advertisement

LETTER: Prop B about limiting freedom, not taking care of dogs

Wednesday, October 13, 2010 | 6:44 p.m. CDT

The deceptive wording on Proposition B is intentionally aimed at misleading Missouri's voters. It's not about basic humane care — we already have regulations in place for that, 23 pages of regulations. It's about limiting the number of dogs a breeder can own. It's about creating unrealistic space requirements that will prove so cost-inhibitive that most breeders will not be able to comply.

A number does not define humanity. Animal welfare is about the quality of care given to animals, not the number of dogs a person owns or even if they make money selling puppies.

This proposition does nothing and has no provisions in place to find and stop puppy mills. The only ones that will suffer are responsible breeders that go out of their way to follow the laws we already have.

We all have a voice and we all have the ability to find out the facts for ourselves. Do not let anyone make you feel that you are a 'bad person' or a 'dog hater' if you vote NO on Proposition B. Voting NO does not mean that you approve of puppy mills or inhumane conditions for dogs. None of us approve of puppy mills, however, no issue is completely black and white; this proposition is written to 'throw out the baby with the bath water.'

It just doesn't make sense.

There are several resources for you out there, just please be informed before you vote.

Please vote no on Proposition B.

Kara Crass is the owner of K-Jacs Kennel in Jenkins, Mo.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Shelley Powers October 14, 2010 | 9:08 a.m.

More on Kara Crass':

http://local.yahoo.com/info-33147639-mud...

Also search on Kara Crass in USDA APHIS

http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASear...

(Report Comment)
Anne Hogan October 14, 2010 | 9:56 a.m.

Many reputable breeders support Prop B, and its proposed standards are very modest. I would like to direct you to the recently released Dirty Dozen report at http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2... - ALL of the breeders in this report are state licensed, so clearly there is a problem with both licensed and unlicensed breeders in Missouri. Prop B would apply to both.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 14, 2010 | 10:44 a.m.

Hey lobbyist Anne Hogan, I see you and Shelley brought back your dog and pony act to the Missourian.
Considering that you can list 12 problem businesses, out of your reported 3,000 businesses in Missouri, which you have branded puppy mills, how about listing those "many" reputable breeders you claim support Prop B?
I'd like to know who they are.
I'd like to have an opportunity to communicate with them.
Are those reputable breeders considered puppy mills by H$U$? How was their "endorsement" secured?
Were they promised anything?
Do they use H$U$ approved vets?
Also, we're still waiting for details on that "poll" your beloved Barbara Schmitz and your minions keep spouting about? Probably just some more trumped up nonsense from you activists.
Vote No on Proposition B.
Animals have rights? What about the rights of man?
Stop H$U$ from hurting Missouri's economy.
http://www.nevadadailymail.com/story/166...

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 14, 2010 | 12:37 p.m.

Here is the inspection report on K-Jacs Kennels (Kara Crass' facility.

http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASear...

The inrqactions are minor - if you read some of the restaurant inspections on the city web site, many, including big name, popular restaurants, have a LOT worse problems than that.

I'd say she's doing a pretty good job at complying with the regulations. What did you want to show with this, Shelley?

DK

(Report Comment)
Anne Hogan October 14, 2010 | 5:38 p.m.

So many Missouri groups and concerned citizens are supporting Prop B because dogs deserve basic, humane care, and there’s nothing controversial about that – no matter how much opponents throw out red herrings and far-fetched claims.

I’m a dog owner who thinks that all dogs deserve basic humane care, and this is what Prop B would require.

And just to set the record straight - I am not now, nor have I ever been, a lobbyist.

(Report Comment)
Patrick Sweet October 14, 2010 | 8:15 p.m.

Just to be clear, Isaiah Unsledt and his posts have been removed from the comments section for violating the Missourian comment policy.

-Patrick Sweet, Missourian Assistant City Editor

(Report Comment)
Cody Hobbs October 14, 2010 | 9:15 p.m.

@Anne Hogan...how in the heck is Prop B going to apply to unlicensed kennels? The current laws do not even apply to unlicensed kennels to do the fact that they are UNLICENSED!! This is not going to effect any unlicensed breeders at all!!! It is going to put the good licensed breeders out of business... VOTE NO ON PROP B

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 15, 2010 | 3:48 a.m.

Anne Hogan wrote:

"all dogs deserve basic humane care, and this is what Prop B would require."

This is the red herring of red herrings. Prop B implies they do not get "basic, humane care (BTW, how do you define that?)". Actually, basic care is spelled out quite explicitly in the current regulations. Because some do not follow them does not mean regulations do not currently exist, and a large majority of licensed kennels follow them.

If we need more and better enforcement, let's do that. Prop B is not the answer to that.

DK

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 15, 2010 | 10:20 a.m.

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.

VOTE YES ON PROP B!

VOTE YES ON PROP B!

VOTE YES ON PROP B!

VOTE YES ON PROP B!

VOTE YES ON PROP B!

VOTE YES ON PROP B!

VOTE YES ON PROP B!

(Report Comment)
QuaShawn Jenkins October 15, 2010 | 11:11 a.m.

Puppy mills promote inhumane conditions for dogs. Marina is so right....there is a reason why the amount of puppy mills in Missouri is disproportionally high. Why we are the number one puppy mill state in the nation...because our current laws aren't cutting it!!

(Report Comment)
QuaShawn Jenkins October 15, 2010 | 11:13 a.m.

Puppy mills are concentration camps for puppies. Lying in their own feces...cages not big enough to sit up or turn around. Some have never felt the feel of grass on their feet. Puppy mills are absolutely inhumane and do not coincide with Missouri values of kindness and goodness.

Vote yes on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
QuaShawn Jenkins October 15, 2010 | 11:14 a.m.

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

(Report Comment)
QuaShawn Jenkins October 15, 2010 | 11:15 a.m.

We as Missourians cannot turn our backs on the suffering of dogs and puppies. I absolutely cannot do that...despite "the red herrings" of the opposition.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 15, 2010 | 8:32 p.m.

QuaShawn: What do you think of this?
http://saova.org/MissouriBallot.html

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 16, 2010 | 2:37 p.m.

Hey Ray! Here's what i Think! i think It's 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 16, 2010 | 3:08 p.m.

VOTE YES ON PROP B!
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 16, 2010 | 4:07 p.m.

Marina Shane wrote:

"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"

They already, more or less, have this in current law. Read it before you come in here implying they don't.

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

This is the most unnecessary and damaging part of Prop B. This one provision will shut down most of the legal professional breeders in the state. Numbers of dogs don't matter. Care does. If dogs are otherwise cared for properly under Prop B, there should be no limit to the number of dogs a breeder can own.

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

And this will not shut down the thousands of small, unlicensed breeders to whom this law will not practically apply. These are the breeders that make the headlines, and these are the breeders that don't care what the law is.

Don't pass this. Step up enforcement against breeders that flout the present laws (which aren't that much different than Prop B). Don't pass a damaging and ineffective bill on the basis of misleading, emotional campaigning.

DK

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 16, 2010 | 4:24 p.m.

STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY
VOTE YES ON PROP B!
.
Hey DK! I've read the Propostion over hundreds of times. I'm a sworn public servant as a notary & I've notarized thousands of signatures collected to put this inititive on the ballot. I've met & talked to hundreds of MISSOURI VOLUNTEERS collecting signatures to put this initiative on the ballot. I think if anyone needs to reread the language of this initiative it's YOU!
'.
Like I said before...GOOD breeders don'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 don't want Prop B to pass. 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!
.
.
Prop B calls for the following:
(Summary provided by the Secretary of State)
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?
_____________________________

YOU CAN READ THE FULL BALLOT LANGUAGE at:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010peti...
.
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)
Mark Foecking October 17, 2010 | 5:43 a.m.

Marina Shane wrote:

"I think if anyone needs to reread the language of this initiative it's YOU!"

I have. I can practically recite it to you from memory. However, you're reading things into it that aren't there, and not thinking of the practical effect of the 50 dog limit.

Once again - care is already provided under present law.

Indoor-outdoor kennels are not ideal for breeding females.

The 50 dog limit will shut down most of the legal, licensed, "good" breeders in the state.

"PUPPY MILL CRUELTY" has little to do with the practical effect of this bill. True "puppy mill cruelty" will only increase, as the market for dogs is taken up by unlicensed breeders that operate outside of the law. I would think this would be fairly easy to understand.

DK

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 17, 2010 | 2:14 p.m.

HEY.... RAY! (And you too, DK... you could stand to read this, too!! 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-...
.
(AND FOR THOSE THAT DON"T LIKE TO CLICK ON LINKS AND LEAVE THE COLUMBIA MISSOURIAN... I'VE COPIED & PASTED IT FOR YOU ALL BELOW!:)
.
Read the FULL TEXT HERE: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010peti...

A rubuttal to arguements from the opposition posed to me:
• The word "puppy mill" is defined as a substandard commercial dog breeding facility. On 08-13-10, a Cole County circuit court judge upheld the initiative's ballot title ("Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act") and ruled that the language drafted by Secretary Carnahan for the petition summary was "neither insufficient nor unfair."

• Proposition B addresses the issues concerning Missouri's animal welfare laws within the Commercial breeding industry. Those people breeding dogs for sale without licenses are breaking the law also. They can be shut down for operating a business without a license. Hoarders fall under animal neglect/animal cruelty laws. The intent of Proposition B is to improve the quality of life for dogs in commercial breeding facilities.

• Propostition B creates a misdemeanor crime of "puppy mill cruelty" for any violations. As defined in the text of the law:
A person is guilty of the crime of puppy mill cruelty when he or she KNOWINGLY violates any provision of this section. The crime of puppy mill cruelty is a class C misdemeanor, unless the defendant has previously pled guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case each such violation is a class A misdemeanor. Each violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense. If any violation of this section meets the definition of animal abuse in section 578.012, the defendant may be charged and penalized under that section instead.

(The opposition's arguement that "A drop of kibble in the water bowl a cobweb in the corner of a building, a scratch on a painted surface, etc" will cause someone to be arrested for Puppy Mill Cruelty is ridiculous! Proposition B states that the animal's enclosure is "cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure" and " Sufficient food and clean water" is defined as "access to appropriate nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health; and continuous access to potable water that is not frozen, and is free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants." )

This is long so it may take a few entries!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 17, 2010 | 2:14 p.m.

Rebuttal PART 2:

• Regarding stacked cages: Prop B reads "Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements" means constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor; is not stacked or otherwise placed on top of or below another animal's enclosure; is cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure; and does not fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit, or rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit."
For Dogs in Commercial Breeding Facilities, the cages are their perment home. In Shelters, the cages are temporary homes for the dogs. There is a HUGE difference between keeping a dog in a stacked cage for a few days to weeks versus 10-15 years!
The Opposition's arguement that "Show breeders with more than ten intact female dogs could not crate their dogs for any purpose while preparing for shows, grooming or keeping intact females separate from males. " is FALSE.
The truth: Prop B reads: This section shall not apply to a dog during examination, testing, operation, recuperation, or other individual treatment for veterinary purposes; during lawful scientific research; during transportation; during cleaning of a dog's enclosure; during supervised outdoor exercise; or during any emergency that places a dog's life in imminent danger. This section shall not apply to any retail pet store; animal shelter as defined in section 273.325; 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; or dog trainer who does not breed and sell any dogs for use as a pet. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise, or sell hunting dogs.

This is long so it may take a few entries!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 17, 2010 | 2:15 p.m.

Rebuttal PART 3:
•Proposition B Reads: " Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may have custody of more than fifty covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet.
The Opposition's Arguement that "Under Prop B Legal, licensed breeders could have NO MORE than 50 dogs, regardless of the excellent care they receive while anyone not breeding dogs could have unlimited numbers of dogs living in filthy conditions." is FALSE. They're are hoarding & animal neglect laws in place that apply to these conditions for people without licenses for breeding.
The Opposition's Arguement that "Prop B creates the first step in HSUS and other animal rights groups dictating the number of animals one may own. " This is an outright LIE and SCARE TACTIC by the opposition! The only way to limit the number of animals a person owns is to legislate the number. There are already different ordinances from county to county stating how many domestic pets an individual can keep in a home. These numbers vary from county to county & city to city.
•Proposition B reads: "Necessary veterinary care" means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed "Acceptable" by the American Veterinary Medical Association."
The oppositions arguement "Prompt treatment for ANY illness or injury would be required by a licensed veterinarian, including something as simple as an upset stomach, torn toenail, cut on the nose, or any minor issue often treated by the breeder. Costs for veterinary care for minor issues would skyrocket, resulting in fewer purebred dogs available for public demand. "
This is a misrepresentation of the legislation & blows it out of proportion. For one: Dogs can't talk to tell you they have an "Upset stomach" but if the dog is throwing up … don't you think the dog needs to see the vet? If a torn toenail causes that dog to limp…the dog should see a vet! If a cut on the nosewon't heal …yes that dog should see a vet! Right now, a vet is only required to show up once a year to a breeding facility. That doesn't mean that the vet sees every dog for an exam. With Prop B, each dog will be required to have an actual exam at least once per year.
:

This is long so it may take a few entries!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 17, 2010 | 2:16 p.m.

Rebuttal PART 4
• Prop B reads: ""Regular exercise" means constant and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area that is composed of a solid, ground level surface with adequate drainage; provides some protection against sun, wind, rain, and snow; and provides each dog at least twice the square footage of the indoor floor space provided to that dog."
The Opposition's arguement that: "Prop B requires constant and unfettered access to an outside exercise area which will be deadly to newborn and non-weaned puppies that may crawl outside to follow their mothers and cannot find their way back inside. Babies will die of heat exhaustion and dehydration in the summer and hypothermia in the winter. Drafts of air created by required indoor/outdoor runs for mothers will ensure upper respiratory stress and pneumonia for babies, resulting in the deaths of many newborn puppies. " Is FALSE, REDICULOUS, & YET ANOTHER SCARE TACTIC! Prop B ALSO states that "This section shall not apply to a dog during examination, testing, operation, recuperation, or other individual treatment for veterinary purposes". Bearing & weaning puppies qualifies as RECUPURATION. During the weaning process, neither the breeding dog not the puppies would have to bear to the unfettered access condition.
•Prop B states: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise, or sell hunting dogs."
The oppositions arguement that: "Breeders of hunting dogs are exempt from licensing unless even one of their dogs or puppies is sold as a pet or lives inside the home of the purchaser." IS A LIE & SCARE TACTIC.
• The oppositions arguement: "There is no scientific basis for eliminating tenderfoot flooring which allows for easy cleaning and sterilizing of enclosures. " WOW! DO YOU REALLY NEED AS SCIENTIFIC STUDY TO KNOW THAT WIRE BOTTOM CAGES CAUSE SPLAYED PAWS & THE INABILITY TO WALK ON SOLID GROUND? You Tube some videos of dogs in puppy mills & see it for yourself.
:

This is long so it may take a few entries!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 17, 2010 | 2:16 p.m.

Rebuttal PART 5:
• Prop B States: "Necessary veterinary care" means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed "Acceptable" by the American Veterinary Medical Association." & also "Adequate rest between breeding cycles: means, at minimum, ensuring that dogs are not bred to produce more than two litters in any 18 month period."
The Opposition's Arguement : "Proposition B interferes with the working relationship between a breeder and his or her veterinarian on the health of their dogs and the frequency of breeding. The Department of Agriculture would be charged with determining the breeding frequency of dogs in licensed facilities." MORE SCARE TACTICS FROM THE OPPOSITION. Prop B simply says the dogs need to be seen by a vet at least once a year for an exam & that they cannot be bred more than 2 times in 18 months. The "Relationship" between a breeder & a vet is only as good as the breeder wants it to be with or withour prop B!
• The Opposition's Arguement: "HSUS has introduced Prop B as a means of eliminating the legal, licensed professional dog breeders in Missouri. According to the Department of Agriculture, no current licensed breeder can comply with the regulations put forth in Prop B, no matter how clean and well run the facility. Cost prohibitive space requirements coupled with misdemeanor crimes for the most minor of issues will eliminate the legal industry in our state. " MORE SCARE TACTICS FROM THE OPPOSITION. First off, it's not just HSUS, but also, HSMO, MAAL & ASPCA invloved with this legislation. I've also never seen where the Dept of Agriculture has said "no current licensed breeder can comply with the regulations put forth in Prop B" These are reasonable measures that GOOD breeders already comply with!
• The Opposition's arguement "Only unlicensed, substandard breeders will be left to produce puppies while continuing to hide from state laws. " STILL MORE SCARE TACTICS FROM THE OPPOSITION.
Unlicensed breeders can be shut down for doing business without a license!
:
This is long so it may take a few entries!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 17, 2010 | 2:18 p.m.

Rebuttal PART 6:
PROPOSITION B READS: "The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare. This section shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulation protecting the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this section prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations in addition to this section."
MISSOURI IS THE SHOW ME STATE,
IT'S TIME TO SHOW COMPASSION!
VOTE YES! ON PROP B!
More info about Missouri Puppy Mills & Animal welfare Law in Missouri can be found at: http://www.maal.org/Puppy-Mills.asp
Join the Campaign at: www.yesonpropb.com
See what a puppy mill looks like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60LiJE-Cm...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhbp7Jz0l...
According to the Department of Agriculture, A Blue Ribbon Kennel has exceeded industry standardswhen it comes to the care & welfare of animals. They are held to a higher standard than any other kennel in Missouri.
See what a Blue Ribbon Kennel looks like:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdI2U6dgA...
.
A picture says a thousands words.
.
This is why Missouri needs better commercial dog breeding laws.
.
Our weak laws are the reason that Missouri is the puppy mill capitol of the United States.
.
Please join me in voting YES on Prop B!
.
November 2, 2010
.
YOU CAN HELP STOP THE CRUELTY!
.
VOTE YES on PROP B!
.
YOU CAN HELP STOP THE CRUELTY!
.
VOTE YES on PROP B!

(Report Comment)
Sarah Barnett October 18, 2010 | 12:30 p.m.

Kara Crass is a commercial dog breeder who, according to USDA records, had a whopping 260 dogs at her last inspection. She reported to the state that she sold 200 puppies in the last year. Responsible breeders do take good care of their dogs, but Crass’ records don’t seem to support her being one of them. Crass was cited in March 2010 for “dust, gunk and dirt” in dogs’ food receptacles, as well as “rodent droppings” in food bowls and a “strong, musty odor” inside a building where dogs were kept. In March 2009 Crass was cited for “excessive amounts of waste” in a pen with a mother dog and eight puppies.

Many of those claiming to be responsible breeders while spreading unfounded claims about Prop B are already failing to meet the weak standards under current law. That may be why Kara Crass and others with similar records of violations are fighting Prop B’s clear, enforceable standards to protect dogs.

Please read Prop B for yourself at http://yesonpropb.com/about/read-act.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 18, 2010 | 6:34 p.m.

Marina Shane wrote:

"Bearing & weaning puppies qualifies as RECUPURATION."

I wouldn't assume that. Recuperation means recovery from an illness or injury. Since the bill says nothing specifically about nursing mothers and their pups (parturition and nursing might be suitable language) , I would interpret the mother would be required to have unfettered access all the time her pups were being nursed, with the unfortunate effects of exposure that the "opposition" mentions.

Another example of people assuming what the bill stipulates, when it does not.

"(regarding tenderfoot flooring) DO YOU REALLY NEED AS SCIENTIFIC STUDY TO KNOW THAT WIRE BOTTOM CAGES CAUSE SPLAYED PAWS..."

Tenderfoot flooring is not wire flooring. It's more like expanded steel coated in smooth plastic. Here's a picture of it:

http://www.wholesalekennelsupply.com/ten...

"This is why Missouri needs better commercial dog breeding laws."

No. This is why Missouri needs better enforcement of existing laws. Also, I agree that the enforcement provisions of prop B are a step ahead of what we have now. However, too many other things are wrong with prop B for me to support it.
Regarding your rescue videos, existing law is already sufficient to close places like this. This shows that what we need is more enforcement, not more laws.

I read in a post by Karen Highland http://www.columbiamissourian.com/accoun...
that four of the "Dirty Dozen" have been closed and the other 8 are cleaning up their acts. To me, that shows the present system is working. It could work better with more enforcement. To expect more laws to prevent what is already illegal under current law is ridiculous.
DK

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 18, 2010 | 6:58 p.m.

Sarah Barnett wrote:

"That may be why Kara Crass and others with similar records of violations are fighting Prop B’s clear, enforceable standards to protect dogs."

You took her violations out of context. Her violations are minor. The violations affected only a small portion of her dogs, and in some cases, the report explains that. Read the report here:

http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASear...

You might want to read some of the local restaurant health inspections here:

http://www.gocolumbiamo.com/webapps/cffo...

Here, you'll see all kinds of violations and problems, many worse than anything in the K-Jacs report. Yet they can still serve food and make money at it.

Kara Crass sounds like one of the good ones, who would be shut down by this bill. Most of them would. If that is the idea behind this, and this is how they "help dogs", then the supporters should just say that. Otherwise it's a big deception.

DK

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 18, 2010 | 9:42 p.m.

According to the Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, Recuperation is defined as:
restoration to health or strength (Noun)
.
So I do believe that "Bearing & weaning puppies" qualifies as RECUPURATION, therefor the unfettered access would not apply while bearing & weaning puppies.
.
Prop B would I believe would eliminate the "Tenderfoot flooring" since solid flooring is called for in the Proposition.
.
I agree that Missouri needs better & more enforcment of existing laws. That has never been at issue to me. But just because we need more enforcement is a not valid reason to oppose Prop B. Passage of Prop B will ADD TO AND CLARIFY existing law making the existing laws EASIER TO ENFORCE.
.
I completely disagree with you DK regarding the strength of existing law. Our existing animal welfare laws are not always strong enough to shut down the puppy mills. Case in point, the Schindler's puppy mill in Mexico, MO. These people will see no consequences to their behavior. They just paid there fines & continued doing business as usual. Now that they have health issues, they are closing down. But the current law wasn't enough to shut them down.
.
Here is a completely different example of enforcement /vs laws needed to illustrate my point:
Let's use an electronics store as a sample fictional case.
ABC Electronics sells a TV to a customer that catches fire due to faulty wiring.
Under the "Fictional" current law, the company is fined $50 for every offense.
They continue to knowingly sell these faulty TV's at $500 each knowing they will only have to pay a fine. The fine becomes a cost of doing business. The business is never shut down & unknowing consumers continue having to call the fire department.
Inspectors continually visit ABC Electronics & continue to fine them over & over again. ABC does a little better to get the inspector off it's back then goes back to cutting corners as soon as the threat of closure is over. Pattern continue to repeats.
.
Now, doesn't matter how much enforcement you have, the law itself is not strong enough to put ABC electronics out of business. BUT If our "Fictional Laws" in this sample case were made clearer and stronger & the offenses became a crime, ABC Electronics would have to straighten up & do business ethically or be closed down for good.
.
Prop B Adds to & Clarifies the current law. That is why it is IMPERATIVE that Prop B passes this Nov 2nd.
.
VOTE YES! PROP B
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 19, 2010 | 9:34 a.m.

Marina Shane wrote:

So I do believe that "Bearing & weaning puppies" qualifies as RECUPURATION,"

Maybe - the courts might have to decide that.

The issue with prop B here is the specification of a particular kennel type. Some breeders may use this type of kennel, but most don't (for good reasons), and the cost of remodeling will shut most of them down. There are other (and better) ways to give dogs exercise than simply providing them with a (small) outdoor run. The authors of this bill should know this, and the fact that they specify a kennel type, rather than regular out-of-cage exercise, leads me to believe the real intent is to shut down a lot of legal breeders (even those with less than 50 females).

"Case in point, the Schindler's puppy mill in Mexico, MO."

You haven't shown (and probably can't) that their operation is in any way typical of the licensed breeders of the state. The fact that you can come up with a few bad videos and reports does not mean these conditions are common.

If only the enforcement provisions of prop B were up for a vote, I would support them. This would give a more direct way of dealing with chronic violations. Why can't we just do that, instead of adding another set of damaging restrictions that don't really address the problems?

Can you tell me how many of the 10-50 dog breeders that support prop B actually make a living at it? Putting a lot of self employed people out of work because of a mistaken perception of poor care is unfair and damaging.

We should vote this bill down, and come back with a bill that has the enforcement provisions of prop B, and takes its care standards from this model bill:

http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issue...

There should be no limit to the number of dogs a breeder can breed as long as these care standards are being followed.

I could support that. Prop B, however, has too many unintended care (increasse in illegal breeding) and economic consequences for me to support it.

DK

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 19, 2010 | 12:54 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.
.
Regarding the Schindlers: the USDA inspection for March 2010 for the Schindler Puppy Farm contained pages of violations, most were repeat violations from a November 2009 inspection. I don't have a direct link online for it, but the March 2010 inspection report was Certificate #43-B-0091.
.
What this does show is that it was a TYPICAL ROUTINE INSPECTION. Even though these were multiple repeat violations. Current law was not enough to shut them down. The only reason they are closing up now is due to illness.
The FACT that this was a ROUTINE inspection says very clearly that this is TYPICAL of the lack of an ability to enforce current law and yet another reason why Prop B is so badly needed in Missouri.
.
To answer your question "Can you tell me how many of the 10-50 dog breeders that support prop B actually make a living at it?" I'm not privy to their personal financial information and I did not ask them outright, but most led me to believe this was their sole line of work.
.
.
The 50 dog limit is much needed. As you said earlier, most breeders are self employed. With 50 dogs that allows for 20 minutes of individual care per dog by one person in an 8 hour day.
.
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)
Mark Foecking October 19, 2010 | 6:36 p.m.

Marina Shane wrote:

"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."

Here's the problem. I don't know how much you've seen dogs that weren't inside/outside, family style dogs, but I can tell you from my knowledge of dogs in runs (comparable spacewise to those specified in prop B) at research facilities, they won't exercise unless there's a reason for them to. This means an environment with a lot going on - either being taken for a walk, or humans or other dogs passing through often, or being let out in a yard with other dogs, etc.

You need to read that link I gave in my last post. That model bill is far better than prop B.

Like me, the AVMA is also saying, in that bill, that absolute space is less important than the enrichment of the dogs environment. I think it would be far preferable (more effective and much less expensive) to show that dogs are being let out or otherwise paid attention to (security video, maybe? - I'd imagine some breeders have that already), than to require breeders to do complete remodels and not require the dogs be let out. I think the dogs would prefer that too.

"this is TYPICAL of the lack of an ability to enforce current law"

I notice you say "lack of ability". Lack of ability to enforce a law does not warrant a stronger (or even different) law. If there's an enforcement problem, fix that (which that part of prop B that addresses penalties does). It's not like current law allowed the conditions at the Schindler's. Ineffective enforcement did. Passing prop B in its entirety is not necessary to beef up enforcement.

Let's pass only the laws we need to, OK?

"I'm not privy to their personal financial information and I did not ask them outright, but most led me to believe this was their sole line of work."

So you don't know. Might some have been retired, or had other sources of income? Sorry, never mind.

"most breeders are self employed. "

Not if this passes.

"With 50 dogs that allows for 20 minutes of individual care per dog by one person in an 8 hour day."

50 dogs x 20 minutes/dog is 1000 minutes, which is 16.7 hours. You're thinking of two people.

Plus, breeders have a lot more to do in a day than primary care of their animals. They also have the business side of the kennel to run, and grounds and kennel maintenance, arranging breedings and vet care, working with the weaned puppies, lots of stuff. Maybe one or more of them would like to weigh in with a description of a typical day for them. But of course they're all puppy millers, right? So why would that make any difference to the opposition?

Cont'd:

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 19, 2010 | 6:39 p.m.

Cont'd from above:

Once again, this is a bad bill, in that the good parts of it are combined with measures that will cause a lot of harm, both to dogs and to breeders. Let's vote this down, and work on amending current law to provide for effective enforcement and penalties. That could might even be done legislatively, so why not?

DK

(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