advertisement

Campaign donations for and against Proposition B increase as election nears

Tuesday, October 19, 2010 | 8:22 p.m. CDT; updated 11:50 a.m. CDT, Monday, October 25, 2010

*CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article was not clear in its wording.

COLUMBIA – Donations to campaigns on both sides of the Proposition B debate* continued to pour in during the latest fundraising cycle, but supporters still have more than 30 times more money than opponents.

Reports filed last week with the Missouri Ethics Commission show supporters' multimillion-dollar campaign is largely funded by the Humane Society of the United States and other national donors, while the opponents' more modest account is being financed mostly by Missouri agricultural groups.

Proposition B is on the ballot as a result of an initiative petition. It would establish new regulations for licensed dog breeders in Missouri regarding the design of kennels; minimal veterinary care; access to food, water and the outdoors; and numbers of breeding animals allowed.

Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, the primary organization leading the campaign in support of Proposition B, has collected more than $3.2 million. The Humane Society of the United States sponsored the initiative and has donated more than $2.18 million.

The campaign working against Proposition B, the Alliance for Truth, has raised almost $86,000.

The disparity in donations, however, isn't a reliable measure of how the vote will go on Nov. 2, MU political science professor Marvin Overby said.

“There is no guarantee that the campaign with the most money will prevail,” Overby said. “They may spend the money foolishly.”

The campaign supporting Proposition B has produced commercials promoting the initiative and has said it plans to air them in every Missouri television market. They also can be found online at YouTube.com. They show St. Louis Cardinals Manager Tony La Russa and a veterinarian with the Humane Society of Missouri urging people to vote yes on Proposition B.

Overby, however, said he has not yet seen a Proposition B television ad. Those who search for them online probably are predisposed to voting yes, he said.

“You aren’t reaching people who haven’t thought about it already,” Overby said. “The pro group is going to have to spend some of that money to educate the public about the issue.”

Opponents of Proposition B also have a presence on YouTube.

Barbara Schmitz, campaign manager for Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, said the supporters' television commercials have begun and are already helping the campaign.

"Since the commercials began airing, we have seen a very significant response," Schmitz said. "We are getting calls from viewers who were not aware of the problem in Missouri, and we have seen an increase in donations."

Still, Overby said Proposition B might be an issue that few Missourians care about.

“There aren’t tens of thousands of Missourians donating a hundred dollars apiece,” Overby said. “You have a lot of people who will support it because they have this warm and fuzzy feeling about it, and you are going to get a whole lot of people out there who just don’t know much or don’t care much about the issue.”

The 118 donations to Missourians for the Protection of Dogs that came from state residents or organizations total almost $282,000. Twenty-one of those donations were for $100 or less. Donations from Maryland ($1.7 million) and New York ($590,547) far exceeded Missouri contributions.

Eighteen donations to the Missouri Alliance for Truth from residents of the state are for $100 or less, but donations from Missouri residents and organizations together total almost $82,ooo.

Karen Strange, president of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners, said she doesn’t think the Humane Society of the United States is being honest about the true motive behind its campaign.

“Essentially what they are claiming is that they have no intent of targeting agriculture, but they have attacked agriculture in other states,” Strange said. "We have every reason to believe that they will be back to target further agricultural interests.”

Roman Schroeder, operations manager of the Alliance for Truth, said his campaign plans to advertise, but he did not give details about how they plan to do so. His ideas about the Humane Society targeting agriculture are aligned with Strange’s.

“There is no one in agriculture that is for this initiative,” Schroeder said.

Campaign contributions for Missourians for Animal Care show support from agriculture organizations. The committee is against Proposition B and supports the Alliance for Truth. Their campaign donations come from the Missouri Soybean Association, the Missouri Dairy Association, the Missouri Pork Association, the Missouri Egg Council and other agricultural groups. Together, they were the only donors to the campaign.

The Missouri Egg Council, based in Columbia, donated $5,000 in July. Executive Director Jo Manhart said she was more than willing to donate when she heard representatives of the Missouri Pet Breeders Association speak against Proposition B. Manhart fears her industry will be targeted next and said she thinks the proposition aims to put family-owned breeding operations out of business by setting standards that are too high.

While questioning the motives behind the ballot measure, Schroeder wanted to stress that opposing Proposition B doesn't mean endorsing puppy mills.

“Whether you are for or against Prop. B," Schroeder said, "not a single person is for puppy mills.”


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 19, 2010 | 8:42 p.m.

("Donations to both campaigns promoting Proposition B continued to pour in...")

Um, I thought that there's one campaign promoting Proposition B, which touts this proposition as the best way to achieve dog rights and then there are those who oppose Proposition B as it is not economically sound and will destroy a segment of Missouri's dog industry.
Dogs have rights? What about man's rights.
Vote No on Propsition B.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 19, 2010 | 9:28 p.m.

I am beginning to feel great pity for these anti-prop B radicals...
'Humane' is a dirty and frightening word to them..
And compassion is worthy of nothing but sneers and derision.

They seem compelled to lash out against anything remotely connected to the concept of human kindness.
The weak, the unprotected and the helpless seem always to be on the receiving end of their rage

Sad...one can only imagine the horrors of a childhood which created this kind of thinking in a person.

(Report Comment)

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 19, 2010 | 9:41 p.m.

Terry:
Save some of that pity for the countless number of dogs which will be killed, abandoned or released into the wild should this Proposition be passed.
If the Proposition had any business-sense, it would have encouraged breeders to merge and consolidate/maximize their resources to extend their acerage and economic stability instead of setting up a scenerio which will destroy people's livelihood.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 19, 2010 | 9:55 p.m.

So your concern is for the animals who MIGHT suffer, not the animals who are suffering NOW.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 19, 2010 | 11:25 p.m.

Terry:
No matter what we legislate, there will be always be animals "suffering" somewhere.
With 20+ pages of laws, rules and regulations already on the books, better to support a relatively new enforcement policy then advocate for a Proposition which was drafted up by the like of H$U$, the spawn of PETA. Why were the good breeders not included in drafting up legislation which they have a vested interest in? Wouldn't professional, humane people in the industry know what's best for their industry.
http://mda.mo.gov/animals/ACFA/barkalert...
Vote No on Proposition B.
(And then get back to me with a better proposition.)

(Report Comment)
jake carter October 19, 2010 | 11:58 p.m.

The real suffering will come when you break several veterinary clinics in this state. Think about all the veterinarians who will band together and will turn their backs on HSUS. When the low cost/no cost help to the rescues/shelters comes to an end. Get ready for reality folks. The ag community will fight back. You will know what it means to be shunned. The good people get screwed and the illegal mills will spread all over this state like wild fire. People are already dividing up their dogs. You better read line #9 before you vote and also look up "domesticated animal" on wikipedia. Amazing how people can be so blind and stupid. All that money thrown at those rights groups. Wonder if they would buy a bridge in Brooklyn from me?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 20, 2010 | 2:09 a.m.

Mr. Shapiro
You said'
'Save some of that pity for the countless number of dogs which will be killed, abandoned or released into the wild should this Proposition be passed'
I asked:
'So your concern is for the animals who MIGHT suffer, not the animals who are suffering NOW.'

I don't believe you answered that question.
Which of course is within your rights.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 20, 2010 | 2:25 a.m.

Terry:
I responded to your allegation.
Was there any question???

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 20, 2010 | 3:05 a.m.

("Puppy mill ballot measure worries farming supporters, animal rescuers:
Alice Wybert, director of Safe Harbor Animal Sanctuary, enjoys a moment with Bandit. She said if Proposition B passes, the shelter could be inundated with dumped dogs...
While few people would support the cruelty that allegedly exists in some of Missouri's large-scale dog breeding facilities, the statewide initiative on November's ballot designed to stop the abuse has created strong opposition.")
http://www.semissourian.com/story/167332...

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 20, 2010 | 3:18 a.m.

Hey Terry:
Read this and tell me what you think...
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20101...

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 20, 2010 | 5:54 a.m.

Oh, BOO HOO The PROP PUPPY MILL PEOPLE HAVE ONLY RAISED 86,000. I'll cry them a river... NOT!
.
Wat this article convienently FAILS to mention is that money that comes from the HUMANE SOCIETY of the US, the HUMANE SOCIETY of MISSOURI, THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS, MISSOURI ALLIANCE FOR ANIMAL LEGISLATION, mostly comes from DONATIONS TO THESE CASES! The people who donated to HSUS, MAAL, HSMO, & ASPCA gave to them without motivations of GREED & how to make MONEY off the DOGS.

WHERE AS the PRO-PUPPY MILL GROUPS ARE All looking to MAKE A BUCK OFF ANIMAL CRUELTY. OF Course MOFED is going to be against Prop B. Karen Strange & her thugs are against ANY aniaml welfare law. They even fought us tooth & nail on banning cock fighting 20 years ago! They had the same arguements then as the do now. Banning cock fighting in MO didn't collapse out economy then, or take away the right to eat meat, or make everyone vegans, or destroy farming in Missouri. Just like Passing Prop B won't either.
.
VOTE YES! PROP B!
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!
.
VOTE YES! PROP B!
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 20, 2010 | 5:55 a.m.

And 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!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 20, 2010 | 6:01 a.m.

And Terry... don't bother responding to Ray Shaprio. He asked for my thoughts on his SAOVA link here last week so I responded with a 6 part Rebuttal.... which he NEVER responded to. (Even though I posted it on just about every Prop B comment forumn here!)
.
STOP THE CRUELTY!
VOTE YES! on PROP B
.
STOP THE CRUELTY!
VOTE YES! on PROP B

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 20, 2010 | 6:11 a.m.

Ray Shapiro Wrote: "Dogs have rights? What about man's rights."
.
Guess Ray lives in the Dark Ages where it was "MIGHT WAS RIGHT" not "Might for Right!". With Great power comes great responsibiltiy. We are RESPONSIBLE to take humane care of animals. That doesn't give animals' rights... but it gives us our HUMANITY.
.
STOP THE CRUELTY!
VOTE YES! on PROP B

.
STOP THE CRUELTY!
VOTE YES! on PROP B

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 20, 2010 | 6:17 a.m.

As a Missourian, I'm sick of living in the "Puppy Mill Capital of the US". Missouri needs to add to & clear up our current legislation regarding dog breeding. Proposition B will help do that. It will add to the current ACFA (Animal Care Facilities Act) & make the current laws clearer & easier to enforce.

Why would every Humane organization in Missouri endorse & support Prop B? Because they are the ones who have to deal with the aftermath of sick, matted dogs that have lived their lives in filth from Missouri's Puppy mills. The Commercial Dog breeding industry has 1 year to comply & come up to standards with Prop B. Shelters & rescues are already preparing to accomodate the influx of dogs they will receive when Prop B passes. Looking to the future, the passage of Prop B will lead to less rescues, less cruelty, less euthanazia from overbreeding & abandoned breeding dogs from puppy mills.

I honestly believe that anyone who understands the horrific impact PUPPY MILLS have in the state of Missouri AND the image of Missouri can only come to one conclusion . Please join me in voting YES on Prop B this November.
.
STOP THE CRUELTY!
VOTE YES! on PROP B

.
STOP THE CRUELTY!
VOTE YES! on PROP B

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 20, 2010 | 7:07 a.m.

Mr. Shapiro

Your above comment verbatim:
'Save some of that pity for the countless number of dogs which will be killed, abandoned or released into the wild should this Proposition be passed'

My question- in RESPONSE to your above comment,-again:
'So your concern is for the animals who MIGHT suffer, not the animals who are suffering NOW?'

(This is a question, not an allegation)

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 20, 2010 | 7:45 a.m.

Marina...

NOTHING will ever be gained in this particular sort of 'forum' by appeals for compassion.
As I said above,
'Humane' is a dirty and frightening word......
And compassion is worthy of nothing but sneers and derision.

They seem compelled to lash out against anything remotely connected to the concept of human kindness.
The weak, the unprotected and the helpless seem always to be on the receiving end of their rage. ...
One can only imagine the horrors of a childhood which created this kind of thinking in a person.'
Compassion , Marina, is either part of one's character, or it is not.
One must try to understand the psychology of the thing.
We may rant and rave about 'cruelty'. but this serves no purpose other than to
allow us to vent our OWN rage...again, solving nothing.

Our only recourse is to argue with logic, reason, fact and common sense and hope to educate the folks who are either as yet undecided or who are wellmeaning but simply clueless

But to those who have had compassion beaten out of them, or to those who
simply feel that what they 'want' supersedes the welfare of anybody or any thing, we are arguing to an empty room.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 20, 2010 | 8:04 a.m.

Terry Ward wrote:

"And compassion is worthy of nothing but sneers and derision."

Nice try, but compassion and prop B are not the same thing.

Compassion would be better enforcement. Compassion would be more people turning in illegal breeders. Compassion would be prospective owners who plan for a pet, get recommendations and pick out their pet from a good breeder, rather than just buying one on impulse in a pet store and finding it doesn't work for them.

The good parts of prop B are overshadowed by the bad. Let's get a bill that addresses enforcement, and see how well that works, before shutting down most of a state industry by innuendo and slander.

"'So your concern is for the animals who MIGHT suffer, not the animals who are suffering NOW"

One thing prop B supporters have never shown is that the conditions they show in their commercials and videos are in any way typical of licensed breeders in the state. Without this, these media are meaningless and slanderous. The fact that there are substandard breeders does not mean that most of them are that way.

Terry (or anyone), do any of you have a credible estimate of how many dogs are living in substandard conditions? This should be available if you have inspection reports (and read them with a knowledgeable and objective eye - do any of you have experience in any kind of institutional or commercial animal care?). You'd then have to compare that to estiomatex of 30,000 to 50,000 dogs that would have to be put down over the course of a couple years if prop B passes.

Our problem is not current care standards. Our problem is enforcement and punishment. Fix what's broken, without destroying the whole thing.

DK

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 20, 2010 | 8:32 a.m.

Thanks, Terry! Glad to see another voice of sanity around here! I realize there is no changing the minds of most of the people on this board. I just know that we cannot let our voices go unheard by the general public that does not comment but simply reads the commentary. The OPPOSITION TO PROP B is SPREADING a massive amount of LIES, SCARETACTICS & GROSS EXAGGERAGTIONS here on this site. Unfortunately it seems to me that there are only a few people that comment on this board & GOD FORBID you disagree with them! So I'll continue to monitor their false accusations thru election day. The truth needs to be told.
.
VOTE YES! PRop B
Stop Puppy Mill CRUELTY!
.
VOTE YES! PRop B
Stop Puppy Mill CRUELTY!
.
VOTE YES! PRop B
Stop Puppy Mill CRUELTY!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 20, 2010 | 8:56 a.m.

Possibly, Mr. Foecking, you can point to ONE piece of legislation anywhere that is either uniformly enforced or 100% successful in achieving it's intended purpose.
We have child abuse laws, yet children are still abused and their abusers roam freely.
We have drunk driving laws, yet people still drink and drive, and their victims still die.
Your 'enforcement and punishment' demand is a transparent, manipulative and disingenuous canard..

Which IS...considering your level of education..something you are perfectly aware of.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 20, 2010 | 9:01 a.m.

Terry! A wonderful post! I couldn't have said it better!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 20, 2010 | 9:11 a.m.

Marina, the most important thing any of us can do at this point is to understand exactly what is behind the lies, scare tactics and exaggerations and to disseminate the information to people who do not yet understand the roots of the anti-humane issue.

And to do this fact and logic, not emotion and anger.

This site will explain all....
http://www.bermanexposed.org/

(Report Comment)
Marq Summers October 20, 2010 | 11:28 a.m.

Marina needs a lesson in economics.
I am also a kennel vet. In our area, no one ever addressed the small animal. The old vet was primarily livestock. I came into this area where I was raised and converted an old 4 room house into a make-shift clinic along with my assoc. A few kennels drifted into our office. No one had ever addressed good kennel medicine. Over 20 yrs have passed and we have completely changed as a practice. Why? Because of our kennels. We now service 40 kennels. Some of the very best in the state. They buy vaccine, medicine and we make weekly services calls. The cash flow from them allowed up to make two expansions to that 4 room house. Lab, xray, surgery, boarding, grooming were all paid for by our cash flow from the kennels. The end result? People now have a small animal practice in our area where none existed before. Take out 3,000 kennel in Missouri and you will kill veterinary medicine. Think with you head before your heart. No one wants any dog to suffer. There are those of us who have made the changes. Lumping everyone into one category is dangerous. Proposition B if passed will come back to bite everyone in the ass. The really good people will be gone and the illegal mills will flourish.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 20, 2010 | 11:42 a.m.

Mark Foecking, where did you get the idea that 50,000 dogs would be put down? Perhaps instead of asking others to provide proof, you need to provide something yourself?

The closure of Mettoville's Kennel and subsequent auction are a more likely scenario. What will happen is that the more fit and able dogs will be auctioned, the rest most likely sent to shelters. Rescue organizations will rescue as many dogs as possible in the auction, and the shelters will do the rest.

The only dogs likely to be killed are those already past saving, which unfortunately, will be likely with the Mettoville Kennel closing considering the atrocious treatment of dogs from this _licensed_ breeder.

As for enforcement, bills that would have increased licensing fees for commercial dog breeders have been killed in the state legislature, as recently as this year. If the breeders see the problem as a matter of enforcement, why have they lobbied so strenuously against increasing the number of inspectors?

No, commercial dog breeders want to maximize profit, minimize costs. They don't give a darn about the dogs.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 20, 2010 | 11:50 a.m.

Marq Summers, your name is not among the vets at the Truth for Alliance web site. Why aren't you listed with the Truth for Alliance if you so strongly disagree with Proposition B? You've brought up your clinic, again and again, in comments? Is it listed in the Truth for Alliance web site?

I have a hard time believing what you're saying.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 20, 2010 | 12:11 p.m.

Actually, Marq, I own a small business that has no debt & is actually doing well in these difficult times. So... no I don't need an economics lesson.... but perhaps you would do well with an ETHICS lesson!

Sounds to me like your ONLY motivation with being against prop B is GREED. You're worried you'll make less MONEY. Let's worry a little more about the welfare of the animals & business ethics.
.
VOTE YES! Prop B!
Stop Puppy Mill Cruelty!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 20, 2010 | 12:15 p.m.

Here's all that matters:

Missouri Proposition B: The Puppy Mill Bill

No 966 54%
Yes 770 43%
Other (explain below) 28 1%
Current Total 1,764

1,488 comments
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/hartvill...

http://twitter.com/shelleypowers/status/...

And still no details on that poll from Barbara Schmitz's camp...

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 20, 2010 | 1:06 p.m.

Ray... you forgot to mention that the majority of those votes were driven in by an email campaign (emailing the link around) by the opposition to prop B (according the summary provided by the ColumbiaMissourian).

And the details on that poll you keep refering to that barbara Schmitz talks of with an 89% approval: HERE IT IS:

The 89% approval poll was taken BEFORE the Signature collection process to see if there was enough concern in Missouri to warrant the expense of the Signature Gathering Process required to put the Puppy mill Cruelty Prevention Act on the Ballot.
.
We both know that polls are samplings anyway & don't really mean all that much in the end ... (Especially polls with so few people participating or polls where the vote is garnered by a lopsided email campaign)
.
Now a FACT is that 192,000 Registered voters in Missouri signed a petition to put the Puppy mill Cruelty Prevention Act on the Ballot. As a signature gatherer,and a signature notary, I can tell you that in my experience, I had only a few people say no signing the petition.
.
What really matters in the end though is the Vote on November 2nd. Missourians will decide this issue. And I am positive that the good people of Missouri will VOTE YES on Prop B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. I know I will.
.
VOTE YES! PROP B
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 20, 2010 | 1:29 p.m.

Terry Ward wrote:

"Possibly, Mr. Foecking, you can point to ONE piece of legislation anywhere that is either uniformly enforced or 100% successful in achieving it's intended purpose."

That's irrelevant to my point.

For any law to be effective, it must be both enforceable and enforced.

Looking at the USDA inspections reports for various kennels, there are various violations that the inspectors find. Kennel operators are given a time to correct those violations. One of the problems that prop B proponents point to is the violations happen again and again at the same kennels, and say we need prop B to make them a criminal offense instead of an administrative one.

The violations are already against the regulations. The laws are already there. What is missing is a stronger enforcement mechanism, which exists in prop B. I've never said I object to that part of the legislation (if it is used in the same way as the administrative sanctions - i. e. after allowing time for corrective action by the licensee).

But we can't vote on just part of prop B. There are many other parts of it which will make professional breeding very expensive and difficult, even for the good breeders. It shouldn't be supported in its present form. A bad law is seldom better than no law at all.

"We have child abuse laws, yet children are still abused and their abusers roam freely.
We have drunk driving laws, yet people still drink and drive, and their victims still die."

Well, then why do you think prop B will stop "puppy mill cruelty" (whatever that is - the bill doesn't even define "puppy mill")? With a constant (or even somewhat lessened) demand for puppies, the demand will be met, one way or the other. The alternatives for meeting this demand may be far worse for the dogs than the status quo (interstate or international trade, or unlicensed breeding).

Again, better enforcement of current regulations (or DWI or child abuse laws) will help more dogs (or people) more quickly than passing this, and driving many good, licensed breeders out of business (or underground).

Marina Shane wrote:

"The OPPOSITION TO PROP B is SPREADING a massive amount of LIES, SCARETACTICS & GROSS EXAGGERAGTIONS here on this site"

No one has still come forth with any proof that the heart-wrenching pictures and videos being used to promote this are in any way typical of licensed breeders. That's a smear campaign of the very worst, and I (as someone who makes a living by being honest and forthright) couldn't sleep at night if it were me. For shame.

What do you think HSUS and local supporters are doing?

DK

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 20, 2010 | 1:54 p.m.

Shelley Powers wrote:

"Mark Foecking, where did you get the idea that 50,000 dogs would be put down?"

Actually 30,000 to 50,000, and I got that from comments from two of the kennel vets that have posted here. I can find a better source if you like (I believe it was also in one of the newspaper editorials linked in these comments).

I am sure some dogs would be auctioned, or given to rescues (if they have the space - I know rescues around here have constant space problems). Perhaps such a high number isn't correct.

However, let's look past the closures and see what that will mean to the purebred dog market a couple years from now.

Prop B has cut the number of breeders by half, and the number of breeding dogs by 80-90% (more dogs are bred, per breeder, by the large breeders that would be shut down by prop B). People still want puppies, so prices have skyrocketed. This has lessened demand somewhat, but the higher prices has made unlicensed breeding more attractive, as well as attracted Internet sales from across the country.

None of these operations will be under the control of Missouri inspectors. Wouldn't it be better to keep these businesses in-state and legal? Just put more teeth into the enforcement process without all of the other consequences of prop B.

"As for enforcement, bills that would have increased licensing fees for commercial dog breeders have been killed in the state legislature, as recently as this year."

Perhaps because they, like most other small businesses, feel the fees they are paying are high enough?

"If the breeders see the problem as a matter of enforcement, why have they lobbied so strenuously against increasing the number of inspectors?"

I don't know, have they? - maybe someone else can answer that. Just on the surface, I would think the number of inspectors wouldn't matter all that much to them. They still have to be inspected at random at least once a year.

"Now a FACT is that 192,000 Registered voters in Missouri signed a petition to put the Puppy mill Cruelty Prevention Act on the Ballot."

Oh, I signed it. I think that things should go on ballots and voters should educate themselves and ddecide whether they're OK with it or not. However, the pitch I was given did not explain that, say, there already were a bunch of laws on the books that covered dog breeders.

I am familiar with care regulations for lab animals, and when I first commented on prop B (on the Trib) I said I would be surprised of there were not similar regulations for dog breeding. That is one place the prop B "pulls a fast one". Voters are led to believe by its wording that no regulations presently exist. Very slick.

And prop B proponents say opponents are being dishonest?

DK

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 20, 2010 | 2:20 p.m.

DK/Mark Foecking: Suprised you signed a document that you did not READ first! Each And EVERY petetion had the complete proposition printed on them. CLEARLY Section 7 states:

7. 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.

Sorry you're reading level isn't up to par. Maybe you and Marq can get a joint deal on some additional education. You can take a brush up reading class & Marq can get in that business ethics class!
.
VOTE YES! PROP B!
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 20, 2010 | 2:23 p.m.

I think you go by DK, and I will since it's simpler:

DK, there are no facts or proof to back up your assertion of numbers. In my opinion, you're most likely trying to show how this bill would be "bad" for the dogs, which is patently absurd.

As for the fees, they were set in 1993 and have long been felt to be totally inadequate. But yes any increase cuts into that high profit margin. What did Jim Foster say in comments to another writing? A 30 billion dollar industry?

(I love the exaggerated numbers you all use, especially when you contradict each other.)

Sky rocketing puppy prices? Unlikely. And with 2+ million dogs euthanized every year in the US, I think people can find themselves a family pet. For those who want a breed dog, at least now they'll have a chance of getting a dog from a good, reputable breeder--not a factory farm.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 20, 2010 | 2:24 p.m.

Here's the Ballot Summary:
Official ballot title certified by Secretary of State on December 28, 2009.

OFFICIAL BALLOT TITLE AS CERTIFIED BY
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?
It is estimated state governmental entities will incur costs of $654,768 (on-going costs of $521,356 and one-time costs of $133,412). Some local governmental entities may experience costs related to enforcement activities and savings related to reduced animal care activities.

READ THE FULL TEXT of PROP B AT:
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010peti...

JOIN ME NOV 2, 2010
VOTE YES on PROP B!
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 20, 2010 | 3:55 p.m.

Here, Mr. Foecking, is the definition of a 'puppy-mill.
You might try a dictionary some time...very handy.

'Puppy'....young dog

'Mill'....... A process, agency, or institution that operates in a routine way or turns out products in the manner of a factory: As in:
*through the mill'...badly treated; abused and exhausted

'Puppy-mill':
A badly treated abused and exhausted dog processed in an agency or institution operating in a routine turning out puppies in the manner of a factory.

This seems to be a simple clear and obvious no-brainer, if one applies one's education and is blessed with a modicum of common sense... assuming that english is your first language.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 20, 2010 | 5:02 p.m.

@Terry:
I'd be very careful about slights made towards Mark.
While I might be the joker in the midst, Mark has more, consistent credibility and continuity.
And you forget that you're currently on a local, Columbia newspaper where repetitive posters and regular readers know us beyond this discussion/opinion board.
When did you first start posting here, Terry?
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/accoun...

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 20, 2010 | 5:35 p.m.

This is the second time Ray Shapiro has warned and threatened people who are making good faith comments in this publication. Yet Ray Shapiro is one of the most derogatory and abusive commenters I've seen associated with Proposition B.

To the professors who monitor this paper: is this how you teach your students about civil discourse? Allowing certain individuals to censor discussions by invoking some authority or perceived privileged position?

If so, I don't think very highly of the job you are doing.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 20, 2010 | 5:41 p.m.

Having made my last comment, Terry, the following statement really wasn't necessary or called for:

"This seems to be a simple clear and obvious no-brainer, if one applies one's education and is blessed with a modicum of common sense... assuming that english is your first language."

We can disagree, even passionately, without have to resort to personal insults...or threats to some real or perceived authority.

This is one of the few publications discussion Proposition B that has equal representation from both sides of this issue. I hope that this balance is not endangered in the heat of the moment.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 20, 2010 | 5:52 p.m.

This has reached the point of being ridiculous. I should talk? That's exactly the point, I have experience with being ridiculous.

Why not call a truce until after the election, then if the winners want to harass the losers, or the other way around, have at it! A second truce for Christmas might also be nice.

BTW, lower case letters actually do exist.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 20, 2010 | 6:04 p.m.

English, amazingly enough, is NOT the first language of everyone.
Hence my comment.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 20, 2010 | 6:14 p.m.

I am curious to know if any 'concerned animal lovers' here who are moaning about Prop B have actually rescued /adopted a mill dog..

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 20, 2010 | 6:23 p.m.

And Mr. Shapiro, am I to believe that Mr. Foecking is going to hunt me down
and rip out my guts because of perceived 'slights'?

How 'very careful' should I be?

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 20, 2010 | 7:12 p.m.

@Terry:
I'm certain that I nor Mark pose any physical danger to your well being. Your verbal slights on someone with Mark's local scientific reputation, however, leaves your ProBer approach ever so absurd. I'm asking that you be careful so that WE don't bust a gut from laughing at your comments. I have noticed many people who are so caught up in thinking that the life of dogs are at sake here that they can not form any connection with people.
I have seen this attitude with volunteers and staff at shelters when they grill people for adoptions or defend their "kill policy" at their "Humane" Society.
I've never experienced that human disconnect when interacting with people from the breeding service industry. They seem to be able to express a love for their dogs, their business and an appreciation towards their workers and customers.
Many ProBers seem to believe that the rights of dogs take priority over the rights of men. And they get stuck there. This was one reason I had to challenge my initial emotional response to favoring Proposition B and do some research. I've done that research and will definitely vote No on this insidious proposition. I hope others do their homework as well, prior to voting.
If you use your mind and your heart, a No Vote makes a lot of sense.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 21, 2010 | 6:23 a.m.

Mr. Shapiro

Where please, do you find a 'verbal slight'?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 21, 2010 | 7:04 a.m.

Terry Ward wrote:

"I am curious to know if any 'concerned animal lovers' here who are moaning about Prop B have actually rescued /adopted a mill dog.."

Here's where your perception may be getting skewed by your experience.

Rescuers are never called on to rescue animals from good breeders. They are called upon to rescue them from the worst of the worst. If that's all you see, it's easy to fall into the trap of thinking they're all that way, or at least having a distorted view of breeders.

BTW, I never threatened you, and I've never hunted anyone down - you have nothing to worry about. I've actually met one of the (former) posters here that I've had considerably more heated discussions with and all was fine. You might look at my posting history (if you have several hours) and see that I do this a fair amount, and if I do say so myself, rather properly.

Thanks, Ray. (and Shelley). Civil works best.

DK

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 21, 2010 | 8:28 a.m.

Forgive me, Mr. Foecking, if I have given the impression that I am stupid.

As my rescue group would not exist were it not for the compassion and hard work of the responsible breeders among us, my 'distorted view of breeders' has not caused me to 'fall into a trap' or 'scewered' my experience.
It has taught me nothing but admiration for them.

Ignorance and assumption are terrible judges.
To negate someone's years of experience when you know nothing is simply mindless at best and manipulative at worst.
You say 'Rescuers are never called on to rescue animals from good breeders'

Not only is this so obvious as to be laughable, what does it have to do with anything at all?
This is not about GOOD breeders, regardless of the rantings of the rabble
This is about some attempt, however small or flawed, to bring the dog-farmer into the 21 century.
Are you so used to conversing with people whose thinking proceeds from A to B and no further that you believe your 'arguments' have meaning or effect?

Mr. Foecking, I understand very well that which compels you, and many others, to protest this issue with such vehemence.
And it has nothing to do with politics or economics.
It has to do with one's own particular psychological conundrums...but that is not an issue for this forum.

(Report Comment)
Jake Sherlock October 21, 2010 | 8:43 a.m.

The Missourian has been very hands-off on the moderation of the Proposition B debate, and that's something that needs to change. While we haven't been actively taking down very many posts, we have been watching the debate unfold, and we have planned coverage to help readers wade through what is a very emotional debate.

Specifically, we have a reporter who is working on a fact-check article that will attempt to help everyone make sense of the various claims that have been bandied about in these threads. It will take her a few days to do the necessary research, but it's coming. Hopefully that will go a long way in answering many of your questions.

In the meantime, I'm going to ask everyone to not post angry. Take a minute to re-read your posts and make sure you're not sending an unintended message of a threat or personal attack. From here on out, personal attacks will be deleted. Please make sure you're posting under your real name. If we suspect it's a fake name, we will use the email address you entered on your registration form to contact you. If we find that you faked that email address, your entire account will be deleted.

I look forward to a continued lively debate as we grapple with how to vote on this issue come Nov. 2. Let's just make sure we're doing it civilly.

Jake Sherlock
Opinion Editor

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith October 21, 2010 | 9:02 a.m.

Thank you, Jake. The debate seems to have become more personal and, as you say, emotional.

I also posit that it has eclipsed discussion of other issues and articles presented in the Missourian. Some of those matters are as important as this particular topic.

Lastly, I recognize some of the posters as using what are without doubt their REAL names, but question whether that's true for some other posters. If I'm correct, isn't that a violation of Missourian policy? My policy is that if you have something to say you should have no problem attaching your REAL name to it.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 21, 2010 | 10:00 a.m.

Thank you Jake for letting us know that you have a reporter working on a fact-check article regarding Prop B. It is desperately needed here! I'm glad to hear that time is being taken to research this important issue!

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer October 21, 2010 | 10:38 a.m.

When one group of people (namely the HSUS, a radical animal rights organization) tries to destroy another group (legal, legitimate dog breeders), why are you surprised when the dog breeders and related industries fight back with passion? This is hardly a fair fight. The HSUS uses emotional manipulation, insinuations, deception and millions of dollars to force a poorly-written, deceitful, (mostly) repetitive, overly-restrictive, punitive piece of BAD LAW down the throats of Missourians who are not told the end result of Prop B's passage. Missourians are being led down the garden-path by HSUS. The opposition, which includes the American Veterinary Medical Association, the VAST majority of Missouri's 3000 veterinarians, all legitimate animal industries, and educated citizens who 'get it' do not have the deep pockets to fight HSUS. We have THE TRUTH on our side. The truth will set you free from Prop B, if you will listen and hear it.
Vote NO on Prop B and send HSUS packing!!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 21, 2010 | 11:02 a.m.

RUTH KEEZER wrote: "When one group of people (namely the HSUS, tries to destroy another group (dog breeders)...."

I beg to differ. 192,000 registered Missouri Voters signed the petition to put this issue before the voters Nov 2nd. The petition had the full language of this law printed on it. So it's not ONE GROUP it's 192,000 Missourians who want change in this industry. The rest of what you wrote can only be called more OPPOSITION PROPGANDA & SCARE TACTICS.
.
JOIN ME IN VOTING YES ON PROP B
STOP PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 21, 2010 | 7:56 p.m.

S & S Family Puppies ...Randolf County
licensed Missouri Kennel.

Media-Newswire.com) - A group of consumers filed suit in the Randolph County Circuit Court on Tuesday against notorious Missouri puppy mill S & S Family Puppies ( and its owners Brandi Cheney and Diana Stephenson ) for selling consumers sick and dying puppies in violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

S & S Family Puppies’ history of neglect and mistreatment is documented in more than 500 pages of enforcement records. The records include photos of dogs with oozing or encrusted eyes, dogs with bleeding lacerations, puppies attempting to stand on wide-spaced wire flooring, an underweight and “unresponsive” poodle, and some dogs so badly matted with feces-encrusted hair that it was difficult to determine what sex or breed they were. USDA inspection reports further detail repeated problems with dogs exposed to the cold without adequate weather protection; problems with seriously ill, injured or malnourished dogs not being treated by a vet; housing problems; filthy, feces-laden conditions; and more.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 21, 2010 | 8:26 p.m.

HSUS, ASPCA sued under RICO Act:
http://www.goldenretrieverforum.com/chit...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 21, 2010 | 9:02 p.m.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com

Marilyn Shepherd:

Marilyn Shepherd, a breeder in rural Ava in the Ozarks, has been the subject of three federal licensing complaints but still maintains a state license. She would not allow her dog pens to be toured or photographed, saying pictures of caged dogs would set off protests by "whiney-ass animal rights activists."

..........................

J.B.'s Precious Puppies
When authorities raided J.B.'s Precious Puppies, they discovered more than 200 dogs standing in their own excrement, crammed three and four to a cage. Some were so sickly they were missing clumps of hair. The skeletal remains of puppies and adult dogs were found inside pet-food bags.
ewel Bond, owner of J.B.'s Precious Puppies, failed to meet state standards in 2007 after temporarily losing her federal license. She agreed to get out of the business and let the state sell her dogs at auction, from which she received the proceeds, minus a $1,000 fine. But a year later, Bond was back in business. Townsend said Bond repurchased some of her dogs at auction.
....................................
http://www.therolladailynews.com

Timothy W. King:
One-hundred dogs, puppies and two cats were seized early Tuesday morning at a Phelps County residence by investigators with the Animal Cruelty Task Force, an investigative branch of the Humane Society of Missouri.
Sheriff Rick Lisenbe, who was on site with deputies to ensure the safety of the Humane Society investigators, inspected the outbuildings situated throughout the Kings’ property with Koster and Hagler.
Throughout the King property, pathways wound through several trash dumps, and the carcass of one dead dog, initially thought to be impaled by a wooden stake, was found on top of a trash heap. It was later discovered the dog was only entwined around the stake.
The trailer, converted into an indoor-outdoor type of multi-tiered kennel, was overcrowded with cohabitating male and female parent dogs and their litters in excrement-encrusted cages. In one instance, two recently miscarried dog fetuses were found under the chicken-wired floor beneath one of the kennels. And although the dogs appeared to have available food, fresh and clean water was not observed.

...............

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 21, 2010 | 9:03 p.m.

Missouri Humane Society rescues 150 dogs and a tiger - Kansas City Star

SENECA, Mo. | More than 150 dogs and a Bengal tiger have been rescued from a substandard dog-breeding facility near Seneca.

The Missouri Humane Society says its action Thursday in Newton County marks its second major puppy mill rescue in less than a week.

The dogs include 30 puppies and four pregnant animals. The adult tiger was taken to the zoo in Springfield.

The dogs' cages were covered with animal waste, and the animals had no food or water.

On Feb. 13, the group rescued 100 Yorkies in Greene County.

The Newton County breeder has prior animal welfare violations. But a state seizure of 150 dogs two years ago did not result in charges.

The rescued dogs will be treated and housed in St. Louis pending a March 9 custody hearing.

Posted on Thu, Feb. 19, 2009 02:53 PM
__________________

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 21, 2010 | 9:19 p.m.

Missouri Humane Society rescues 150 dogs and a tiger - Kansas City Star

SENECA, Mo. | More than 150 dogs and a Bengal tiger have been rescued from a substandard dog-breeding facility near Seneca.

The Missouri Humane Society says its action Thursday in Newton County marks its second major puppy mill rescue in less than a week.

The dogs include 30 puppies and four pregnant animals. The adult tiger was taken to the zoo in Springfield.

The dogs' cages were covered with animal waste, and the animals had no food or water.

On Feb. 13, the group rescued 100 Yorkies in Greene County.

The Newton County breeder has prior animal welfare violations. But a state seizure of 150 dogs two years ago did not result in charges.

The rescued dogs will be treated and housed in St. Louis pending a March 9 custody hearing.

Posted on Thu, Feb. 19, 2009 02:53 PM
__________________
http://network.bestfriends.org
May 10, 2009,
By Cheri Moon

More than 200 dogs, from puppies to middle-aged adults ...were saved from commercial breeders in Missouri in a successful joint effort between animal rescue groups, including Best Friends.

Typically killed to make room for more, these lucky dogs—either used-up breeders or puppies deemed too old to be sold at pet stores—are being driven to New York to waiting foster groups after rescuers were allowed to enter the breeding farms and retrieve them.

Pulled from another breeder’s property were 72 dogs of all varieties—cocker spaniels whose matted fur looked like dreadlocks, standard-sized poodles with overgrown coats, miniature pinschers, jack russell terriers, Shelties, Chihuahuas, yellow, chocolate and black Labrador retrievers, King Charles spaniels and malteses, shih-tzus and llaso apsos so dirty rescuers couldn’t tell the color of their fur.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 21, 2010 | 9:40 p.m.

("The Humane Society Legislative Fund (HSLF), the political action and lobbying subsidiary of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), has endorsed Sen. Barrack Obama (D., Ill.) for U.S. president, marking the first time in history that HSLF and, by extension, HSUS have backed a presidential candidate.")
http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp...
("Feld Entertainment Inc., which operates the Ringling Brothers & Barnum & Bailey Circus, has brought a RICO racketeering lawsuit against The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other parties for collaboration to pay more than $190,000 to a witness who gave false testimony in a trial waged against Feld for nine years.")
http://www.feedstuffs.com/ME2/dirmod.asp...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 21, 2010 | 9:45 p.m.

http://www.kmbc.com/r/18811801/detail.ht...
An unlicensed breeder in southwest Missouri 'goes a little nuts'...
agrees to surrender 200 purebred dogs

Michael Vanderwall, whose breeding facility has been under state scrutiny at least since September, became angry when a Missouri Department of Agriculture inspector arrived at his property earlier Tuesday and tried to persuade him to surrender the animals after seeing that conditions had not improved,
Vanderwall set his barn, kennel, house and camper on fire Tuesday after the inspector left.
The dogs and puppies, some of them burned, were taken Wednesday from Vanderwall's River Valley Puppies Kennels, near Tecumseh.
Twelve dogs and 10 puppies will be treated at the Central Missouri Humane Society in Columbia, with the others to be turned over to rescue groups

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance October 21, 2010 | 10:12 p.m.

Pathetic that opponetns of Prop B are attacking the Humane Society. Whata bunch of mean spirited neocons and greedy breeders. Vote Yes on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 22, 2010 | 2:51 a.m.

Tim, I think you're confusing the Central Missouri Humane Society (our local hands-on animal shelter), with the Humane Society of the United States, and animal advocacy and rights organization that does very little actual animal work.

I haven't heard whether CMHS has a position on prop B or not.

DK

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 22, 2010 | 3:16 a.m.

Terry Ward wrote:

"An unlicensed breeder in southwest Missouri 'goes a little nuts"

"More than 150 dogs and a Bengal tiger have been rescued from a substandard dog-breeding facility near Seneca."

I've never said we don't need better enforcement. Prop B does this, and I support that part of the bill.

However, prop B goes much further, and will actually serve to increase this kind of substandard and unlicensed breeding by decreasing supply from licensed, conscientious breeders (by driving their costs up so high they can't stay in business).

Let look at the veterinary care part of prop B. Current regs state animals have to be seen as needed by a vet, and specifies "humane euthanasia" for diseased or old animals. Prop B requires an annual exam in addition to prompt vet care, and requires a licensed vet to perform euthanasia. Looks better on the surface, no?

However, a good, conscientious breeder is knowledgeable about animal diseases and problems, and pays enough attention to their valuable animals that they catch problems early, and either treat them themselves or call a vet. It is likely that most of their animals see a vat at least once a year anyway. The requirement they be examined once a year adds little to the dogs care, but a lot to the breeders vet bill.

Same with euthanasia. In research facilities, all sorts of non-veterinarian people perform safe, humane euthanasia. I've euthanized thousand of animals, and I'm not a licensed vet. A skilled breeder can master giving IV pentobarbital easily, along with the paperwork and procedures for keeping track of controlled substances. It adds nothing to the care of the dogs to have a vet do it, but a lot to the bill.

Diseased animals, or those in need of grooming, are routinely caught by inspectors, and repeat inspections are often done by a veterinary medical officer. Read some USDA inspection reports and you'll see that the mechanism for identifying animals in need of care is already there. We just need better enforcement.

The damage prop B can do outweighs its benefits. It can increase unlicensed, substandard breeding at the expense of those breeders that follow the law.

DK

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 22, 2010 | 6:37 a.m.

Terry Ward wrote:

"This is about some attempt, however small or flawed, to bring the dog-farmer into the 21 century."

Which means what exactly?

I have tried to be very rational and specific in my discussion here, and have often been rebutted with vague generalities, emotional statements, insults, and all-caps cheerleading. Please, if you're going to respond, do so specifically. (BTW thank you, Shelley Powers, for doing so. We may never agree, but at least we're discussing specifics)

"'Rescuers are never called on to rescue animals from good breeders'

Not only is this so obvious as to be laughable, what does it have to do with anything at all?"

Because typically you read about "rescues" going in and taking animals from substandard condition. Breeders that keep their animals in good health are often able to place them in other ways, such as auction, and in some cases rescues and shelters. However, that's different than a rescue going into a facility that is being closed for animal welfare violations.

"Are you so used to conversing with people whose thinking proceeds from A to B and no further that you believe your 'arguments' have meaning or effect?"

I am used to conversing with people who think from point A to B, and beyond. I think I've been trying to do that here.

Which arguments don't, and why don't my arguments have meaning or effect? Let's be specific and go from there.

"I understand very well that which compels you"

What is that? I think I've stated it many times before - I think this bill is being promoted deceptively and emotionally, and will have a large number of unintended consequences. Plus, I know a lot about animals, and post here a good bit anyway.

DK

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 22, 2010 | 6:57 a.m.

One last thing:

Terry Ward wrote:

"'Puppy-mill':
A badly treated abused and exhausted dog processed in an agency or institution operating in a routine turning out puppies in the manner of a factory."

This definition is incorrect. A puppy mill is not a dog, it is a substandard breeding facility. Where did this come from again?

I brought up the subject of definition because a piece of legislation will usually have the terms it uses defined somewhere in it. Also, they can be different definitions than what one might expect - that's why it's done.

For example, "regular exercise" is defined in prop B to specify constant and unfettered access to an outside kennel of a certain minimum size. I think most people would consider "regular exercise" to mean walking, running, jumping, etc - all those things that people (and dogs) do when they exercise.

No one has ever questioned my use or command of the English language before. It's no big deal, but I just wanted to clarify why I said what I said.

DK

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 22, 2010 | 7:19 a.m.

The problem with current law is that there is no way for an inspector to visually see that the dogs are getting out of the cages for general exercize.
.
The DK's arguement that: "For example, "regular exercise" is defined in prop B to specify constant and unfettered access to an outside kennel of a certain minimum size. I think most people would consider "regular exercise" to mean walking, running, jumping, etc - all those things that people (and dogs) do when they exercise."
.
Unfortunately, there are many bad breeders who never let their dogs out of the cages. Those dogs will never walk, run, jump, etc outside of their cage because the current law is not enforceable.
.
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."
.
Without prop B there is no qualified way for an inspector to judge if the dog is being let outside for adequate excercize. Therfor the law could not be enforced. When Prop B passes, an inspector will visually be able to see that the minimum standard for space is allowed per dog.
.
When PROP B PASSES, the EXCERCIZE Minimums will be ENFORCEABLE. Also, There is nothing in Prop B which prohibits the breeder from going above the minimum of the law & letting the dogs outside of the cage for furthur excercise (walking, running, jumping, etc) .

.
VOTE YES! PROP B
VOTE FOR ENFORCEABLE PUPPY MILL LAWS!
VOTE YES! PROP B

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 22, 2010 | 8:37 a.m.

OOPS!

Puppy-Mill:

'An agency or institution operating in a routine manner turning out badly treated abused and exhausted dogs processed in the manner of a factory.'

Very observant, Mr. Foecking, to notice my transposition..

Very telling, though, the implication that it was something other than a simple mechanical error.

Conduct, alas, of an unworthy... and uninteresting.. opponent.

The last word shall be SO yours..........

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 22, 2010 | 9:00 a.m.

You all realize, I hope, that anyone undecided on Proposition B has long abandoned the comments in the Missourian articles on Proposition B.

Why? Because they're full of people who have made a decision, throwing the same arguments back and forth at each other, for every single article. Most of the time, not even referencing what the article states.

This has happened elsewhere, and I feel embarrassed that I've engaged in such actions, here and elsewhere. Yes, you want to refute bad information, or have a good, meaningful dialog, but at some point in time, it's nothing more than seeing who can last the longest and somehow "win".

The problem is, neither side of the issue is being helped anymore.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 22, 2010 | 4:08 p.m.

The Kansas City Star and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch have both endorsed a YES vote on Prop B.

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/col...

http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/vot...

Vote YES! Prop B
Prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 22, 2010 | 6:33 p.m.

Keep the good, hardworking, honest legal dog breeders in business.
No limitation should be put on acquiring private property if one can manage that private property properly.
It's poorly written and has terrible implications for our State's economy.
It's an unsound proposition.
Stop H$U$, the spawn of PETA from gaining footholds in Missouri.
Vote No on Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 22, 2010 | 6:49 p.m.

Marina Shane wrote:

"Unfortunately, there are many bad breeders who never let their dogs out of the cages."

And prop B does not address this (other than cleaning, which present laws do also). Nowhere in prop B does it say animals have to be exercised, in the usual meaning of the word. Dogs could still be left in their runs their whole life without significant "feeling grass under their feet"

So why do you think prop B will encourage animal exercise? The model AVMA bill I've linked does. Support it, not this.

DK

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 22, 2010 | 7:04 p.m.

Shelley Powers wrote:

"The problem is, neither side of the issue is being helped anymore."

I tend to agree with you. Let's do as Ellis Smith said and declare a truce on this till election day. All of us have other things to be concerned about also (Go Tigers!!!). Thank you for your civil discourse.

DK

(Report Comment)
michelle johnson October 26, 2010 | 1:05 p.m.

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

Barbara Schmitz reveals all. Now we know the moral fiber of her cause. Listen as she tells a whopper and gets busted on air. Trying to discredit a licensed Missouri Veterinarian.

(Report Comment)
Miranda Oehrke November 2, 2010 | 12:12 a.m.

This proposition is redundant and unnecessary. Compare Prop B to the current Animal Care Facilities Act and you will see that on nearly every point the current Animal Care Facilities Act is the same or more stringent than prop B. Therefore, prop B is not necessary!
Does Missouri have a problem with puppy mills? Yes, but the solution to the puppy mill problem is not to create more laws. Enforce what we have. In Missouri there are between 8 and 12 people employed to inspect 1200+ licensed dog breeding facilities yearly. That is a minimum of 100 inspections and the subsequent reports for each. These inspections are in addition to their other responsibilities. The problem is lack of resources to enforce the current laws! HSUS is using negative propaganda to pass prop B in order to come back later and attack other aspects of animal agriculture.
The two differences I found between prop B and the animal care facilities act are the number of times an animal can be bred and the animals that are subject to the law. Prop B says any domesticated animal, the Animal Care Facilities Act specifies those animals in the canine familia. Seems a little suspicious to me.... I think HSUS is leaving a loophole to attack farmers again down the road.

(Report Comment)
Lisa Evans November 3, 2010 | 4:26 p.m.

I'm actually against the Prop B and I voted against it as well. Here is my 2 cents. Theres no point in arguing the case further. Those who are for Prop B have been munipulated and blind sided by liars. Its just "another" way for the government to control the intake and outtake of our AG.

Okay...so this is this. I'm TOTALLY against puppy mills. As a matter of fact, my beautiful lab/german short hair was stolen from my fenced in back yard, and murdered...by a Puppy Mill. They thought she was a full breed....and when they found out she was not, they shot her with a shot gun in her back and dumped her in a reveen. To me...that was cruel.

Puppy Mills have already been illegal....just never enforced. Its not our faults that they didnt do what needed to be done. Why not use some of that donated money to capture and punish those abusers. Heck...if I had it my way...I would outlaw deer, quail, turkey, hunting. However, if they were hunting for pleasure...I say put them in the middle of a field and let the animals beat the crap out of them, but if they were doing it for food....then lets shoot more.

It baffles me how people can be so "AGAINST" cruelty to animals and think they have more rights then humans...but yet they are ready to dismiss the fact about our children and the cruelty they go through every minute of everyday. Someone said above that they are helpless animals that want to be love. Say those same words to the Pro-Abortionist. Its funny how they would put an animal first before an INNOCENT HELPLESS child.

I also think its funny that these people who are against the Mills...are the first to buy the Hyber bred animals. You dont think its cruel and unusual to mix animals of different breeds because they are SO adorable. Yes...they may take execellent care of those animals, but they are also the ones charging $2500 to $3000 per animal. If money didnt matter, then dont sell them at all. GIVE THEM AWAY!
You dont think that is a means for money. Come on. Then why not mix a Killer whale and a Great White...and hope for the best.

No matter what you may think, this Prop B sets the path for future govt to take control over the AG. And guess who is going to get the raw in of the deal besides the farmers....US. We will. Prices of Milk, Eggs, Pork and Beef are already at record prices. If your not a vegitarian already...might as well be...because non of us are going to be able to even afford a McDonald Cheeseburger.

I LOVE DOGS! I have 2 beautiful dogs...they are a significant part of our family. They are very well taken care of. I still believe in spade and neutering your animals, I do believe that animals should be treated with love, affection...and be cared for. But...I do not believe they should have more rights, or be better cared for then my own children.

(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