterinary Medical Association isn't for it either.

If that's not an expert proclamation of disapproval, I don't know what is.

DK

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 8, 2010 | 9:10 p.m.

Mark, and only 20 veterinarians have specifically come out against proposition B.

The American Veterinary Medical Association hasn't come out against Proposition B. Were you thinking of the MVMA? That doesn't say much.

(Report Comment)
Helen (not the actress) Hunt October 8, 2010 | 10:58 p.m.

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

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

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

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 9, 2010 | 11:32 a.m.

("The proposition states that no person can have more than 50 dogs that are each older than six months and have intact sexual organs if that person intends to sell these dogs’ offspring as pets.")

Why not?

Does HSUS want the State of Missouri, (Robin Carnahan), to be in charge of Animal Rights and Animal Population Control?
Does HSUS want the State of Missouri, (Robin Canahan), to be Missouri's next dog catcher as all these animals are released into the wild?

And what happens if breeders were to merge or partner their operations?
This Proposition would forbid that.

Why consolidate and maximize your resources if the government, (HSUS), wants to force you out of business?
Just kill off your inventory and breed pigs on your acerage, until the HSUS hogs come after you for raising them in the mud?

My guess is that HSUS, (and Robin Carnahan), are demonstrating just how anti-private business they really are while hoping to gain donations and votes from the ignorant.

HSUS and their ilk should do the humane thing and spare us the horrible visuals of dogs suffering, hitting us up for money/support and then hurting legitimate, legal dog, pet, animal, livestock and agricultural businesses with layers of legislation which only makes problems worse for the good people of Missouri.
HSUS: Lobby for better enforcement of current laws.
Let legitimate, legal businesses thrive.
Dogs have rights? So does man.

Vote No on Proposition B.
Protect dogs and business people via better enforcement of current laws.
Support No-Kill Shelters.
Stop HSUS.

(Report Comment)
Candace Kramer October 11, 2010 | 1:12 p.m.

Proposition B is not enforceable. The state of Missouri would have to train all of their inspectors to use sonograms to determine "intact females". The Kansas Animal Pet Act particularly did not use this wording because it is not an enforceable measure. Counting litters produced is a better way to determine a breeder's involvment. Litter numbers can be traced through various registration organizations such as AKC. And for every additional breeder added to the inspection program under Proposition B, the state must allocate additional inspectors. The system will not pay for itself and will be a tax burden on Missouri. It would be better serve the taxpayers of Missouri to revamp the current law and get an effective inspector program in place as money allows.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 12, 2010 | 1:13 a.m.

("Another interesting point is that, as you can see, some of the standards that Prop B would establish are actually lower than those in the current law. If the law currently requires that dogs be given food at least twice per day, why would you want to lower the requirement to feeding once a day? If the law currently sets the expectation that indoor facilities be kept higher than 50 degrees (and specifies the actions that must be taken to ensure the animals’ comfort if the temperature drops lower), why adopt the lower expectation of 45 degrees? Even where the standards established under the two laws are very similar, our current rules are very specific about how animals ought to be cared for. Why would it be a good idea to move from those specifics to something more general?")
http://www.showmedaily.org/2010/10/would...

(Report Comment)
Liz Bergstrom October 12, 2010 | 8:46 a.m.

Thanks for detailing the provisions of this common-sense ballot measure aimed at large puppy mills. It's also important to note that Prop B *would not replace* current regulations and standards for dog breeding facilities -- you can read this in section #7 of the full ballot language at http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010peti...

This fact bears repeating because opponents are making false claims with no connection to the actual proposition, like the latest comment at 1:13.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 15, 2010 | 10:36 a.m.

Prop B ADDS TO EXISTING LAW...IT DOES NOT REPLACE IT!

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

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 15, 2010 | 8:53 p.m.

Marina Shane:
If you are a real person and not just an HSUS drone, respond to this article, if you dare:
http://saova.org/MissouriBallot.html

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 16, 2010 | 2:55 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)
Marina Shane October 17, 2010 | 2:22 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)
Ruth Keezer October 19, 2010 | 3:02 p.m.

23 pages of USDA regulations about food, water, vet care, housing, pen sizes, temperature requirements, ventilation, storage of bedding & supplies, sanitation, transportation, etc. Everything legal, licensed dog breeders do is regulated already!
What Prop B does is limit property rights (maximum of 50 dogs, no matter how many members of the family or hired assistants are available to take care of the dogs), dictate total elimination of kennel designs that are healthier and cleaner (demands dogs all reside on solid surfaces at ground level (concrete or dirt?)...where they will be easy prey to the ticks, fleas, snakes, and other critters that suck their blood or bite them), enlarge pen size to a ridiculous degree (larger area to heat and cool, raising costs obscenely), demands 'unfettered access' to outside (newborn and nursing puppies are at risk of DEATH when born outside or taken outside in cold, snowy or rainy weather by mama and not able to get back in) plus labels ALL breeders that have over 10 dogs 'puppy mills', no matter how clean, well-maintained, or perfect their kennels are. This is demeaning and insulting to ALL good breeders! Vote NO on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer October 19, 2010 | 3:34 p.m.

I would really like to see the scientific studies that were done to prove that the current kennel design for small breed dogs is harmful or insufficient enough to warrant banning the use of pens approved by current USDA and Missouri state regulations. WHAT, NO STUDIES?? Where is the working sample kennel, showing breeders how to build an HSUS approved kennel? WHAT, NO KENNEL? Where are the studies of costs....startup, additional heating and cooling? WHAT, NO STUDIES?? Where are the medical studies.....proving that dogs are healthier raised on the ground? WHAT, NO MEDICAL STUDIES?? How on earth can the HSUS arbitrarily decide what is better for dogs without any studies or input from veterinarians familiar with breeding operations? Vote NO on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 19, 2010 | 5:58 p.m.

The reason the authors of the bill had to specify a kennel type is because regular out-of-cage exercise is not enforceable by the inspectors. If the enclosures & excercize minimums are not mandated by law in an enforceable manner, they cannot be enforced. An inspector is not going to stay at the kennel all day to see if the operator lets each and every dog out for excercize time. This is yet another reason why Prop B is needed and why we need to pass Prop B.
.
The law has to be able to be applied equally in the industry. Once Prop B passes, an inspector can visually see that each dog has at least the minimum standard of care. Personally, I would hope to God that the breeders still go above & beyond what is called for in Prop B and let the dogs outside of the runs. But that is my personal opinion.
.
It is actually Sad commentary on our society that we even have to mandate that a dog needs space for excercize. Unfortunately, in this day & age, we must & that is why this is a neccessary item in Prop B.
.
I will be voting YES! on Prop B this Nov 2nd. I encourage anyone reading this to join me in doing the ethical thing and vote YES PROP B!
.
VOTE YES! PROP B
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!
.
VOTE YES! PROP B
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!

(Report Comment)
Rebecca Lewis October 20, 2010 | 8:30 a.m.

Prop B will limit the number of dogs a breeder can own. Relate this to any other business. Do you want an outside source limiting what you produce in your business? I sure don't want to be limited by the HSUS on what I could raise especially if I take care of my animals to the best of my ability. Vote no on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 20, 2010 | 9:08 a.m.

However in most business's we are not talking about living animals kept in horrific conditions are we? A car kept in a cage for 8-15 years verses a dog kept in a cage for 8-15 years.....There's a huge difference & the 50 dog cap is neccessary. (50 dogs is 20 minutes of attention per dog in an 8 hour shift. )
.
Vote YES! PROP B
Stop Puppy Mill Cruelty!

(Report Comment)
Phyliss Greenfield October 20, 2010 | 12:01 p.m.

Desperate people make desperate comments. I'm not a fan of HSUS but I think if HumaneWatch.org wants to complain about the bookkeeping of said organization it also needs to aire the tax returns of The Center for Consumer Freedom who is the brain child of Rick Berman one of the most harsh and unethical persons in the U.S. I don't know who hired Berman, but it must have been someone or group that feels threatened by Prop B. With Hunte Corp dumping 90 thousand puppies on the pet market per year all across the country I will honestly say I'm not upset by the limit of 50 breeding dogs. By the way, Rick Berman is a friend to huge business and factory farming. Looks to me like smaller kennels would be a mom & pop enterprise rather than huge operations that fuel the big business immage. I'm voting yes
w

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 20, 2010 | 12:15 p.m.

Well said, Phyllis! I'll be voting YES, too!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 25, 2010 | 1:50 p.m.

HSUS is DECEIVING YOU:
Read all about it here...
http://www.mofed.org/Hand-outs-Printable...
Vote No on Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 25, 2010 | 2:19 p.m.

MOFED is also the organization that in 2009/2010:
-MOFED opposed stricter penalties for dog fighting
-MOFED Opposed registering dangerous exotic animals
-MOFED opposed Liability insurance for dangerous exotic Animals
-MOFED opposed a 30 day disposition hearing for dogs involved in dogfighting rings
-MOFED supported taking away citizens' rights to petition
-MOFED Opposed the Healthy Pet Act requiring a vet exam within 30 days prior to the retail sale of a dog or cat.

MOFED is all about MONEY.
.
VOTE YES! PROP B
PREVENT PUPPY MILL CRUELTY

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 25, 2010 | 4:05 p.m.

("The invasive alga threatens to disrupt the food chain.")
-Sounds more like H$U$, the spawn of PETA, to me.
We should give H$U$ the boot...
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

(Report Comment)
Jess Em October 30, 2010 | 12:21 a.m.

There are no such things as "good breeders" as someone who is involoved in pit bull rescue and has worked for non-profit animal welfare organizations for the past 7 years any person breeding animals to show or to sell is contributing to pet overpopulation. Why on earth would anyone need more then 50 animals to breed anyway??!!! That is a disgusting thought and I plan to vote YES to make sure every single breeder is punished! Until there are NO animals being euthanized NO ONE IN AMERICA should be breeding! And there is nothing you can say about working dogs, or knowing the temperment of the dog that would ever change my mind. BREEDING IS ALL BAD!!!!!!!!!! Go adopt an animal and really save a life-pets should be companions to share your life with NOT an accessory to tote around or a machine to crank out puppies to make anyone money! Im sure everyone spending all their time on this stupid blog has never actually went to a shelter and had to say good bye to a poor animal because there are just too many and they have had their 5 whole days to be adopted. Prop B may not even begin to cover all the problems but if one breeder gets shut down then it will be worth it!

Oh and save your breath responding I wont look at this again...your not very smart (Ray)from the 1st or 2nd blog you posted asking for the stats on the people who opposed you...OBVIOUSLY if people are voting against you they dont agree with you genius!

-j

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 30, 2010 | 12:42 a.m.

MOFED opposed all of that because HSUS wanted to ban Rodeos, fishing, and several other things!! Get your facts straight Marina!!!! Ask the legeslators that were in office at that time and now!!! And don't post me a link to current regulations, why don't you post what was first presented and read??? Because you are wrong!!!!

(Report Comment)
Vish Hammond November 1, 2010 | 8:11 p.m.

My feelings on this issue stem from ONE area. With thousands of dogs being euthanized, starving and running the streets every single day--what the hell are people doing breeding backyard dogs anyway??? WE created this horrible overpopulation problem. It is time it is fixed! (most other countries don't have this horrible problem...oh yeah--they have laws and regulations on it!) I don't know whether or not Prop B will help or have no effect--either way, its irrelevant when people should not be blatenly continuting to contribute to this problem in the first place!
I understand how some "good" breeders love the dogs and that is why they breed them, when I was a child I used to want to do that too. Now, after seeing such terrible regulations in place for decades, having to help a vet euthanize 63 shelter puppies in one day (1/3 of them purebred), and seeing the rampant abuse and starvation...I now want to help fix the problem--not be a part of the cause! I guess I just don't see how dog lovers that are also breeders...can't see this problem. Saying as Americans "we have the right" to do this, is the same as saying we have the right to breed unwanted children and then throw them in the street. The line has to be drawn somewhere to end this maddness. Bash me if you want--you will only do it because you know I am right.

(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