advertisement

GUEST COMMENTARY: Proposition B not the right answer to problem

Friday, October 22, 2010 | 4:07 p.m. CDT; updated 3:37 p.m. CDT, Saturday, October 23, 2010

COLUMBIA — In November, Missourians will get a chance to vote on Proposition B, the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.”

For most of us, “puppy mill” conjures images of shivering, emaciated, matted dogs standing in their own filth, terrified of people, bereft of the most basic necessities, socialization and care. None of us want puppy mills in Missouri, and for those of us involved in dogs — as I have been for over 25 years as a trainer, exhibitor, local and national club member and instructor — it’s a passion and a vocation to try to eliminate them. So why would I oppose this bill?

There are several reasons.

Our existing laws are better. Misssouri’s Animal Care Facilities Act is more clear, detailed, specific and typically more stringent than Proposition B.

Prop. B covers only breeders. ACFA covers “any person or organization operating an animal shelter, boarding kennel, commercial kennel, contract kennel, pet shop, pound or dog pound, or acting as a dealer, commercial breeder, intermediate handler or exhibitor in Missouri.” Violating Prop. B will be a Class C Misdemeanor. ACFA starts right out with a Class A Misdemeanor, which is up to a year in jail and up to $20,000 fine. To see a detailed side-by-side comparison, go to www.totaldobe.com/propb_acfa.pdf.

Proposition B punishes legitimate breeders. Prop. B caps the total of intact dogs to be owned by any breeder at 50, the inference being that no one can adequately care for more than 50 dogs. I mean, that’s a lot, right? Who has the time and energy to take care of all those animals? But the bill's sponsor, the Humane Society of the United States, is confining its proposed legislation to breeders. What about kennels, rescues, shelters, humane societies and pet shops? If you’re going to say that 50 is too many dogs, it should apply to them, too, right? So this really isn’t about numbers of dogs, it’s about punishing breeders.

Proposition B redefines “pet.” Prop. B defines a pet as “any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.” So according to Prop. B, all domesticated animals, including livestock, are pets. My fear is that the wording is a large foot in the door toward the purported HSUS’ animal rights agenda of ending all use of domestic livestock. Wayne Pacelle, president of the HSUS, was quoted as stating, “We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ... One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding. (Pacelle has stated that this quote, taken 14 years ago before he was with the HSUS, has been taken out of context and is not accurate.)” — Animal People News, May 1993. (More information about the HSUS and its enrollment in the Animal Rights Movement can be found at www.naiaonline.org, activistcash.com and www.humanewatch.org.)

Proposition B is an unfunded mandate, estimated to cost around $650,000 the first year. We can’t fund our existing law. We don’t have the funds for this one either.

What is the answer?

Unfortunately we do have a problem with bad breeding operations in Missouri. How can we better enforce existing laws and statutes?

We need more inspectors. We have 12 inspectors to cover more than 3,000 facilities. They are hopelessly overwhelmed.

We need to educate judges. Too often when these cases do come to trial, charges are dismissed or plea bargained. We need to prosecute violators to the full extent of the law.

We need to educate Missourians on why eliminating bad breeders is worth spending state money on.

In addition to many agricultural and rural interest groups, The Columbia Kennel Club, the Show Me Canines dog club and the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association have all taken positions in opposition to this bill. Proposition B will not solve our problem with substandard dog breeding facilities in Missouri. Please vote no on Proposition B.

Robin Nuttall got her first doberman in 1981. Since that time she has shown dobermans, and now miniature pinschers, in obedience, conformation, rally obedience and agility, dabbling with earthdog, lure coursing, dock diving, tracking and schutzhund along the way. She currently lives in Columbia with two champion min pins and one doberman who all conspire pretty successfully to run her life.


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

susan gibbs October 22, 2010 | 5:50 p.m.

Thank you for stating the exact truth. We are horribly low on inspectors. Last year the state initiated Operation Bark Alert for questions call 573-751-3377.
Our state has more than adequate rules and regulations. A complete guide is given to each kennel. HSUS has totally misrepresented that to the public. The smear campaign has lumped all breeders into one category. A total disrespect for those who do a terrific job. I listened to a colleague debate HSUS rep Barbara Schmitz. Attached is the link to the radio broadcast. Notice how she addresses him as Mr. and not Dr. Again, a total disrespect that pretty much falls in line with how this organizations operates.This is not the organization that I remember when I was a kid.http://www.stlpublicradio.org/programs/slota/archivedetail.php?showid=4219

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 22, 2010 | 6:14 p.m.

One comment only, addressed to the author. It's long, so I've had to split:

Ms. Nuttall, there are several errors and misunderstandings in your writing. From the top:

Proposition B is an _amendment_. This means that it works in conjunction with existing laws. So the existing laws still apply to kennels, shelters, pet shops, show breeders with over 3 dogs, and so on. Proposition B adds further restrictions specific to commercial breeders that have over 10 intact adults.

The existing Class A misdemeanor is only applied to those covered entities that DO NOT license their facility. There is no misdemeanor charge for violating any of the existing regulations.

The only penalty in existing laws that I can see from my initial reading of existing laws is if the person or facility fails two consecutive re-inspections, they'll have to pay $100 before another inspection will be scheduled. I believe their license will not be renewed if there are existing deficiencies.

The reference to shelters not being covered is disingenuous, and not particularly a worthy argument. Shelters and rescue organizations are typically non-profit, and in fact, typically have to beg for money just to keep operating. Their only purpose is to care for the dogs. Because of the number of dog fighting rings, bad breeders (licensed and not), and hoarders, most shelters have more than 50 dogs at a time.

Recently, the Humane Shelter of Missouri had to take receipt of 100 dogs from an unlicensed breeder, 70 dogs from a licensed breeder, and I believe 20+ from a hoarder. This is in addition to having to absorb most of the St. Louis city's lost, abandoned, and owner surrender dogs.

In addition, municipal shelters have to take all dogs--they can't say no.

However, they would like to have fewer than 50 dogs. A helpful first step to ensure shelters have fewer than 50 dogs is to pass Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 22, 2010 | 6:15 p.m.

("Proposition B will not solve our problem with substandard dog breeding facilities in Missouri.")

Ms. Nuttall:
Your approach to addressing the real problems of how and why animal abuse occurs is so much better than the insidious agenda of H$U$, the spawn of PETA.
Thanks for making it so clear that even a caveman can understand it.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 22, 2010 | 6:15 p.m.

comment cont.

The pet redefinition argument is, well, frankly, absurd. There is no definition of pet in the existing laws. Probably missed, or forgotten. Pet does have meaning with Proposition B because it separates out those show breeders, that breed primarily for show, from those breeders who breed primarily for selling the dogs as pets. Since the law differentiates based on "pets", it must be defined. If you look at the existing laws, other pertinent terms are also defined.

"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."

Specific to dogs. End of story.

Your reference to Mr. Pacelle's 1993 quotes were taken out of context, and are frankly irrelevant. This isn't Mr. Pacelle's law, this is a Missouri law. And your connection between the definition of "pet" and this old quote is illogical and a little incoherent.

As for the question on funding, that one is still out. My reading of this bill is that this is not going to add additional work for the Department of Agriculture. Yet the Department of Agriculture says it will. But they provide no justification for the costs. That's one I'm hoping that the Missourian will be able to get clarified. The fiscal note from the Department of Agriculture for Proposition B was not clear, and very confusing.

Inspectors? Every time a bill was introduced in the state legislature to add inspectors, or to allow the DeptAg to increase fees, the agribusiness interests lobbied to have them killed. So, I find this statement from breeders to be, well, I hate to use disingenious again, but I don't want to grab my thesaurus to find another term.

The judge one is way out of line. Currently, the only criminal acts attached to animals are existing criminal cruelty laws. They have a lot of gaps when it comes to kennels. And existing laws covering kennels have no criminal repercussion.

And I'll see your anti-Prop B people, and raise with the pro-Prop B people at http://yesonpropb.com/about/endorsements.... Oh, there's now 152 veterinarians who have come out for Proposition B. How many list themselves at the Alliance for Truth?

Thank you.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 22, 2010 | 6:17 p.m.

Ray Shapiro October 22, 2010 | 6:15 p.m.
("Proposition B will not solve our problem with substandard dog breeding facilities in Missouri.")

Ms. Nuttall:
Your approach to addressing the real problems of how and why animal abuse occurs is so much better than the insidious agenda of H$U$, the spawn of PETA.
Thanks for making it so clear that even cavewomen can understand it.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 22, 2010 | 6:29 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 | 6:49 p.m.

Hey Marina:
Is that the same Kansas City and St. Louis that actually expects 80% of its Democrats to turn out to vote for Robin Carnahan?

("Her supporters, I’m told, are counting on turning out an 80 percent Democratic vote in Kansas City and St. Louis. To have a chance, that’s what she’ll need.")
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

I guess that's what H$U$, the spawn of PETA needs as well.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 22, 2010 | 7:14 p.m.

www.petconnection.com/
Stephanie Shain of HSUS:
‘Good dog breeders are the first line of defense against puppy mills’

By Christie Keith

April 26, 2010

When I came to HSUS almost nine years ago, puppy mills were at the top of my list to work on. And about five years ago we said, “You know, something is wrong here, because we have people who want to do the right thing. They don’t want to get a dog who came out of a puppy mill. They’re coming to us saying, ‘Please help me find a breeder,’ and we’re not helping them.”

And to continue to have that “don’t breed or buy while shelter animals die” mindset felt wrong in a lot of ways. Number one, it felt wrong for those of us who had personal relationships with dog breeders that we had known over the years, and we knew they took amazing care of their dogs, and adored their dogs, and all of those great things that we all do, and it felt silly.

I mean, we’re trying to help people, they want to get a dog of a certain kind, and whether we think the greatest dog in the world is sitting in a shelter or not doesn’t really matter, because for this family, this is the kind of dog that they want. So let’s start talking about where to get that dog and helping them identify a good, wonderful, compassionate responsible place to get that dog.

So it was about five years ago that we decided this is crazy, and started talking about responsible breeders. And we’ve taken some heat for that, certainly, from people in the animal welfare community, who say, “There’s no such thing as a responsible breeder.”

We expected that that would happen, but we really felt like there is a very big difference between someone who is taking care of their dogs, and that dog is living in the home, and is part of the family, and they’re breeding, and having puppies, and selling puppies. That is like night and day when you look at a puppy mill.

But what’s been the most frustrating, having worked on it for so many years, is that I expected flack from the animal welfare community but I expected a different kind of a response from the dog breeding community, and that for the most part just hasn’t happened.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 22, 2010 | 7:28 p.m.

("...We’re dealing with a possible ballot initiative in Missouri that HSUS is spearheading. The ballot language is honestly very soft and on the face seems like “well dah” type of language.

But it won’t do a single thing to solve the ‘puppy mill’ problem in Missouri.

HSUS says there are 3,000 puppy mills in the state — which may well be true. But as of right now, we have 1525 licensed breeding operations. This means that we could shut down nearly half of every commercial breeding operation TOMORROW if we just had the state funded resources to do so.

However, at the time of our last state audit, the state only had enough inspections officers (13 at last count) to inspect about 60% of all of the LICENSED operations (even though the state law insists that all are inspected annually - the 60% includes shelters and rescues too which also have to be inspected by the state department of ag).

The new law will do nothing to solve the single biggest reason the state has a problem with poorly run, uninspected, unlicesed commercial breeding operations — which is lack of inspections officers.

The folks at HSUS aren’t dumb. They HAVE to know this. So why would they waste $500,000 to fund the petition initiative, and another likely $2 or 3 million in promotion to win the votes they need to pass this legislation when it won’t come close to solving the problem and really only includes a couple of line items not already covered by the USDA guidelines?

I don’t disagree with them for disagreement sake — but if their true motive was to help solve the puppy mill issue this would not be the way to do it. And if that’s not really their motive, then it scares me to think of what they’ll do next.

Comment by Brent — April 26, 2010 @ 12:54 pm")
Which do you hate more: HSUS, or puppy mills?
http://www.petconnection.com/blog/2010/0...

(Report Comment)
John Doppler Schiff October 22, 2010 | 8:52 p.m.

Robin, you are correct that Missouri's 12 inspectors are overwhelmed. But that's precisely why Prop B is a *good thing*.

ACFA provides 23 pages of regulations, requiring measurements, calculations, and animal handlers to verify compliance.

Prop B, on the other hand, requires only visual inspection to verify compliance. The simplicity of it greatly increases the chances of successful identification and prosecution of irresponsible breeding operations.

Furthermore, the provisions of Prop B are in addition to ACFA, not in place of. (See Sec. 7 of the proposed law.) Not a single regulation will be weakened by the implementation of Prop B.

Prop B is specific to breeders because all puppy mills are, by definition, breeding operations. The legislation targets the puppy mill industry. Obviously, it does not target shelters or pet stores, because those entities do not breed dogs for profit. Prop B is specific, focused, and direct, which means it has a much better chance of surviving challenges based on it being overly broad.

Prop B applies to DOGS. Period. READ THE BILL. "Pet" is defined -- for the purposes of this bill only -- as a household animal in order to prevent puppy millers from claiming they are raising working dogs that do not inhabit the house, and would therefore be exempt from Prop B's definition of a "covered dog". "Covered dog" is defined and used in the legislation in such a way that it CANNOT be applied to horses, cows, or other livestock. Again, read the bill in its entirety -- it's short, and it's clear.

It is unfortunate that you did not check your sources more thoroughly. HumaneWatch and ActivistCash.com are the same organization, the "Center for Consumer Freedom" (CCF), a disreputable industry front group masquerading as a charity.

On behalf of their "donors" in the seafood industry, CCF has attacked the CDC and advised pregnant women to eat more mercury-contaminated fish.

On behalf of the liquor industry, CCF attacked Mothers Against Drunk Driving and fought to eliminate penalties for drunk driving (ironically, with a recovering alcoholic and convicted drunk driver spearheading the campaign).

And now, on behalf of the worst commercial animal abusers in America, CCF is attacking the Humane Society of the United States.

Using CCF and its sockpuppet websites as references for your article has seriously undermined your journalistic credibility.

For more on CCF and its creator, DC lobbyist Rick Berman:

NY Times: Non-Profit Advocate Carves Out For-Profit Niche
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/18/us/pol...

Star Tribune: Humane Society Fighting A Smear
http://www.startribune.com/local/9622603...

(Report Comment)
michelle johnson October 22, 2010 | 8:54 p.m.

Several in the veterinary community would like to see the model kennel that they wish to impose on our clients. We keep asking to see their solution along with production records and also veterinary medical records. If they want the veterinary profession to work with them, they better come forward with the facts of their findings or they will have zero credibhttp://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.stlpublicradio.org%2Fprograms%2Fslota%2Farchivedetail.php%3Fshowid%3D4219&h=25c27ility with us.

(Report Comment)
michelle johnson October 22, 2010 | 9:09 p.m.

Line #9 of Prop B: "Pet" meaning any domesticated animal maintained in or near a household.

wikipedia "domestic animal"
When you kill the licensed kennels, there goes the revenue that they pay into the state. Ergo, no inspectors. HSUS has zero monetary investment in this. Taxpayers foot the bill on Prop B. There will be an explosion in illegal mills in this state when puppy prices sky rocket.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 22, 2010 | 9:15 p.m.

Schiff:
What business do you have in Missouri's economy anyway, first time poster on the Missourian?
Proposition B will hurt good, hardworking, legal service oriented kennels. Of course, when outsiders don't live in our state they couldn't care less about who they hurt.
Dogs have rights? What about the rights of business people, Schiff?
Are you an H$U$, spawn of PETA, shill making your rounds?
Welcome to Columbia, MO. Prepare for a dogfight, Californian Vegan...
http://dogtime.com/users/65427

(Report Comment)
Amy Katz October 22, 2010 | 10:51 p.m.

First, Prop B is in addition to, not instead of, current law. Also, there is a big difference between a shelter, which has a professional staff, and a breeder, which is typically a single person or family. Most breeders cannot care for more than 50 dogs responsibly. In addition, it's because breeders produce too many dogs that we have a need for shelters. It is simply cruel and irresponsible to continue producing puppies when 4 to 6 million animals per year are being euthanized in shelters. Missouri produces one-third of dogs being sold in pet stores across the country. Your dogs are taking away homes from our dogs, filling our shelters, and being euthanized at a cost to our taxpayers.

Second, the definition of pet in Prop B does not apply to livestock. How many farmers on today's industrialized farms keep livestock in their homes? Most livestock is kept in large Confined Animal Feeding Operations, confined in cages so tight they can’t turn around. The lucky few are kept on a pasture, but none are kept in someone's home. Nor has the HSUS has ever had the goal of doing away with animal agriculture -- just of getting animals intense confinement. And most Americans agree with them. This type of confinement is inhumane, which is why the HSUS has worked for laws against it in other states. Regardless Prop B in Missouri says nothing about farm animals. It speaks only to dogs.

Your use of Wayne Pacelle’s old quotes, taken out of context is ridiculous. Pacelle said this 20 years ago, in a discussion about heritage breeds of cattle, never about dogs and cats. On top of that, Pacelle has said his views of heritage breeds have become more nuanced since then. They protect the diversity of the genome, which is important at a time when so many animal farmers raise all the same breed of animal. Your citation of humanewatch and activistcash also reek of desperation. Both entities were created by the Center for Consumer Freedom, an organization that The New York Times calls a fake consumer front group. CCF is paid by big alcohol, food, tobacco and agribusiness interests to run a smear campaign against any organization that threatens their profits. They have targeted Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Centers for Disease Control, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and now the HSUS. They are shills paid to say what their benefactors want. If their benefactors asked them to run a smear campaign against your mother, they would do so without batting an eye.

If Prop B isn’t needed, why have so many licensed breeders racked up multiple violations of the Animal Welfare Act? A look at public records found deplorable violations by a dozen of them - http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs.... One thing we can agree on: Inspectors need to be better funded, and judges need to take these crimes seriously. They could start with the 12 habitual violators listed here.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 22, 2010 | 11:03 p.m.

Katz, dog poo on you.
Missouri's Bark Alert needs more support. Not more legislation.
This proposition will hurt Missouri's economy by increasing black market activity.
More layers of laws hurt and complicate.
Use what we have, Keep H$U$, the spawn of PETA out of Missouri.
http://mda.mo.gov/animals/ACFA/barkalert...

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 23, 2010 | 12:53 a.m.

Ray Shapiro, I am an on-again/off-again poster on the HummaneWatch Facebook page that Mr. Schiff mentions. As far as I know, Mr. Schiff has no business in Missouri at all (neither do I, but I live in a state with ballot initiatives and am nervously watching for the outcome in Missouri).

Mr. Schiff is a representative of a 3100-member Facebook group called "Stop Humanewatch." They do not like the HW mission of exposing the misdeeds of the Humane Society of the United States. They engage in ad hominem attacks both on their page and in letters to various online publications. Like the HSUS employees in the Emerging Media Department--of which I believe ShelleyP is one--he looks for anti-HSUS or anti-HSUS lobbying efforts on the Internet and posts the HSUS party line. And, like Wayne Pacelle, Mr. Schiff speaks from both sides of his mouth in terms of dog breeding: while he states that he believes there are "reputable dog breeders" out there, he also characterizes all breeders as being "dog abusers." The consensus on Stop Humanewatch is that of "if breeders have nothing to hide, then why should they object when the HSUS raids their kennels?" Because of the name of one poster, which refers to designer dogs, the page characterizes every breeder in the group--a group of almost 182,000 people--as being breeders of "every designer dog" imaginable. I occasionally breed Toy Fox Terriers (not a designer breed), with which I compete in dog shows and performance events--one of the SHW posters tried to claim that Toy Fox Terriers, a breed since the late 1930s, were Fox Terriers that were starved to make them small. Although this kind of ignorance is repeatedly posted on their page, I have to admit that they are active as well as strident. In fact, several members were among the paid petition signature gatherers in Ohio.

************************

From the SHW page

Stop Humanewatch: Humanewatch Breeders are Warning Each Other That Kennels are Being Raided Next Week in Missouri...

If they are taking such good care of their dogs, as they claim, then why worry? (and check the last line in the screen shot - if they have to told to put on underwear - do they bother feeding their "commodities" ?)

*********************

I hope this answers, at least to some degree, who Mr. Schiff is and what he represents. Good luck to everyone in Missouri. We here in the Gulf South are watching with bated breath, since the HSUS has gone out if its way in the last few years to paint all of us here as ignorant dog abusers.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer October 23, 2010 | 7:08 a.m.

Nice article, Robin!! Well written and accurate.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 23, 2010 | 7:14 a.m.

Oh bloody hell...

I am not, and never have been, an employee of any animal welfare group, including but not limited to HSUS. I will henceforth add this as signature to my comments.

I am not a member of Stop HumaneWatch--I tried Facebook, hated it, quit, and haven't been back--but I support the group's efforts. HumaneWatch is an offshoot from the Center for Consumer Freedom, which is a front organization for some very powerful, and not particularly nice, big corporations.

BUT, my interest in HSUS and my disdain for HumaneWatch, have nothing to do with Proposition B, which is about Missouri, the large number of puppy mills in Missouri, and ultimately, about the dogs.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 23, 2010 | 7:19 a.m.

Sorry for using what some people consider a swear word in last comment, but seriously, how many times do I have to say I don't work for HSUS in comments to this publication?

A person doesn't have to be paid by some organization to take a side, or to become informed, on an issue.

(Report Comment)
michelle johnson October 23, 2010 | 9:15 a.m.

Amy you missed part of what LINE#9 of Prop B states:
"pet" meaning any "domesticated animal" maintained in or "near" a household. Near applies to alot of farmers in this state including my parents. They keep their sheep and cattle in small grazing lots just feet from their home.

(Report Comment)
michelle johnson October 23, 2010 | 9:18 a.m.

Mr. Schiff evidently has no idea that those kennels pay fees into the state for puppies sold. That revenue goes in to help pay for those 12 inspectors. Take out the kennels and see what happens. We consolidated territories among those 12 when one retired this year. Why? Because our state along with the rest of the country is in trouble financially. Wake up! Prop B is a prescription for disaster and will be an invitation for illegal mills to boom all over this state.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 23, 2010 | 9:45 a.m.

Shelley, your patience and desire for conciliation qualifies you for for mini-sainthood.
If you manage to maintain these virtues, you and others like you will change the world.

Most of us started out this way ( I am assuming that you are comparatively young), believing that the innate humanity of human beings would rise above ego and selfishness and greed when engaged with tolerance and respect.

But, as you see here in these forums, which are simply microcosms of human interaction, patience and compassion often makes one a human 'punching bag'.

The concepts humanity and compassion cause enormous fear in those who have not been on the receiving end of them...

The educated and intelligent (who seem to make up much of this forum) respond to this fear with sophisticated mind-games...'fact', minutia, questions answered only with other questions, obfuscation and cleverly veiled disparagement..sometimes even humor.
.
The less sophisticated are much simpler in their response..accusations, insults, rage and venom and hate.
Sadly for them, they do not matter.

When perceived from a spiritual sense, the conditions of the 'lesser' creatures of the world are in large part, a metaphor for the conditions of human beings..

Most experience horrors too terrible to imagine, a few are exhaulted, even worshiped, and the rest occupy some place in the middle.

What lies outside this metaphor though, is the issue here.
Innocence, helplessness, the need for protection.

Which is why the great majority of the so called 'animal rights fanatics' are also labeled 'bleeding heart liberals 'as their compassion and concern does not end with creatures.
It extends to the innocent, helpless and unprotected among their fellow humans.

It is they who will change the world.

None of this is a 'solution'...only an explanation.

Prop B is simply another metaphor for the human experience.
Are we -or are we not- going to make an attempt , however small or flawed or contentious, to expand
the outside edges of compassion and humanity
to embrace the lesser among us?

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 23, 2010 | 10:34 a.m.

There is nothing conciliatory or virtuous about forcing ones moral code upon another, especially using an innocent third party as an excuse. The HSUS and the animal rights extremists that are in support of the HSUS are not concerned about animal welfare. That much is proved in this case by certain of the requirements of Prop B: dogs being allowed unfettered access to the outside is dangerous, not beneficial, to them and cutting the feeding requirements in half shows that they are unconcerned about strengthening the laws pertaining to dogs. (For the record, I only give my dogs one meal a day, but they get training treats or baby carrots during the day).

I don't understand how people can say that domestic dogs are "enslaved" or suffering because people own them. According to many scientists, dogs' ancestors chose domestication because they were opportunistic creatures, who found it easier to scavenge offal pits or to hunt with creatures that could kill at a distance (spear throwers). My dogs certainly seem to enjoy being with me. My dog Beau likes running an agility course and my shy little Leela, terrified of men, actually went up to a male class member at Rally class (which she loves for the "cookies" and the praise) and greeted him without any prompting.

The HSUS and other animal rights extremists want to eliminate the human/animal bond. Prop B helps do that by making it too onerous and expensive to breed new generations of dogs. This proposition does not prevent abuse and neither does it have any effect on unlicensed and illegal kennels--nor is it intended to. Rather, it is intended to have a negative impact on all licensed kennels that actually obey laws to begin with. Combined with other anti-pet/anti-breeder/anti-agriculture legislation, Prop B and other proposed laws like it seek to prevent any future generations of dogs being deliberately produced.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 23, 2010 | 12:05 p.m.

Terry, thank you, but I've lost my patience more than once in this debate. Speaking of which...

Kim Egan, I could wish that you argued your side on its merits, rather than resort to misinformation. You know for a fact, and you and others can see for yourselves in the writing of Proposition B, that this bill in no way breaks any bond between people and dogs. In fact, Proposition B is a celebration of the companionship between dogs and humans.

It is the soulless, large scale factory farms that break the human/dog bond, by putting dogs in cages for all their lives, with little or no human interaction or comfort.

I sometimes think the anger on the anti-Proposition B side isn't all about greed, but a defensiveness on the part of people who know, deep down inside, that dogs were never meant for large scale farming production methods. I wonder if there isn't a little guilt mixed in with the greed.

You talk about your dog in loving terms, but you support these large scale dog factory farms--I don't understand it, and never will.

I know HSUS makes a good target, it's a large organization. But so is the agribusiness interests in this state and elsewhere, such as those businesses behind HumaneWatch. I'd rather side with the organization that fights puppy mills, then the side of the organizations that profit from the inhumane practices of the large scale dog factory farms.

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 23, 2010 | 12:59 p.m.

Shelley, I never said that Prop B breaks the human/animal bond. What I said is that it helps the HSUS and other animal rights extremists in their goal to end that bond. The proposition makes space requirements that are "one-size-fits all" and not suitable for all dogs. The same with the requirement that all dogs have unfettered access to the outside. How "unfettered" is unfettered? Is the language of the bill advocating that all dogs be kept in kennel runs or outside with dog houses? That's sure what it seems to imply to me.

Good breeders, breeders who are active in the dog fancy, probably don't give their dogs that much space because they are inside with their breeders a lot of the time. Those who already use kennel runs, probably have an interior space per run, in which the dog is confined during foul weather (not unfettered, you know?). And what about people like me, with little dogs, that want to protect them from roaming packs of dogs, wildlife like foxes and opossum, and large predatory birds, all of which we have in this neighborhood. Is it wrong for me to want my dogs to only be outside on a leash with me in order to protect them?

I've got many reasons to oppose Prop B and its descendant that eventually makes it to my state. This bill is *not* designed to protect animals in substandard high volume kennels. There are already laws that protect dogs in those situations and there is no reason to expect that people who already run illegal businesses that disregard those laws to obey new ones. This proposition will only affect people who already obey laws. You want to improve dogs' situations? Push for funding for more inspectors and better enforcement of existing laws. Put the "bad guys" out of business; don't make it harder for people who love their dogs and the breeds that they've chosen to continue owning them.

Oh, and in the interest of full disclosure, I've bred five litters since 2003. I've produced 15 puppies; until Katrina, I could tell you where every one of them was. I have placed most of them with co-owners, I have donated two for service dogs, and I have bred several to keep and show. I sold one of them to a friend in another state who insisted on paying for him--I charged him half price--and that dog went on to be the #8 TFT in UKC for 2003. I sold another to a family that moved up North; that puppy is the only one for which I got close to full price. Altogether, I've "made" $950 on my dogs and have spent thousands on keeping them and showing them. If I had to build kennel space to conform to Prop B, I'd be unable to do so--my property is too small--but every dog I've placed has been happy and healthy being raised mostly inside my home. Granted, I don't have the number of dogs that Prop B says I would need to have to be under its control--but the purpose of having number limits is simply to seem reasonable while planning to reduce those numbers later. It's happened in other places and it can and will happen in Missouri.

(Report Comment)
hank ottinger October 23, 2010 | 4:50 p.m.

Forgive my interruption, but in a more perfect world, all of you would be far more concerned about the two (unfunded) wars our country continues to fight on into (in one case) its ninth year, along with the draining of our kids' blood and our national treasure to the tune of $2 trillion and counting--than the fate of puppies.

(Report Comment)
Robin Nuttall October 23, 2010 | 5:27 p.m.

Forgive me for being a bit tardy in responding to some of the comments; I was actually at a dog training seminar all day. I stand by my words but want to address just a few items, to make sure my position and thoughts are clear. Amy Katz stated:

"Also, there is a big difference between a shelter, which has a professional staff, and a breeder, which is typically a single person or family. Most breeders cannot care for more than 50 dogs responsibly."

Amy, I would be surprised to hear that you have a factual grounding upon which to make the above statement. If not, it's best not to improvise factoids would you not agree?

"In addition, it's because breeders produce too many dogs that we have a need for shelters. It is simply cruel and irresponsible to continue producing puppies when 4 to 6 million animals per year are being euthanized in shelters. Missouri produces one-third of dogs being sold in pet stores across the country. Your dogs are taking away homes from our dogs, filling our shelters, and being euthanized at a cost to our taxpayers."

This is an old argument and, on its face, a compelling one. However, let's look at it in a more logical and realistic manner. Seventy-five to 80% of dogs in shelters are NOT purebred. Even if every purebred dog in every shelter in the U.S. was a dog from a commercial breeder (which I think we can agree would not be true), it still means the huge majority of dogs in shelters are not from commercial breeders. The other part of your argument links numbers of dogs euthanized directly to numbers of dogs produced. It is simply incorrect to imply that every dog that is born to a breeder means a dog dies in a shelter. That's like telling your children that if they don't eat their peas a child will starve in China. There simply is no 1:1 correlation.

There are many reasons dogs end up in shelters. But the vast majority of dogs in shelters once had homes. In fact, many of us (including Nathan Winograd, a shelter expert and advocate), do not think we have a dog overpopulation problem in the U.S. We have a home retention problem. And not only do people deserve the right to get a dog which is the correct size, breed (or mix), coat type and temperament for their family, failure to do so is a good part of what bounces dogs into shelters.

Several comments imply that those who rescue or who are part of shelters are somehow inherently more capable of caring for a large number of dogs than a breeder. I think it is more correct for the writers of these comments to admit that they feel shelters and rescues are somehow morally superior to breeders and their moral superiority somehow makes them more capable caretakers. I simply disagree. I don't think a moral high ground, even if it is present, makes one more capable of physical care than not.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer October 23, 2010 | 6:48 p.m.

"It is the soulless, large scale factory farms that break the human/dog bond, by putting dogs in cages for all their lives, with little or no human interaction or comfort."

Shelley, do you just automatically believe everything HSUS tells you? I have a 20-dog 'large scale factory farm'. I am semi-retired now, but have had well over 50 dogs for many years. My dogs have luxury kennels, food and water available at all times, heat or air-conditioning (depending on the season), protection from parasites & diseases (including Animal Rights parasites!), daily positive interaction with humans, and anything else they need. They are happy, healthy, delightful little dogs. They neither need nor want any 'help' from HSUS or Prop B! MOST kennels in this state are very much like mine.....legal, licensed, legitimate, in compliance with all state and USDA rules. I realize that I, and other breeders like me, are the real targets in this war. Prop B would do nothing to prevent the bad kennels from flourishing, but would put me out of business. Vote NO on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 23, 2010 | 10:00 p.m.

Maintaining our ability to keep and breed animals is far more important than doing anything about so-called puppy mills. So are our human rights.

Don't even use the term "puppy mill." "Hoarder" is just as bad. These are labels. They are used to cover an entire person or business when there is only the slightest bit of evidence. Doesn't everyone already know this? Television shows often make fun of stereotypes like "gay men are always great interior decorators." Broad generalizations based on little to no evidence violate a person's right to due process. The manufacture offense that would not be there without the use of the label.

(Report Comment)
John Doppler Schiff October 23, 2010 | 11:36 p.m.

Thomas, "puppy mill" doesn't label an entire business. It identifies a disgusting, dysfunctional, harmful pattern of criminal behavior that stands out clearly from the practices of a responsible, caring breeder.

Nobody has the "right" to abuse and torture dogs for profit, and Missouri voters will affirm that.

Vote YES on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 24, 2010 | 12:04 a.m.

Hey Schiffty:
Thanks to H$U$, the spawn of PETA, the way this proposition is written, any legal, service industry kennel run by decent hardworking Missourians having more than 50 intact dogs, suddenly get branded the label of "puppy mill." That runs quite contrary to what you described.
I take exception to Santa Monican Californians telling Missourians that these are "puppy mills," and how much private property we are allowed to have or how large their decent, clean business can be.
Sounds awfully lefty anti-business to me.
Vote No on Propositon B.
Save Missouri's economy.
Go Tigers!

(Report Comment)
mary ann mcgregor October 24, 2010 | 12:22 a.m.

Do all the schools here in Missouri have air conditioning? Do the school busses have air-conditioning?, how about seat belts? School started in Mid- August this year - kids aged 5 to 18 were crammed in these busses, and it was hot as blazes.
Now, do you know the requirements that DFS has for foster children? They do not mandate that they go to Air conditioned homes, or that their bedrooms need to be a certain size.
Yet, here we have in Prop B - a bill that mandates the inside and outside space requirements for dogs - and requires air conditioning when the temp reaches 85 degrees. Their bedrooms need to be twice the size if there are 2 sharing the same space - but do parents have to have twice the space for 2 kids in the same room.
This is ridiculous. All this fussing back and forth, when most have not even read the whole bill - and stating opinions as if they are facts.
No way can you say that shelter and rescue operations care more about the dogs.
In our small town, they are in a building w/o windows - no light in there, no human interaction, once a day food is given to them and maybe it is hosed out. You CANNOT tell me that they are well cared for. ANd, I know this is not an out of the ordinary situation.
What about the pit bull locked in a house for a month? Two separate humane societies were called to come and get that poor dog. No one did. They did not care.

Common sense is not very common anymore.

Vote No on Prop B - let's all use our telephones - call Operation Bark if you know of an unlicensed facility - make sure they get inspected - Porp B will do nothing to stop any bad kennel operation.
VOTE NO on Prop B

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 24, 2010 | 12:37 a.m.

Mr. Schiff, it is a buzzword and it is currently being abused to punish legal businesses that are operating legally. The intent of Proposition B is to shut down or severely compromise businesses that have spent millions trying to comply with laws that were already difficult and costly. Now someone has the gall to try to make it illegal for these businesses to sell enough to cover costs?

The fact that you defend the label demonstrates that you are out of arguments that have any substance.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 24, 2010 | 8:19 a.m.

Robin Nuttal, pet owners are suing a now closed commercial dog breeders because of the various illnesses and defects the "purebreds" had from that organization.

All but the smaller, quality show or hobby breeders don't breed to the best of the breed--they breed for quantity. So, I'd rather have a healthy, adjusted mutt from the Humane Society than one of the "purebreds" from most commercial breeders.

But your assertion that there are no purebreds in shelters and rescues is, unfortunately, wrong. There are so many breed specific rescues now that are searching for permanent homes for dogs that actually once began life at these puppy mills. If a person wants a purebred, they can't certainly find one in the shelters and the rescues.

http://www.petfinder.com/index.html

And from what I've heard about what Petland charges ($2000-$4000 a puppy), for a whole lot cheaper, too.

Many shelter dogs had a home once, true, but many in the Missouri shelters are from licensed and unlicensed commercial dog breeders. Too many. Plus, when a female is "used up", if the breeder doesn't put her down immediately, the shelters get these dogs, too.

Mr. Winograd is full of it, but even he has come out in favor of Proposition B:

http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=4418

And I'll put my money on the organizations whose main interest is in the dogs, not profit, any day of the week, twice on Sunday.

If we eliminate the breeders that own 100, 200, 500, 1000 dogs (yes, we have breeders with this many dogs in the state), we have less puppies, we have less worn out or harmed females, we will have more resources to go after the illegal breeders--we will improve. If we don't pass Proposition B, we'll never see an end to the misery.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 24, 2010 | 8:25 a.m.

Ruth keezer, I don't believe anything anyone tells me, until I do my own research.

Thanks to the USDA putting their records online (the Missouri Department of Agriculture's digital records are seemingly unavailable until after January), we can see how widespread the re-occurring problems with shelters in Missouri is.

I was astonished to see breeders supposedly in the business for 10, 20 years, continuing to repeat the same violations, again and again.

More than that, there's a difference between allowing a dog to be a dog, and treating a dog like a chicken. The large scale commercial dog breeders treat dogs like chickens or other farm produce.

In most cultures, dogs weren't raised to provide food, fiber, or byproduct, which is the hallmark of agriculture. They were bred for many reasons, but all have to do with being with people: as security, as comfort, as help, as friend.

Nothing anyone will ever tell me will convince me that a dog can be treated like a chicken, or a hog, or a cow, and it's "OK".

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 24, 2010 | 9:14 a.m.

Missouri Dog Breeders Support Prop B Television AD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-JdE4CD7...

Join Me Nov 2, 2010
Vote YES! Prop B
Prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty!

(Report Comment)
Robin Nuttall October 24, 2010 | 10:08 a.m.

Ms. Powers, I'm curious, did you actually read what I wrote? I'm asking, because your reply directed to me seems to indicate otherwise.

"But your assertion that there are no purebreds in shelters and rescues is, unfortunately, wrong."

Since I never "asserted" that, of course it's wrong. I said 75-80% of dogs in shelters are not purebred. I'm unsure how you came up 20-25% being the same as zero.

"Many shelter dogs had a home once, true, but many in the Missouri shelters are from licensed and unlicensed commercial dog breeders."

Again, any kind of proof for that statement? All records I've looked at indicate the number of purebreds to be at about the percentage I quoted. Your statement seems to indicate that a large majority (many) of the dogs in Missouri shelters are purebred discards from commercial breeders. Having actually been to quite a few shelters that's not what I've seen, nor is it what is reported.

"And I'll put my money on the organizations whose main interest is in the dogs, not profit, any day of the week, twice on Sunday."

According to their own 2009 tax documents, the HSUS has net assets of $160.5 million.

"If we eliminate the breeders that own 100, 200, 500, 1000 dogs (yes, we have breeders with this many dogs in the state), we have less puppies, we have less worn out or harmed females, we will have more resources to go after the illegal breeders--we will improve. If we don't pass Proposition B, we'll never see an end to the misery."

But, unfortunately, you are just plain wrong. First, you will not eliminate large-scale breeders with this bill. Even if the bill passed and every licensed breeder in Missouri with over 50 dogs went out of business you *still* would not eliminate large scale breeders. They would go further into the black market, they would move to other states or other countries. You will have accomplished driving the industry underground. You will certainly be responsible for the death of thousands of dogs as the licensed, law abiding mills go out of business, but suffering of dogs will not be alleviated one whit and, in fact, will be worse.

And just in case you also didn't take the time to read my short bio on my commentary, I'd like to respectfully request that you stop labeling me as a commercial breeder. I've had two litters of puppies in 25 years; one in the 1980s which are long gone, and one 8 1/2 years ago with a total of three puppies, one of which is a Flyball champion in California, one in Wisconsin with a Master Agility Championship, and one who is sleeping on my couch at this moment and has, I don't know, something like 15 titles to date?

While we're clearing things up, I am also not Republican, not a Tea Party member, and in fact am a proud Democrat and Liberal. If I felt this bill would work to stop the breeders in Missouri who do mistreat their dogs, I'd be very strongly endorsing it. Unfortunately it will not do that.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 24, 2010 | 10:48 a.m.

I agree with Shelly...."And I'll put my money on the organizations whose main interest is in the dogs, not profit, any day of the week, twice on Sunday."
Robin Wrote:"According to their own 2009 tax documents, the HSUS has net assets of $160.5 million."
Prop B is also supported by Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation which has worked on the state level for reform in this industry for years. As a 10 plus year volunteer for MAAL, I'll believe them anyday over BIG AGRICULTURE & FACTORY FARMS.
.
JOIN ME 11-2-10
VOTE YES! PROP B!
PREVENT PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 24, 2010 | 11:45 a.m.

Marina:
Your invovement with MAAL explains your "animals before people," anti-private business bigotery towards the good hard working Missourians who can properly operate larger facilities.
Your ideology, while based on what you convey as compassion, is actually void of human-to-human decency as you become entrenched at pointing fingers at animal rights concerns at the expense of business rights concerns.
All the while, this action elevates you to a crusade which will never be attained as "humane societies" and "shelters" can be more inhumane than those who provide private services in the industry.
MAAL is just another "feel good about saving the animals" organization which fails to partner with larger scale business in the dog, animal, livestock and ag industry as they assume that big business is bad business.
(As you've described yourself as a small business owner, I can understand why you might view larger, more successful businesses as a threat and seek to destroy the competition.)
I read MALL's website. The only good thing about it was that they mention BARK ALERT as an enforcement of the 20+ pages of the current laws already on the books.
We need BARK ALERT. We don't need MAAL. We don't need HSUS. We don't need Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 24, 2010 | 12:48 p.m.

Ray... nice to know you think I am an "animals before people, anti-private business bigot " because I volunteer for MAAL. You won't intimidate me by calling me names. I could care less what you think about me. I know you are not going to change your position on Prop B. Like wise neither will I.. I am firmly a YES vote on Prop B. But I won't let your side be the only one heard on this board.

So, Ray, you want to call me an "Animal Rights radical" because I am involved at the state level as a VOLUNTEER and actually take advantage of my right to contact my legislators in Missouri on animal WELFARE issues (Along with children's issues, Veterans Issues, tax issues, health care issues, etc)

You said "Your ideology, while based on what you convey as compassion, is actually void of human-to-human decency as you become entrenched at pointing fingers at animal rights concerns at the expense of business rights concerns" Where did you get that? I believe that there is right & there is wrong. There are good business ethics & bad business ethics. What we have in Missouri's dog breeding industry is Bad business ethics & it needs to be legislated further.
Go ahead & make fun of my ideals. Won't change the fact that when I meet my maker I will do so with a clear conscience.
.
NOV 2, 2010
VOTE YES! PROP B
PREVENT PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 24, 2010 | 12:51 p.m.

And Ray... I disagree with you completely about MAAL being a " feel good about saving the animals" group. This is a grassroots organization funded by MISSOURIANS who work thru peaceful means to advocate, educate & legislate for ANIMAL WELFARE. (And if you don't know the difference between animal welfare & animal rights by this time.... Then read http://www.maal.org/Animal-Welfare.asp)

Ray, YOU said: "As you've described yourself as a small business owner, I can understand why you might view larger, more successful businesses as a threat and seek to destroy the competition." Actually, I see BIG AGRICULTURE as the biggest threat to Missouri's farmers. I'm not threatened by other business's. Actually, I THRIVE on competition, My company has NO DEBT and practices an ETHICAL business model.
.
.
And...For those of you reading this that don't know about MAAL (Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation). Here's some background info:

website: www.maal.org

The Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, founded in 1990, is a non-profit organization working to bring positive change for animals through legislative means. Goals include increasing public awareness regarding the plight of animals, addressing problems with appropriate legislation, and providing information to the proper authorities to ensure enforcement of the laws. As the only organized animal welfare lobbying group in Missouri, the Alliance is dedicated to furthering animal welfare issues by achieving these goals.

The Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation is an animal welfare organization.
According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, "animal welfare" is a human responsibility that encompasses all aspects of animal well-being, including proper housing, management, nutrition, disease prevention and treatment, responsible care, humane handling, and when necessary, humane euthanasia.
.
MAAL Position Statements for the 2010 Missouri General Assembly can be found at:
http://www.maal.org/Legislation.asp
.
NOV 2, 2010
VOTE YES! PROP B
PREVENT PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 24, 2010 | 1:05 p.m.

Ms Nuttall, please, you talk about statistics in one sentence, and ask how I could question your assertion about no purebreds in shelters, followed by another sentence that implies that I stated a majority of dogs in Missouri shelters are purebreds from commercial dog breeders.

And did I label you a commercial breeder? I didn't label you at all. In fact, I don't believe I made any personal reference about you. You say I didn't read your comments, when obviously you didn't read mine.

I also didn't bring any political affiliation into this discussion, because I believe Proposition B to be apolitical. The earlier affiliation with the Tea party was, I believe, an artificial attempt to generate some anti-Prop b sympathies from urban tea party members. In the end, I it wasn't successful--too many folks in the tea party movement really like dogs.

And your assertion about "black market" breeders, and the masses of imported illegal "black market" puppies...seriously? Are you sure you don't want to talk about the illegal immigrants coming over the border with puppies carried under each arm? Sharron Angle has a photo you can use in your campaign--just Photoshop a puppy into the picture.

"You will be responsible for the deaths of thousands of dogs" Oh, please. The anti-Proposition B people chastise Proposition B supporters for emotional arguments...sheesh, we ain't got nothing on you folks. You all have piled it on so high and thick that no one believes you anymore.

Other states have passed similar legislation and have had good success in doing so. We'll be the most significant state to make this decision, but, in the end, we'll be the better for this action. The dogs in this state will certainly be better.

As for the HSUS, I do support the HSUS BUT...this isn't about the HSUS. This isn't about the ASPCA or any other national animal welfare organization. This is Missouri, and the puppy mills in Missouri, and the dogs.

Marina, I didn't know you were a MAAL supporter. It's thanks to MAAL that I found all the past legislation for a longish story on Proposition B I'm writing. It's a great organization. I'll have to add MAAL to my list of organizations to which I donate. Thanks!

(Report Comment)
dan doherty October 24, 2010 | 1:12 p.m.

Proposition B is wrong for many reasons, and many of them are accurately stated in the author's article.
This bill does nothing to reduce the demand from some 77 million homes across America.
Does anyone believe people will quit buying dogs if Proposition B passes?
They will simply get them from other states.
Those state will also be the beneficiaries of new sources of tax revenue,jobs,homes purchased, and also quite a few very good veterinarians whose exodus from Missouri is almost guaranteed.
Remember, the Missouri State Veterinarians Association has went on record as being against Proposition B 100%.
This bill will not stop or eliminate those operating illegally. Does anyone think if it passes they will simply,"turn themselves in"?
Costs to enforce these new laws will increase exponetially by the fact revenue from legal operations is lost!
Proposition B is a bad bill, designed to destroy a legitimate industry, with propaganda and targeted marketing techniques designed to demonize those who operate legitimate,licensed,tax-paying commercial breeders.
The right thing to do is to vote it down, and enforce the rules that are on the books now.

(Report Comment)
dan doherty October 24, 2010 | 1:33 p.m.

"And your assertion about "black market" breeders, and the masses of imported illegal "black market" puppies...seriously? Are you sure you don't want to talk about the illegal immigrants coming over the border with puppies carried under each arm?"
.

Shelly,
Mexico is already illegally importing puppies and selling them on the black market in California and other states. This fact came to light during recent "busts" this year in California. Speaking of illegal immigrants, we haven't been able to stop the flow of them or drugs coming in from Mexico either, so I rather doubt we will be able to do much about black market puppies from Mexico either. By the way, I'm sure their facilities down there will be stellar, and if they are not, you are going to go down there and shut them down, right?
The problem is one of DEMAND, and 77 million Americans desire for a puppy that does not come from a shelter! In fact one of your frustrations is that the people of America would rather have a dog from a kennel than from a shelter. Demand always creates a void that will be supplied legally or not. I'm not saying the ends justify the means, I'm just showing what history has proven to be a fact.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 24, 2010 | 1:38 p.m.

("Other states have passed similar legislation and have had good success in doing so. We'll be the most significant state to make this decision, but, in the end, we'll be the better for this action. The dogs in this state will certainly be better.")
-Hogwash!

(Report Comment)
John Doppler Schiff October 24, 2010 | 2:56 p.m.

Robin,
The key points in your article were that
1) Our existing laws are better,
2) Prop B punishes legitimate breeders, and
3) Prop B redefines pets.

So far, the debate has centered on the second point, but I've addressed each of those claims in my post far above and I would love to hear your response to those as well.

Do you disagree that the simplified inspections Prop B enables would ease the workload of Missouri's underfunded inspectors and increase the likelihood of successful prosecution of violators? Do you concur that Prop B supplements and does not weaken the more stringent regulations of other laws, including those that continue to regulate operations not covered by Prop B, such as shelters and pet stores?

Do you disagree that Prop B's usage of the term "pet" applies only to dogs? The term is used in sections 4 and 7, always specific in conjunction with the term "dogs". I'm not aware of any technology that permits dogs to give birth to cattle or chickens, so this would invalidate your claim, correct?

Do you disagree that Prop B excludes shelters, rescues, and pet shops because those operations are not breeding operations, and this legislation is a specific, targeted law regulating breeding operations rather than an all-encompassing animal welfare statute?

I'm looking forward to your response!

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 24, 2010 | 3:19 p.m.

dan dougherty, I did search on illegal puppy smuggling. My apologies, it does exist.

And guess what? Puppy smuggling has been happening for years, before anything to do with Proposition B.

The problem isn't about demand. It's about impulse.

People walk by a pet store or trailer selling puppies and see a cute little puppy and they buy it by impulse. Someone has a puppy on the street and it's cute and seemingly cheap, and they buy it on impulse. They see a cute little puppy photo and buy the puppy on impulse. Or someone told them when they were looking for a dog they should get this breed or that, and they google on the breed and get sent to the breeder, and it's so convenient and easy to get from the breeder: provide a credit card and a destination for shipping. They find a puppy at a flea market, and can't wait to take that sick, most likely dying little puppy home.

Impulse.

If it was really about demand, you wouldn't have millions of dogs euthanized annually. If people were really thoughtful, they'd research the breeders and want to inspect the place before buying the puppy. They'd want to meet the puppy and ensure it is healthy, and the parents well cared for.

Proposition B doesn't end commercial dog breeding. What it does is ensure a better quality of life for dogs in commercial dog breeding operations: access to water, outdoor runs, temperature controls, clean, wholesome food, and few enough dogs so that they can get individual attention.

Someone with 50 intact dogs can produce a whole lot of puppies. This restriction isn't going to create a world wide puppy shortage crises.

77 million dogs in the country--do you really think every single one came from a commercial dog breeder? Or is purebred? All that number tells us is that there are a lot of people who love dogs.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 24, 2010 | 3:24 p.m.

I had to add this, though it's snarky:

Voice over for ad for puppies:

"The next time you're in the market for a mass produced, sickly, inbred puppy, don't buy that dog from Mexico or South Korea...But American!" In the add, show puppies with Made in USA stamped on their butts.

Yeah, that's a really good argument.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 24, 2010 | 3:35 p.m.

Ooo, typo city. Let's try this again:

Voice over for ad for puppies:

"The next time you're in the market for a mass produced, sickly, inbred puppy, don't buy that dog from Mexico or South Korea...Buy American!" In the ad, show puppies with Made in USA stamped on their butts.

(Report Comment)
dan doherty October 24, 2010 | 3:49 p.m.

John,
you said,"Prop B, on the other hand, requires only visual inspection to verify compliance. The simplicity of it greatly increases the chances of successful identification and prosecution of irresponsible breeding operations."
The fallacy of this argument stems from what you in your opinion claim is an "irresponsible breeding operation".
.
Proposition B is an attempt to redefine what a responsible breeding operation is. The law already defines that,and is complete with enforcement provisions from the state and the fed.
.

Proposition B is specific to breeders because it is written in such a way that shelters,rescue groups and pet stores can not comply with it either! I doubt anyone can and remain a viable enterprise with these standards, and if they do attempt it the penalty for non-compliance is the risk of a MISDEMEANOR CRIME for each and every violation. Additionally if you have more than 3 you are guilty of a class A misdemeanor crime, which means you could get 1 year in jail! Who is going to take that risk?
.

If the cage requirements are the new standard in your opinion of what is "humane" for dogs and it becomes law, then it undoubtedly should be the standard for every facility dogs are housed in, otherwise it is too narrowly focused and creates a biased double standard.

Proposition B is a bad bill, a "feel good bill", a punitive bill that will do absolutely nothing to reduce the demand for puppies anywhere, nor will it stop illegal operations from operation or force illegal operations to start being in compliance!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 24, 2010 | 4:26 p.m.

Dan doherty wrote: "The law already defines that,and is complete with enforcement provisions from the state and the fed."
Actually...the Problem with existing law is that it does not give clear provisions for enforcement. Prob B CLARIFIES and makes those laes more enforcable. For example.... Current law says the dogs should have daily exercise. But an inspector cannot qualify if the dogs receive daily excercise. How do you qualify that on the 364 days a year that the inspector is NOT at the facility that the dogs are let out of the cages for excercise? You Cannot. Therefor the law is not enforceable. PROP B however clarifies & sets a minimum standard of outdoor excercize area per dog, so an inspector can visually see that the dogs have minimum space for excercize. The excersize requirement can then actually be ENFORCED. Now a breeder can still go above the minimum and let the dogs out for longer excercise time, but at least there would now be ENFORCEABLE minimum standards that are equal accross the board in the industy.
.
Dan doherty wrote: "Proposition B is specific to breeders because it is written in such a way that shelters,rescue groups and pet stores can not comply with it either!"

Prop B is specific to breeders because the cages in breeding facilities are PERMANENT homes to breeding dogs whereas shelters, pet stores, rescue groups provide TEMPORARY homes to dogs. There is Huge differnece between a few weeks in a cage VS a LIFETIME.
.
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!

Missouri Dog Breeders Support Prop B Television AD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-JdE4CD7...
.
Join Me Nov 2, 2010
Vote YES! Prop B
Prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty!

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 24, 2010 | 7:05 p.m.

Proposition B is only going to hurt those who are operating legally. Nathan Winograd's statement is incredibly cruel. You would think he would be smarter than that, but he thinks that if someone has more than fifty dogs then they won't get humane care. His statement is incredibly bigoted. Bigotry, broad assumptions based on the fact that someone is breeding dogs, that is their entire case.

Even if so-called puppy mills contributed to over-population, and Winograd says that pet overpopulation is a myth, the owners of the businesses would still have a right to breed. Laws might be written to violate that right. That is what civil suits under section 1983 of the 1871 Civil Rights Act are for. Any authority that makes anyone give up their animals under color of law can be successfully sued in federal court.

Good breeders have everything to worry about. Fifty dogs is not enough to keep a business going. Even were Proposition B worded well, it would still be wrong to limit how many dogs one business may breed. We have the right to breed as many as we want.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 24, 2010 | 8:09 p.m.

Thomas, "We have the right to breed as many as we want."

No you don't. You don't have a _right_ to breed as many dogs as you want.

When you practice commerce in this country, there are rules you have to follow. Before you bring up the Constitution, since everyone seems to bring up the Constitution this election, the impetus for forming the Constitutional Convention was the need to figure out laws that controlled commerce between citizens of different states. Commerce laws were some of the first laws established for the United States.

So a person's actions as a commercial dog breeder are constrained by whatever rules are created to regulate the industry. In this case, rules regulated at the state level.

So unless you want to prove "You can breed as many dogs as you want" is a Constitutional right, or a right guaranteed by federal law, or that you're being denied the right to raise as many dogs as you want because of your sex, color race, or creed, I don't think you'll want to depend on this as an argument.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 24, 2010 | 8:12 p.m.

There are many commercial dog breeders who breed less than 50 dogs. In this state, and elsewhere.

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 24, 2010 | 8:25 p.m.

It is in the fifth and fourteenth amendment of the constitution that you hold in contempt, Shelley. Limiting the number of animals that a business may breed is a taking of property without due compensation.

The term "puppy mill" is used as a call to discriminate against a class of people, labeled as a "suspect class", and it is a hateful term used to incite people to discriminate based on membership in a class. This term is used in Proposition B to get people to behave hatefully towards people who are already complying with the law.

The numerical limits that you push for will cause hardship for thousands of people, including loss of jobs. I hope that every one of them learns your name and sues you personally for your actions against them. I think that a special interest group can be formed to do this. Ever hear of RICO and the AETA?

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 24, 2010 | 8:55 p.m.

A good deal of the cause for action will be your use of language, the repeated use of the term "puppy mill" in a manner that can only be described as hate speech.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 24, 2010 | 9:04 p.m.

And you're using bill that was originally called the Klu Klux Klan act, because blacks were being denied their Constitutional rights under the cover of state laws.

So the next time you want to toss around the phrase, "hate speech", you might want to consider exactly what the civil rights laws truly mean, and why they had to be created.

And next time, leave the law to the professionals.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 24, 2010 | 9:09 p.m.

("The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (AETA) levels the playing field. It shifts the burden of the cost of the pursuit of a case from the individual to the federal government. It also contains both a scalable penalty system and a means of ordering restitution to the affected parties when there is a course of conduct (pattern) of 2 or more acts violating the AETA which include bodily injury (serious or substantial) or economic damage.

The scalable penalty system is especially interesting as it allows a scope to deal with a range of events from the small scale to the large without the penalty necessarily exceeding the injury.

If you have been targeted in ways that appear to violate the AETA, please contact me. I will be happy to put you in touch with people who are happy to provide more information and help guide you through the process.

The AETA, its not just for the protection of the ‘big guys’ but the ‘little guy’ too.")
http://ar-hr.com/2010/03/14/why-is-the-a...
Federal Racketeering Lawsuit Stuns HSUS:
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_deta...
The “Humane Society” That Isn’t:
("...the group spent lavishly on animal rights campaigns, lobbying, and litigation to push a PETA-style agenda on Americans.

As we're telling readers of HumaneWatch.org, HSUS collected $97 million in donations last year and spent $22 million on fundraising. In other words, 23 cents of every dollar HSUS collected went right back out the door to raise more money. (We don't call 'em factory fundraisers for nothing.)

...political front groups and affiliated organizations that it controls.")
http://www.consumerfreedom.com/news_deta...
The nonprofit Center for Consumer Freedom unearthed the lawsuit in federal court records.

“America’s farmers, ranchers, hunters, fishermen, research scientists, fashion designers and restaurateurs have seen for decades how the animal-rights movement can behave like a mobbed-up racket,” said CCF director of research David Martosko. “But it’s still shocking to see the evidence laid out on paper. In a treble-damage lawsuit like this, a jury could actually do the humane thing and finally put HSUS out of business completely.”
http://www.drovers.com/news_editorial.as...
("…Combine the animal rights movement and organized crime and the result is one of the biggest scams in American corporate history. The animal rights movement has taken over the animal welfare charities also referred to as non profit 501(c) 3 corporations.")
http://myflyoverzone.blogetery.com/heres...

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 24, 2010 | 9:14 p.m.

What kind of "professional" are you, Shelley?

You're just saying that to discourage people from enforcing their rights. That may be your right but it makes you no less malicious and destructive.

Did you realize that you are pushing for the destruction of a population of animals just to get them out of human hands? It's rather like a practice run for genocide.

Your speech is most definitely hate speech.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz October 24, 2010 | 10:22 p.m.

Shelley, you might want to do some more reading on the rights that were covered by the 14th Amendment (as well as denied by the Supreme Court a short five years later in the Slaughterhouse case). Freed slaves were being denied the right by states to enter into contracts, own firearms, and engage in commerce. The Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, unfortunately, was essentially neutered by the Supreme Court shortly after the enactment of the 14th, but there is a cause underway to restore it, and the economic and commercial freedoms it granted.

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 24, 2010 | 10:23 p.m.

We generally restore the effect of such rights by fighting for them.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 24, 2010 | 11:15 p.m.

Save the Dogs.
Vote No on Proposition B.
http://listverse.com/2007/11/13/top-10-b...

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 24, 2010 | 11:16 p.m.

And thank you very much, Ray. We are indeed being treated to a display that tells us what kind of people would shut down legitimate, legal, licensed, and inspected breeding operations. Their speech is maliciously libelous and actionable.

Knowing what they did to black people that inspired the Civil Rights Act of 1871 is why I said what I did. I was taught about things like this over thirty years ago and the lessons stuck.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 25, 2010 | 12:34 a.m.

...Local vets voice opposition to Prop B.
http://www.maryvilledailyforum.com/news/...

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 25, 2010 | 2:22 a.m.

Opposition to Proposition B increases...
("Missouri State Representatives
Rep. Kenny Jones
Rep. Mike Parson
Rep. Mike Dethrow, Chairman of Agriculture & Natural Resources Appropriations
Rep. Jim Viebrock
Rep. Rodney Schad
Rep. Jason Smith
Rep. Brian Munzlinger
Rep. Tom Loehner
Rep. Therese Sander
Rep. David Day
Rep. Dan Brown, DVM

Missouri State Senators
Sen. Chuck Purgason
Sen. Frank Barnitz
Sen. Wes Shoemyer
Sen. Bill Stouffer
Sen. Dan Clemens
Sen. Gary Nodler

United States Congressman
Blaine Luetkemeyer

Veterinarians:
Versailles Veterinary Clinic
Brookfield Vet Clinic
Kevin Harsha
John Wade, DVM
Michael Peters, DVM
Red Barn Veterinary Service
Jim Foster, DVM
Debra Mayes, DVM
Seth Hartter, DVM
Split Rail Animal Clinic
Animal Clinic of Ava
Five Star Living, Inc.
Affordable Veterinary Care
J. A. Schmidt Veterinarian
Markway Veterinary Services
Scotland County Veterinary Clinic
Vienna Veterinary Clinic
Unionville Vet Clinic
Bowling Green Veterinary Clinic
Kesler Veterinary Services
Bowling Green Veterinary Clinic
Veterinarian Roger D. Hubner, DVM
Affordable Veterinary Care")
SOURCE AND MUCH, MUCH MORE:
http://www.thealliancefortruth.com/index...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 25, 2010 | 5:38 a.m.

To Shelley and Marina..
Here is a link of some interest, in case you have not seen it before.
It will be of NO interest, naturally, to the group here whose personal attacks upon you seem to escalate by the minute..

www.agnetwork.com/Jolley--Five-Minutes-W...

03/05/2010 08:43AM
'Five Minutes With Wayne Pacelle & The HSUS Controversies'
By Chuck Jolley
(Mr Jolley is writer based in Kansas City, who covers a wide range of ag industry topics for Cattlenetwork.com and Agnetwork.com)

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 25, 2010 | 8:14 a.m.

Thank you Terry. Yes, that was an excellent interview. Cleared up a lot of the FUD about HSUS.

I figured this issue would generate a lot of acrimony, and it has. What surprised me is some of the arguments used, such as "puppy mill" being hate speech.

Any person of reason can see that a whatever boundaries of reality were broached a long time ago, and best to just let the folks yammer away without attempting any further discussion.

I take comfort in 69%.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 25, 2010 | 8:32 a.m.

Support of Proposition B increases....
.
Larry Alkire, DVM
Kitty Barnett, DVM
Priya Bhatt, DVM
Al Boswell, DVM
Peter M. Boyt, DVM
Julie Brinker, DVM
Julie Burge, DVM
Peter Cappel, DVM
Dario Cappucci, Jr., DVM
Susan Caraker, DVM
Lianne Carr, DVM
C.B. Chastain, DVM
Janet Chipperfield, DVM
Tracey Cimmarusti, DVM
John N. Clark, DVM
Rachael Cobb, DVM
Janet Coffman, DVM
Robin M. Deck, DVM
Robin Duntze, DVM
Donald R. Early, DVM
Jason Eberhardt, DVM
Sarah Frei, DVM
Teresa Garden, DVM
H. Gordan Gilliat, DVM
Bryce M. Goman, DVM
Madeline Graham, DVM
Ryan Guldenpfennig, DVM
Shari Hamilton, DVM
Cheryl A. Hendrick, DVM
Kristina Hogg, DVM
James Irwin, DVM
Kaye L. Johnson, DVM
Liza Jones, DVM
Gary A. King, DVM
Linda Korn, DVM
Daniel A. Lange, DVM
James Leazenby, DVM
Emily Leonard, DVM
Sandra B. Leonard, DVM
Frank Levinson, DVM
Hannah Levy, DVM
Karen Louis, DVM
Cecilia Marshall, DVM
Christine L. Martin, DVM
V. Dean Maxwell, DVM
Aaron McCauley, DVM
Robert M. McCool, DVM
Lori McCool, DVM
Kathleen A. McCune, DVM
Connie A. Medling, DVM
Michael Meyers, DVM
Nicole Morhaus, DVM
Rebecca Newman, DVM
David Noatch, DVM
Shawn Patham, DVM
Chris Peterson, DVM
Frank Pusateri, DVM
John E. Reinhold, DVM
Paul Robertson, DVM
Stu Robson, DVM
Kimberly Sanford, DVM
Gwen Schlueter, DVM
Robert J. Schutrumpf III, DVM
Steven Schwartz, DVM
Matthew C. Shivelbine, DVM
Elizabeth Stoakes, DVM
Karen Stufflebean, DVM
Laura Sutherland, DVM
Deanna Tolliver, DVM
Emuel Vassey, DVM
Anita M. Watkins, DVM
Anthony Weiss, DVM
Laura Williams, DVM
Stephen A. Williams, DVM
Thomas S. Williams, DVM
Erica D. Wilson, DVM
Cheryl Wood
Dawnetta Woodruff, DVM
Christina Worth, DVM
Mark Wright, DVM
Kathleen Yaros, DVM
Gary Yavitz, DVM
Barbara Zehner, DVM
Lawrence Zeis, DVM
Angels Vet Express
Animal Clinic of Susquehanna
Animal Health & Healing
Animal Health Center
Animal Medical Center of Troy
Animal Medical Clinic
Animal Wellness Centers
Antioch Dog & Cat Hospital
Arch Animal Hospital
Associated Veterinary Specialists
Banfield, Tiffany Springs
Best Friends Animal Hospital
Bollinger County Veterinary Services
Boyt Veterinary
.
SOURCE AND MUCH, MUCH MORE:
http://www.yesonpropb.com/about/endorsem...
.
VOTE YES! PROP B!
PREVENT PUPPY MILL CRUELTY

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 25, 2010 | 9:54 a.m.

Shelley, have you seen this interview re the HSUS' repeated attempts to partner with responsible breeders?

www.petconnection.com/blog/stephanie-sha...

Again, this will be ignored or dissed by the fringe herein...

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 25, 2010 | 10:08 a.m.

AVMA Refuses to Partner with HSUS:
The organization representing more than 73,000 veterinarians across the country has dismissed plans to ally with the nation’s leading animal rights group.
("According to the latest issue of DVM Magazine, the American Veterinary Medical Association’s (AVMA) Executive Board unanimously decided in April to scrap plans for a joint letter to Congress with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). The letter was intended to promote animal welfare issues, but the AVMA soon thought better than to get in bed with the anti’s.")
http://www.gundogsonline.com/Article/AVM...
HSUS readies launch of new veterinary association
Group merges with AVAR to form alternative to AVMA
http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/art...
("Predictably, the AVMA opposes this organization on the grounds that science must direct its positions rather than the reactionary aims of certain groups that would reject its conclusions. In a Q&A regarding HSVMA published on the AVMA’s website, its position is clarified: “[In making decisions on animal welfare issues], the AVMA regularly communicates with a broad range of stakeholders, including individuals and organizations associated with the animal protection community, the animal industries and governmental agencies.”)
http://www.veterinarypracticenews.com/ve...

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 25, 2010 | 10:16 a.m.

Here is on MAJOR lie that I found in that article:

"So it was about five years ago that we decided this is crazy, and started talking about responsible breeders. And we’ve taken some heat for that, certainly, from people in the animal welfare community, who say, “There’s no such thing as a responsible breeder."

It is not animal *welfare* proponents that have that position. In general, it is animal *rights* people who have that position. However, the HSUS has been fraudulently positioning itself as an "animal welfare" organization--and, when that failed, attempted to re-brand itself as an "animal protection" agency.

I had the occasion to speak to Sarah Barnett, the HSUS "Emerging Media Manager," back in March. I asked her why she would, as a self-proclaimed pet lover, support the HSUS when it's goal is to end domestic animal ownership and use and she told me that there was no way she'd support an organization with that goal. I then asked her how she could say that was not the goal of HSUS, when they sought to demonize breeders. I also asked about why, if the hSUS was such a wonderful organization, it was sponsoring anti-pet/anti-breeder/anti-agriculture legislation. She said that there was no intention to demonize breeders there and that they even had a puppy buyer guide to finding a good breeder. She then asked me if I had any particular legislation in mind.

I sent her a long email back in response, detailing my concern over various pieces of legislation and over the puppy buyer's guide. I never heard back from her. I guess she figured out that she was speaking with someone familiar with the issues and that she wasn't going to be able to snow me. (cont'd)

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 25, 2010 | 10:24 a.m.

This is a bit of an aside, but I believe it is a sign of what eventually IS to come...
One of my rescues came from this dog-farm in Tennessee... my rescue group was one of many who partnered with the HSUS in this raid.

www.inhumane.org/data/PAdkisson.html

Except for the many dogs who were sick and dying, the remaining 600 or so were transported, rehabilitated and eventually adopted.

The circumstances of this mill..and most terrible they were..inspired Tennessee's anti dog-farm legislation.
And Patricia Adkisson. the so called 'breeder', is enjoying a 10 year prison stay.

If it can happen in Tennessee......

http://www.inhumane.org/data/PAdkisson.h...

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 25, 2010 | 10:29 a.m.

The HSUS is well known as a fraudulent charity. What Terry Ward dismisses as "fringe" is actually mainstream.

The use of the term "puppy mill" is malicious, destructive, and bigoted. Limiting the number of dogs that a breeder may breed will punish legal, registered breeders who have a right to expect their businesses to be protected because they are legal and licensed. Calling them what you think of as a dirty name is malicious behavior. You still attack them even when they have been forced to submit to inspections and to be licensed. You even attack the agency that is charged with doing those inspections.

You are malicious and destructive to animals and to people, Shelley.

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 25, 2010 | 10:32 a.m.

Over and over again we learn that when we give someone the power to "go after" what they think of as animal abusers, an animal rights organization muscles in and starts abusing people.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 25, 2010 | 10:34 a.m.

Kim, as I said in my post
'this will be ignored or dissed by the fringe herein'.

I am reminded of my born-again sister who believes that archeologists 'lie'
when they say that the Pyramids are 5000 years old.
The bible has told her otherwise...end of story.

(Report Comment)
dan doherty October 25, 2010 | 10:38 a.m.

'Five Minutes With Wayne Pacelle & The HSUS Controversies'
By Chuck Jolley
.
I found this article you posted very interesting. It was even more interesting reading the comments section exposing the truth about HSUS and the lively verbage used to expose such truths with the following examples;
.
"Oh, Mr. Pacelle is so slick and sly. LIke a wolf in sheep's clothing, which is exactly what he did. Some good comments I'm seeing. Pacelle neglected to say that when they train and evaluate shelters, the shelter is charged $25,000."
.
and
.
"Our nation’s shelters are in deplorable shape. They kill over 4 million healthy and adoptable animals yearly, violate pet owner’s civil rights, oppose workable solutions to end confiscation and killing, resist working with rescues, oppose workable solutions to end the cycle of killing, have morphed from protecting the public to terrorizing the public, and are failing the animals they’re charged to protect. And who trained them? The HSUS!"
.
and
.
"He also conveniently skipped over answering directly about the RICO suit, deciding instead to play it that the HSUS is disappointed that the lawsuit was lost on a "technicality". Excuse me- when someone is paid to produce testimony, that paid person is generally required to say what those who are paying want them to say "
.
and
.
"he is very good at misleading the public. A judeas goat is what we use to call this type of animal. He is very smooth and if the proof was there then Ringling would have not won the case. 700 support lawyers and he claims the judge was bias. I am not surprised at his very calculated answers to make HSUS look innocent and helpful. But everyone knows that the animal rights laws HSUS pushes means the end of domesticated animals now, not later."
.
and they then throw in a few fact checks;
.
"In addition, those 5 shelters he mentions were all established by other organizations, and have their own endowments for support. HSUS has operating agreements with some and others were added to their roster of affiliates."
.
and
.
"In the 50 years HSUS has been around their primary accomplishment has been to expose their own incompetence. They’ve proved themselves to be dismal failures at reducing shelter kill rates and saving animals. With no direct experience and a bleak record, taking sheltering advice from the HSUS is like asking Bernie Madoff for investment tips."
.
and
.
"That day will only come when America wakes up to the truth: the Humane Society of the United States is not humane at all. It (and not America) is responsible for 4 million needless deaths of dogs and cats each year. They are not qualified to lead or teach anyone employed in the public sector, and their repressive policies should not be made into law."

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 25, 2010 | 10:44 a.m.

("But animal rights activists (an almost exclusively liberal province, by the way) perceive that simply by virtue of birth, every organism, everywhere, is endowed with the same rights as citizens of the most progressive democracy. They naively rewrite the rules of nature, glossing over the fact that animals grant no rights at all to each other. Among animals, might makes right — there are no such things as privacy, equality, due process, equal protection under the law, property boundaries, or anything resembling the complex structures we reasoning humans have put into place to safeguard our rights. This fact alone proves that animals are incapable of honoring the basic contract necessary for the existence of rights.

How’s that for irony: Those that champion animal rights in the name of humanity are themselves quite animal-like — in that they can’t comprehend the nature of what makes rights possible!")
Animal Rights vs. Human Rights
Jim Amrhein argues the animal rights issue by pointing out that animals have no rights, and compares the issue to human rights.
http://dailyreckoning.com/animal-rights-...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 25, 2010 | 10:55 a.m.

Thomas Kirby, did someone take away your tiger?

No WONDER you are so angry.
And understandably so....

But this issue is about irresponsible dog breeding practices, not big cats.

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 25, 2010 | 11:00 a.m.

I did consult the puppy buyer's guide as she suggested. The "guide" is not so much advice as it is propaganda against "puppy mills" (http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pupp...). If you follow that link, you will notice that they never define what a "puppy mill" is.

The guide she recommends so highly states the following about breeders:

2. Find a responsible breeder and visit their premises. Responsible breeders provide a loving and healthy environment for their canine companions, one that they will be proud to show you. Never buy a puppy without seeing where they and their parents are raised and housed with your own eyes. Read more on how to find a good dog breeder (http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pupp...).

Notice that this link *also* starts with the exhortation for the person to consider adoption first. In addition, the ONLY advice given on this page is for the person to get referrals and for the buyer to visit the dogs'"parents' in the home in which they were raised. It then provides ANOTHER link, this one to their checklist. *whew!* that's a lot of work.(http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/pets/puppy_mills/how_find_good_dog_breeder.pdf)

Have you noticed that all of these links are under the heading "puppy mills"? Interesting, no?

So, here are some of their minimal requirements;

* Keeps dogs in the home as part of the family—not outside in kennel runs (How does this mesh with Prop B space requirements, which any breeder with over 10 dogs will need to follow?)

* Has dogs who appear happy and healthy and don’t shy away from visitors (Some breeds, such as terriers and working dogs, will often approach strangers tentatively, if at all.)

* Has a strong relationship with one or more local
veterinarians and shows you individual records of
veterinary visits for your puppy (Some breeders give their own shots, except for rabies.)

* Feeds high quality “premium” brand pet food (What about people who feed a raw diet or a combined raw/kibble diet?)

* Encourages multiple visits and wants your entire
family to meet the puppy (Thanks, I don't want small children in my home, let alone multiple times. I'll happily meet with families with children in the local park, though more likely I'll suggest another breed of dog for the family.)

(more)

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 25, 2010 | 11:01 a.m.

Again, buyers are reminded that they *must* visit the breeder's home, otherwise they have no way of telling if the puppy comes from a good place. I think that breeders have many legitimate reasons not to permit people to come into their homes. One favorite animal rights activist tactic is to pose as a puppy buyer, go into the breeder's home and find faults that are unrelated to dogs (dishes in the sink, for example) and make a complaint about dirty conditions or to count dogs, including puppies, and making a complaint as if all were adults. There was also a case of a person--not an AR activist--who befriended a breeder posing as a puppy buyer, visited her home several times, and then murdered her, cutting her unborn child from her body because she wanted a baby. Yeah, letting someone into your home is *so* safe . . . people who live alone and keep their dogs in their homes are right to be cautious.

On the whole, the HSUS document is not a bad one, but it puts everything in such black-and-white terms. It is also not a good document in that it doesn't define everything, requiring the buyer to define what a premium food is, what adequate space is, what a "happy" dog is, what "good" veterinary records might be, and so on. Not everyone gives annual shots, not everyone feeds Blue Buffalo, and not every breed is an out-going one. In addition, for all of its talk of breed clubs and shows and such, the document never tells the buyer how to contact these organizations or what to look for or to do once you get to a show.

The HSUS is great at giving superficial advice under the guise of supporting something, but it's like "certified humane" meat. I'll believe that Wayne Pacelle is behind breeders when he buys a purebred dog from one--and joins that person for a big slab of "certified humane" steak served with cage-free eggs.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 25, 2010 | 11:57 a.m.

No Terry, I had not seen the Stephanie Shain interview previously. Very interesting, and somewhat what I said over at the Columbia Tribute, about the Santos Hill kennel being a poster child _for_ Proposition B. It demonstrates that one can have a well designed and maintained commercial dog kennel, have under 50 dogs, and be successful.

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010...

That story of the Tennessee puppy mill was heart breaking, and also demonstrative of why we need stronger legislation for going after people like that horrid woman.

As for other comments...so many comments, and so few having to do with Proposition B...

Kim Kagan, it sounds like you tried to get an HSUS rep to validate your opinion and she wouldn't and therefore, according to you she's a liar. In fact, Proposition B demonstrates that no one is trying to close all commercial dog breeding operations, no is trying to shut down the breeders--none of the hysteria about legislating humane practices for breeding operations has been proven.

I consider myself an animal welfare person, though I don't work for any agency, but I'm not against all breeders. A good friend of mine's parents are world class newfoundland breeders. They're wonderful people, with pretty amazing dogs. Nice dogs, too.

So, I don't understand your comment. But at least you didn't accuse anyone here of hate speech.

dan dougherty, your comments about the Pacello interview.

Mr. Pacello cannot respond directly to the absurd RICO case, which I feel extremely confident will fail, because people and organizations involved in pending legal proceedings are advised by their lawyers never to discuss the case outside of court.

As for the other comments to the story, one need only look at the comments to this story to see how one should judge the general veracity and quality of comments when it comes to animal care and anything even remotely attached to the HSUS.

I wish, though, that folks would focus on Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 25, 2010 | 11:58 a.m.

Columbia Tribune, not Tribute.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 25, 2010 | 12:19 p.m.

Sorry, another typo: it's Pacelle, not Pacello.

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 25, 2010 | 12:31 p.m.

Yes, and please try "Egan," not "Kagan." ;) I wasn't going to say anything, but since you're pointing out your own spelling errors . . .

Look, I was looking for her to validate my opinion or tell me why I was wrong. What really fries my bacon is that she was fine when I was talking generalizations and was happy to say that they could bring pets to work and so on (yeah, try bringing a bologna sandwich!). The second I started talking about particular kinds of legislation--not even bill numbers--she clammed up and *never* approached me again. In my experience, that means that she had nothing to say in rebuttal or at least nothing that she was permitted to say in response. When organizational representatives clam up like that, despite reassuring words of wanting an accord, it's time to start examining what they *do* say more closely.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 25, 2010 | 12:54 p.m.

Apologies for getting your name wrong. I have the devil of a time with this comment box, and going back and forth to the comments. And the preview doesn't honor the white space, so it's almost impossible to see your types (of which I do too many, anyway).

If I were working for an organization that is misrepresented as much as HSUS is represented, I think I'd be wary of people who might seem to be trying to say or write something that could be taken out of context to be used against me at a later time.

I'm not saying this was your intent or interest, but if I did work for something like HSUS, I would be very careful to ensure whatever I said wasn't going to pulled out of context into quotes on the front of a web site, such as The Alliance for Truth or HumaneWatch.

I'm nobody in the animal welfare or animal rights movement, but I've found my words twisted beyond recognition, and have castigated for hate speech, too boot. It does make one want to just walk away.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 25, 2010 | 12:56 p.m.

Correction:

If I were working for an organization that is misrepresented as much as HSUS is misrepresented, I think I'd be wary of people who might seem to be trying to get me to say or write something that could be taken out of context to be used against me at a later time.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 25, 2010 | 1:49 p.m.

And now.... back to the issue.... yep, you guessed it... Proposition B!
.
Proposition B will add to & clear up our current legislation regarding dog breeding & 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. Once Prop b passes, the Commercial Dog breeding industry will have 1 year to comply & come up to standards with Prop B. Looking to the future, the passage of Prop B will mean less rescues, less cruelty, less euthanazia from overbred & abandoned breeding dogs from puppy mills.
As a Missourian, I'm sick of living in the "Puppy Mill Capital of the US". Missouri claims this title because our laws are the WEAKEST in the nation! Missouri has 3 times more licensed commercial dog breeders than any other state, we attract the cess pool of the dog breeding industry.
.
I honestly believe that anyone who understands the horrific impact PUPPY MILLS have in the state of Missouri can only come to one conclusion . Please join me in voting YES on Prop B this November.
.
Missouri is the Show Me State! This November, Missourians need to show some compassion!
.
Join me in VOTING YES! on Prop B!
Prevent Puppy mill Cruelty!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 25, 2010 | 2:05 p.m.

("The so-called “puppy mill” bill is unnecessary legislation that would arbitrarily limit the number of dogs a breeder can raise to 50, interfering with the operations of legitimate operators.")
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010...

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 25, 2010 | 2:11 p.m.

Shelley, no worries about the name. I'm not offended by spelling mistakes of any kind (despite being an English major!), unless they are deliberate and inflammatory--but then they're not "mistakes," right?

I understand what you're saying about people being misrepresented and wanting to avoid any misunderstandings by walking away. If you can respect that on the side of the HSUS, however, which is a huge organization with over 30 lawyers on retainer, then imagine how it feels for us individuals of modest income, who have to get their lawyers from the Yellow Pages. Breeders are constantly being maligned and misrepresented without any recourse available to them, no matter how clean and well-maintained their "facilities" are.

I can't tell you how many times I've been called a "puppy mill" by pro-HSUS individuals, despite my animals being happy, in good health, and being raised inside my home as my loving companions. Yes, I keep pregnant mothers in nursery crates for a few days before they are due to give birth and yes I keep my new dams and new pups in nursery crates until the little ones are walking--but--my little dogs give birth to pups that range from 3 to 5 ounces as newborns and it's for their own safety. Even nursing mothers get out of the crate for a few hours a day, even if those with newborns aren't allowed around the other dogs at first--again, for the puppies' health. But to be called a puppy mill because I've bred five litters and brought 15 puppies into the world, that's pure nonsense. And, sadly, it's becoming a common tactic for HSUS representatives and supporters to call breeders who don't agree with the AR perspective "puppy mills," no matter how untrue it is.

(cont'd)

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 25, 2010 | 2:11 p.m.

So yes, the Prop B is a bad thing. It feeds into the general idea that all breeders who do not agree with them being targeted--it's fairly easy to do with licensed kennels, since the HSUS sets itself up to get approved as an enforcement agency. Unfortunately, Prop B does not provide any way to bring non-licensed, illegal kennels into compliance with the law nor does it make any significant changes in condition requirements, except for those space requirements that would make it impossible for breeders with small properties or limited incomes able to comply with the law.

Compassion is not determined by numbers, no matter what the measurement. A good breeder can maintain 100 dogs (an arbitrary number), while a poor breeder won't be bothered to maintain 10. Prop B is all about the numbers, something that is proved by Anne from HSUS when she equated cruelty/compassion with the arbitrary number "50." But believe me--there are many breeders who would support legislation, even those with numbers, if it would seem reasonable. What about a breeder can maintain a facility with up to 20 dogs/runs by him- or herself and requiring an employee per another level of dogs? (30 dogs = 1 employee, 40 dogs = 2 employees, or something similar.) It's still legislation by the numbers, but at least it's proactive and does not demonize anyone with labels.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 25, 2010 | 2:22 p.m.

Missouri Breeders support Prop B ad:
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-JdE4CD7...
.
VOTE YES! PROP B
Prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 25, 2010 | 3:55 p.m.

If Proposition B passes, people will start buying dogs from the country of Mexico.
This is just another bad legislation which "outsources" American made and bred goods and services.
Que Lastima!
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 25, 2010 | 5:58 p.m.

Kim, Shelley, Marina..Possibly we can keep the rest of the discussion between us
as I'm beginning to feel the need for a shower when I read some of the other posts..

Kim is a voice, sadly, for many of my friends who are show/hobby breeders..
I have talked myself blue in the face trying to convince them to PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE IDIOTS WHO PAINT ALL BREEDERS WITH THE SAME BRUSH.

The conversation is never contentious as they know I love and respect them. but I might as well be pleading to a potato.

As we are in Pennsylvania, I repeatedly ask them if they know of--or have heard of --one single breeder of their caliber who has been put out of business by Pa.'s recent dog- farm legislation.

'No' is their answer.

Kim, I really believe this is an issue of developing a thicker skin..

In reality the 'all breeders are bad' loudmouths and the proselytizing vegetarian crusaders do more to harm the animal protection movement than the folks mentioned above who make me want to take a shower.

They add fuel to the rants of the bad guys and the rabble because they refuse to use common sense and agree to get behind one single banner.

We will not stop people from eating animals or breeding them... only a fool could expect so in this or the next 10 lifetimes.
What we CAN do, though, is IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE of the creatures of the earth.
And if everyone would get rid of their personal agendas and begin to speak with one voice with this goal in mind, we would do wonders.

THIS is what scares the bad guys...more than anyone can imagine.
Because they also know it's possible.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 25, 2010 | 6:39 p.m.

Well, two-thirds of Pennsylvania's breeders did shut down after it passed, and Pennsylvania's law does not have a limit on the number of dogs a breeder could have.

We do not need to limit the number of dogs a breeder can breed. We need to ensure proper care and enforce it better. Prop B is unnecessary for this.

DK

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 25, 2010 | 7:13 p.m.

Thank you Terry for a wonderful essay & for showing support here for Prop B! We need more people like YOU in this world!
Likewise, I've talked with many GOOD breeders here in Missouri that support Prop B. Not all breeders are puppy millers. Breeders that truly care about their dogs actually WANT & RELISH the change that Prop B will bring to Missouri. Finally, some CLARITY to make the laws enforceable!
The Vote Yes on Prop B campaign recently released a couple ads with breeders supporting Prop B:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-JdE4CD7...
.
I have nothing but respect for those breeders. Their number one priority is the care of the dogs, not the profit margin. They are courageous enough to publicly make a stand.
.
VOTE YES! PROP B
PREVENT PUPPY MILL CRUELTY

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 25, 2010 | 7:57 p.m.

As we say in the tech field, Terry:

+1

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 25, 2010 | 8:16 p.m.

Vote “NO” To defend Missouri against animal rights extremism!:
Missouri Family Network, defending traditional families
http://missourifamilynetwork.net/2010/09...

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 25, 2010 | 8:25 p.m.

So, Terry . . . just shut up and sit down? No, sorry, I can't do that anymore. If we'd been vocal from the beginning, we wouldn't be in this mess. The problem is that people in the dog fancy (and probably the other animal fancies) didn't take the animal rights extremists seriously and didn't speak up to say that we're good people.

The time for silence is over. Animal rights = no animals left. It needs to be said and I'm saying it.

Any time I enter a discussion, it's not to convince the animal rights extremists of anything--they're already lost souls. With any luck, however, there are a few undecided people reading these discussions and with any luck reasonable discussion will encourage them to realize how future pet ownership is threatened by Prop B and all its legislation cousins.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 25, 2010 | 8:44 p.m.

ARRRRRRg! Missourifamilynetwork...humanewatch-- Shower time!!!!!

Thanks Marina& Shelley ..and hopefully Kim will recognize a small white flag!.

Here is another no-answer question for the Prop B truthers. (doncha LOVE that?)

All these political Poobas and antiquarian-veterinarians and kennel-clubsters
and anti-humaniacs..who have ' taken positions in opposition to this bill'...

What 'position' did they take BEFORE the bill?

Did I miss their collective chorus of mighty voices raised in opposition to breeding abuses?

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 25, 2010 | 9:10 p.m.

The so-called problem, even if it existed, is not worth giving up any of our rights for.

Because of the 1871 Civil Rights Act, it is actually illegal to enforce an unconstitutional law such as this one. Police and everyone else involved in enforcing it can be sued for large sums of money if they so much as look at a breeder funny. So-called puppy mills stand to clean up if this law is passed.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 25, 2010 | 9:20 p.m.

"Bob Baker, former chief inspector of the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and current consultant to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Baker hired an undercover animal-right investigator to produce a video inside an alleged puppy mill. The animal rights people have been known to doctor photos and videos before. Interestingly, the video and the PA Puppy Mill story are featured on the Animal Rights Liberation (ALF) net site. ALF has been named one of the top 10 U.S. terrorist organizations by the FBI. Numerous witness testimonies have been presented before the U.S. Congress concerning the AR terrorists and the harm they have done to individuals and businesses." The dogplace.org.

(Report Comment)
dan doherty October 25, 2010 | 9:37 p.m.

Ughhhhh! I am so angry right now!
I just found out that the commercials that Marina Shane was promoting a few posts back with breeders supporting Proposition B is pure propaganda!!
.
TRUTH ABOUT THIS AD EXPOSED NOW!
I have information that says
The 3 individuals in the commercial are:
Cecily Barker President of Save our setters rescue
Bev Stobart who is also a rescue leader
and Dr Melanie Mercer, a veterinarian residing in TEXAS!

If this proves to be true then it is propaganda,propaganda,propaganda and maybe worse!!

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 25, 2010 | 9:51 p.m.

Terry, speaking only for myself, I've been anti-animal rights since about 1987. My husband and I had a friend who had been kicked out of her parent's house (yes, she was our age; it's a long story) and she needed someplace to stay. She came and stayed with us. Come to find out she was a vegetarian (*that* lasted till Thanksgiving) and that she was a member of PeTA. She so loved our animals that she could see we were not abusers of any kind, so she eventually dropped her PeTA membership, too. Prior to that, however, she kept trying to get me to join, saying how wonderful it was for animals. One day she showed me a newsletter in which they were advertising a PeTA rally in a nearby large city, trying to get me to go with her.

I was appalled.

The language that was being thrown around in connection with the rally was bad enough, but even worse were the pictures in the newsletter. I will never forget the picture of the vivsected dog on a table with a horrible piece of doggerel about the experience, written from the dog's perspective. It was at that moment that I realized those people would stop at nothing to make their point. I told her to take that piece of filth out of my house and to *never* bring it back in again. I still semi-supported the HSUS at that point, since I thouGHT THAT "animal rights" meant that someone cared about how animals were treated.

Fast forward to 1995. I am in an undergraduate "Intro to World Religions" class and the professor has assigned several readings from Peter Singer's works, purporting that AR is becoming a "religion." Have you ever heard the expression "the scales fell from my eyes?" That's what happened. I realized that "animal rights" didn't mean what I thought it meant and I began researching the movement. It wasn't long before I realized that I fell on the "animal welfare" end of the spectrum and began to feel somewhat threatened by AR activists.

(more)

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 25, 2010 | 9:53 p.m.

Fast forward AGAIN to 2001, when I got my first show dog. I started to train him for obedience trials and conformation shows, only slowly to become aware of how people had misconceptions about what breeders *do* with their animals. Suddenly I was an outcast with people that once had been my friends as undergrads, only because I was now "exploiting" my dogs instead of simply training them--although I'd previously obedience trained two dogs without ever competing with them at trials.

I've seen a lot of not-so-good changes in the dog world and a few good ones. Once upon a time, conformation shows were a rich person's game. The typical show kennel had dozens of dogs in kennel runs overseen by a "dog man," who fed, trained, and socialized the dogs, selected the best of the best, and presented the owner with a trained pup to bring into the ring (or hired the handler to do show the dog). No one ever thought twice about these kennels--they proudly displayed signs announcing who they were and they placed puppies, sold puppies, donated them to the military and law enforcement, and yes--they even put down more than their share of puppies. However, there were no flooded shelters at that time, either, despite the presence of stray dogs in "pounds."

Today, we who breed dogs for pets and show are "not allowed" to show off who we are. I have a friend with a lovely group of dogs at her house--all pointed or titled--who has a discrete hint of what she does--a wooden dog silhouette balanced against her mailbox "barking" up at the sky. We are afraid to own more than a handful of dogs, no matter how detrimental it might be to producing genetically sound or diverse dogs, because of dog limits and animal rights activists. We are vilified as "puppy mills, no matter how clean and happy our dogs might be, just because someone has told the people speaking against us "if you breed or buy, another shelter dog dies."

Being a breeder doesn't make me a puppy mill.

Being a breeder doesn't make me an abuser.

Being a breeder doesn't mean that I get a sexual thrill witnessing a mating taken place, as I'm required to do at least once for registration purposes.

Being a breeder does not mean that the piece of paper means more than the dog does.

Being a breeder does not mean that I charge more for my females than for my males or more for my show quality dogs than for my pet quality dogs.

(more)

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 25, 2010 | 9:54 p.m.

Being a breeder does mean that I enjoy having puppies around.

Being a breeder does mean that I love seeing a new owner meeting "their" perfect puppy for the first time.

Being a breeder does mean that my dogs get my love, attention, and affection every hour that I am present of every day.

Being a breeder does mean that I train, show, and trial my dogs, not only to get titles, but also to make them good citizens.

Being a breeder means that all of my dogs have a home with me for life, no matter if they've been sold or when they've been sold, regardless of whether I have to eat ramen noodles to provide for another mouth or not.

Being a breeder does mean that I mourn each and every dog's passing when the time comes, whether the deceased is an hours-old puppy or an 18-year-old veteran.

There are already plenty of laws in place. We don't need PROP B or anything like it in any other state. We need more people to enforce these laws. That's pretty much it.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 25, 2010 | 9:57 p.m.

I am ROTFLMAO at this comment "Animal rights = no animals left." Really? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
If animals had rights I don't think they would disappear off the face of the earth! (But maybe puppy millers would:)
.
VOTE YES! PROP B!
PREVENT PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!
.
Oh and just an FYI.... any time I enter a discussion, it's not to convince the Pro-Puppy Mill extremists of anything either--they're already lost souls (with a special really super-hot place reserved for them in the afterlife). With any luck, however, there are a few undecided people reading these discussions and with any luck reasonable discussion will encourage them to realize how future pet ownership is supported by Prop B and that in the end a YES vote on Prop B is a vote for healthier Missouri made dogs kept in conditions that Missourians can be proud of.
.
A YES VOTE says... I no longer want Missouri to be the Puppy mill Capitol of the UNited States.
.
It's time for the "Show Me State" to show compassion.
.
On Nov 2, 2010
Join me in VOTING YES! on Prop B
Prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty!

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 25, 2010 | 10:07 p.m.

They can't maintain it. It is a strain to keep calling breeders "puppy mills" and to keep trying to justify how owning a certain number of dogs equals abuse. It is also a strain to deceive people.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 25, 2010 | 10:15 p.m.

Thomas... not all breeders are puppy mills....just the bad ones. and the 50 dog limit is designed to curb abuses.
Just an FYI....
.

On Nov 2, 2010
Join me in VOTING YES! on Prop B
Prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty!

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 25, 2010 | 10:17 p.m.

Hey Marina:
I have not seen any posts from any "Pro-Puppy Mill extremists" although I have read some comments from very educated, reasonable, decent people who see Proposition B for what it really is. A destructive Proposition to Missouri's economy and a bill to hurt legal industry service leaders.
And while I believe all dogs go to heaven, I expect that you and I will meet in hell.
It has nothing to do with how much either one of us cares about dogs, cats or other animals or how we address inhumane treatment and abuse or compassion.
Don't expect redemption because of your "holier-than-thou" attitude.
I certainly don't.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 25, 2010 | 10:33 p.m.

Paul Shapiro of the Humane Society of the United States will speak and APRL will provide vegan snacks and refreshments!

Join us as Paul Shapiro, long-time animal rights campaigner, discusses some of the progress being made to combat factory farming and what we can do to continue moving the ball forward for farmed animals.
Here are links to the events. [ San Diego | Santa Monica | Phoenix ] More about Shapiro’s upcoming schedule after the jump.

November 9, 2010, UC San Diego:

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 25, 2010 | 10:42 p.m.

Missouri Breeders support Prop B Ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-JdE4CD7...
.
I ran my own google searches and found the 3 individual breeders in the commercial are:
-Cecily Barker: has been breeding Irish Setters for 40 years and is an AKC hunt test judge
-Bev Stobart: has been breeding Irish Wolfhounds for 30 years and is a veterinary technician
-Dr. Melanie Mercer: breeder of Salukis and Irish Wolfhounds and a graduate of the University of Missouri College of Veterinary Medicine & is on Staff at the Jefferson Animal Hospital in Missouri and lives in Missouri.
.
On Nov 2, 2010
Join me in VOTING YES! on Prop B
Prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 25, 2010 | 10:51 p.m.

Hey Ray:
That's your opinion... In my opinion... There have been LOTS of posts from "Pro-Puppy Mill extremists" and a LOT of mis-information spread by them.
I actually agree with you on the dogs going to heaven part. And if i do meet up with you in H*ll or Heaven (that's for God to decide), we'll have a beer & toast the passage of Prop b!
And I'd rather have a "holier-than-thou" attitude as you call it than support the cruel & inhumane practices of puppy millers in Missouri. Someone on another board called me a "Do-gooder". I take that as a compliment. I'd much rather be called a do-gooder than an Do-badder or evil-doer! :)

.
On Nov 2, 2010
Join me in VOTING YES! on Prop B
Prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 25, 2010 | 10:53 p.m.

Kim, I was sincerely trying to communicate some common ground with your position.

Yet you say I was suggesting that you 'just shut up.

It seems that you are only hearing what you want to hear.

Personal experience alone is not an argument..it's a rant.

(Report Comment)
michelle johnson October 26, 2010 | 12:10 a.m.

Mis-Information? Lies? Did anyone hear what Barbara Schmitz of HSUS did today 10/25/10 on KMOX radio station in St.Louis? Ms. Schmitz was caught in a major lie today and nailed against the wall not only by the victim who is a licensed veterinarian but also the host of the show. I've read where HSUS thinks our Missouri moral compass is off?

http://kmox.cbslocal.com/shows/mark-rear...

shame, shame everyone now knows Barbs name

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 26, 2010 | 12:13 a.m.

I'm not buying it, Shane. The fifty dog limit is designed to destroy a legal sector of the economy. That is all that it is there for.

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 26, 2010 | 12:27 a.m.

Nothing that you Proposition B supporters ever will do will help the welfare of animals. You and the groups that you work for have destroyed millions already and you might manage to prevent millions from being born. This is killing off several species to "save" them from abuse, or reducing them to far less strength than they were before. It is the essential expression of something so sad in your souls that I should feel sorry for you, but I see it as a family annihilator thing.

The best thing to do for animals is to prevent people like you from ever having anything to do with animals or animal law ever again. You people actually lie about your agenda and try to cover it up when it comes to making laws and then you push that deadly agenda with the other sides of your mouths in other forums.

It takes very strong protections of our rights to protect our rights and our animals from liars, thieves, and murderers. You get the law to look the other way while you slap a label of "animal abuser" on some old lady to justify stealing her puppies to sell. You had to design a way to prevent due process and to make it too costly for people to get due process. This means that under color of law the humane societies in many areas have stolen animals and violated constitutional rights. They are liable for this. When it hits the fan we are going to see more and more of them close their doors to try to dodge subpoenas.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 26, 2010 | 9:08 a.m.

To the AVMA:
Proposition B, if I am correct, is an attempt to address abuses within Missouri's dog breeding industry.
Your organization has taken a clear and public position in opposition to Proposition B.
In 2004, the AVMA ALSO took a clear and public position in opposition to the 'Puppy Protection Act'.
I am unable to find any clear and public position regarding kennel abuses your organization took BEFORE the introduction of Prop B and BEFORE the introduction of the "Puppy Protection Act' of 2004.
The AVMA repeatedly states :' Missouri does not have adequate resources to oversee large scale breeding facilities'
Yet the AVMA ' MODEL BILL AND REGULATIONS TO ASSURE APPROPRIATE CARE FOR DOGS INTENDED FOR USE AS PETS' of 2010 puts NO limits on the number of dogs a kennel is allowed.

Allowing breeders an UNLIMITED number of dogs while stating that there are NO ADEQUATE RESOURCES to oversee these dogs is simply beyond reason.

These conflicting statements and facts can only lead one to believe that the AVMA's opposition to Proposition B is at best, a disingenuous smokescreen and at worst, a dishonest and self-serving public-relations 'spin' intended to maintain the 'bottom line' of a few unscrupulous veterinarians.

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 26, 2010 | 9:13 a.m.

Terry, the AVMA puts no number limits on dog ownership because quality of care is not dictated by numbers.

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 26, 2010 | 9:35 a.m.

It is a kind of lying to claim that numerical limits will ensure humane care.

Proposition B doesn't "clarify" things and it is badly written. The use of the term "puppy mill" is one of the things that makes it badly written.

Schmitz is lying about the "loopholes" in the law. Either that or she cannot understand what she reads. She uses acts that are illegal to claim that there are loopholes, even though those illegal acts are being reported and punished under those laws. Missouri has laws that make various acts felonies and the felony thing is already going too far.

Some of these activists may think that they've "got" people but people have too much sense to fall for this crap.

Schmitz seems to be reading from a different dimension of unreality. She did indeed get caught in a lie on the radio show.

Any rescue is just as much "for profit" as any breeder is and they can get away with a lot. They always exempt themselves from the laws. They are worse for the dogs than the breeders are. They don't have to spend as much money for what little care they do provide. They are tax exempt.

This stuff always gets knocked back because eventually it always gets found out that the rescuers are worse than the breeders. The "record" of abuses by breeders turns out to be false because rescuers have been lying for profit.

Perfectly good animal owners have been driven underground by the actions against them, legal, illegal, and unconstitutional but pretend legal. They are driving humane care off the map. Someone who literally digs a cave to hide his animals in is more humane than someone who kills healthy animals for being the wrong breed or species, or who lies about conditions that they find at a breeder's facility to steal dogs. Listen to Barbara Schmitz's rhetoric on Mark Reardon's radio show and that is how they do it, with half-truths, untruths, and rhetoric that just doesn't match up with reality.

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 26, 2010 | 9:39 a.m.

It is not the fault of the breeders if the state does not hire enough inspectors and the breeders should not suffer for it. I place humans ahead of animals and I would also rather trust the word of a breeder than the word of a so-called rescuer. The breeder knows a lot more about the subject. Perforce the breeder probably understand the letter of the law better than the rescuer. Listening to people like Barbara Schmitz tells you that we are dealing with people who will misrepresent the law. Malice or stupidity, such misrepresentations prove bad things about the misrepresenters.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 26, 2010 | 9:43 a.m.

Thank you for reading the model bill, Terry.

That bill applies to more than Missouri - it's simply a model bill for any state or legislative body to consider when taking up dog welfare.

If Missouri doesn't have resources, then let's get more inspectors. Pennsylvania lost 2/3 of its breeders since passing its new breeding law, and Pennsylvania has no breeding dog limits either. The toll on breeders here may be quite a bit worse.

Legal, licensed breeding has a positive economic effect on a lot of rural Missouri, where there typically aren't a lot of places for people to earn a living. If we need more enforcement, well, let's do that. But this will put a lot of breeders out of business, increase dog prices from tthose that do stay in business (making them less competitve with other states), and cause a severe burden on rescues and shelters as these breeders close. Pennsylvania shelters had to deal with 14,000 dogs after their law passed, and they only had about 400 breeders. Somehow the 50,000 figure seems more justifiable now that I've seen that.

DK

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 26, 2010 | 9:54 a.m.

If they get this law passed an appeal will go out to donate more money to the HSUS to "take care of all these puppy mill dogs." The HSUS made a 30 million dollar windfall after Katrina, no pun intended, and 5 million from the Vick dogs.

What they did in Pennsylvania was an atrocity. The dog wardens there were already malicious or there would have been more than 400 breeders to start with.

In Oregon I hear that only one breeder has given up dogs to "rescues." I guess they know who's been hurting them.

www.humanewatch.org

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 26, 2010 | 10:57 a.m.

Thomas Kirby, actually it is the fault of the breeders there are not enough inspectors.

The current licensing fees were established in 1993. Bills that have been submitted to the legislature to increase these limits, in order to hire more inspectors, have been shot down--primarily because of lobbying by the breeders and other agricultural interests.

So in effect, the breeders really are responsible. That and the state legislature that allows itself to be dominated by agribusiness interests.

It is disingenuous of the breeders to say, "Oh, we only need more inspectors", when they've been busting their butts to ensure they don't get them.

Mark Foeking, look through the USDA inspections of many of the breeders in this state and ask yourself: is the fact that many of the worse will close a bad thing?

Terry, eloquent as always, but I don't know how you can continue here.

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 26, 2010 | 11:08 a.m.

"Agribusiness," Shelley? I thought that Prop B was all about dogs and puppy mills--isn't it?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 26, 2010 | 11:14 a.m.

PUTTING A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF DOGS REDUCES THE NUMBER OF DOGS BEING ABUSED.

You all are dancing on the head of a pin.

Piling minutia upon minutia in order to obfuscate the elephant in the room,

You are either arguing for the sake of argument, or arguing EXCLUSIVELY from the perspective of personal experience.

Which is nothing more than ego run amuck...

There can be no' larger picture' when the only picture you see is yourself.

This behavoir is the province of small children and only a fool argues with small children.

Oh la..'tis me, the foolish one, expecting reason from children.

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 26, 2010 | 11:25 a.m.

A legal business has the right to keep its taxes down. If you want enforcement, Ms. Powers, you should pay for it out of your own pocket, preferably in large lump sums. I'd rather you didn't, actually, because then you might have a real claim to entitlement to that enforcement.

Human rights can be very tricky for someone who has no respect for them. The groups that you shill for have already been overburdened and overtaxed. You have worn out both the "animal abuse" and the "puppy mill" games. I know and you know that what you are cadging for is the control of the dog breeding industry by a bunch of fanatics who don't know anything about dog breeding. Everything that I have ever seen these pressure groups do is in bad faith.

You might like for people to think that your instances are isolated from the economy at large, but every business that is lost and every job that is lost has ripple effects. Maybe the natural state of things is for a group that has no emotional maturity, no useful skills, and very little intellect to aggressively push itself into industries to try to control and profit from that control. When they link up and colonize, like a disease, it becomes a conspiracy whether you want it to be or not.

And then the entire community of interest exchanges information and homogenizes. What aspects of this community developed spontaneously are submerged in a vast network of like-minded people, if it is not being too generous to characterize this as the actions of "minds." You want very much for people to be convinced that this is some kind of grassroots effort even though the HSUS gets locals to pay money to learn from them how to lie about what they see to get the maximum impact.

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 26, 2010 | 11:31 a.m.

The thing is, Terry, that you are advocating the reduction of the population of dogs on the strength of the fact that some dogs will be abused. Abuse is something that will happen as long as some dogs are alive. I don't know if you are a follower or a leader here, but this is a journey down a black hole.

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 26, 2010 | 11:59 a.m.

Terry, I'm disappointed in you. I thought you were a reasonable person and now you're flexing your muscles to bully people. However, your entry into insult territory tells me that you're losing actual, good arguments in favor of the bill or lacking reasonable rebuttals to what people have said.

The number limit is very important to people who breed dogs, simply because it is arbitrary. I have a hard time believing that a person equipped to feed and care for 49 or 50 dogs suddenly becomes a cruel abuser with 51 or 52 dogs. There is no logical reason to call a commercial breeding facility a "mill" if it is clean and the animals are clean, well-fed, and socialized, considering the term "puppy mill" is an epithet and immediately sets that facility up for negative consequences according to the label. Hunte Corp holds seminars for their breeders, encourages them to educate themselves, sets minimum standards, and promotes puppy socialization. While they are *not* perfect and while I would *never* breed for them, the changes that Hunte has made over the years are impressive. If a mill provides substandard care and a commercial breeder with 100 dogs meets Hunte's strict sanitation and care standards, then how is that kennel a mill?

(more)

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 26, 2010 | 11:59 a.m.

Interestingly, once the number limit is set into place, there are no further public votes needed to adjust that limit. Usually, when those numbers are adjusted, they are adjusted downward. I know this has happened before, but I can't remember the state for sure--either Pennsylvania or Kentucky. Over a period of years, the limit was set from 25 down to either 5 or 10. Some laws have their wording changed from being strictly dog related to "domestic animals" contributing to the limit. If you're a hobby/show breeder in a municipality with a 10 animal limit and your three kids have 2 gerbils each and a horse to share, where does that leave you? Please don't tell me "with 10 dogs," because you're wrong if you do.

As I said above, a far more fair way to set animal limits is to require a certain number of employees/helpers to care for a certain number of animals. Even if the base limit is low (10 dogs, for example), it is not onerous if the commercial kennel must get help for all dogs over that number. That way, the term "mill," which is still not defined in an overarching legal manner, can be reserved for kennels that provide substandard care, not for people who have more than a minimum number of dogs.

Regardless, this proposition does nothing to fix the problem of unlicensed substandard commercial kennels. It does everything it can to have a chilling effect on licensed and law-abiding kennels. It will have a seriously negative effect on shelters and rescues, which will be flooded by dogs that are seized or surrendered from kennels over the limit. This flooding will permit breeders to be blamed for the influx of dogs into those facilities, which will lead to further action against breeders. Shelters, of course, will be held blameless and are not bound by the number limits by which breeders will be constrained.

Prop B is a travesty. Prop B needs to be defeated and replaced with better, more logical legislation that is not driven by anti-pet/anti-breeder/anti-agriculture animal rights extremists like the HSUS, PeTA, and their ilk.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 26, 2010 | 12:06 p.m.

Terry Ward wrote:

"PUTTING A LIMIT ON THE NUMBER OF DOGS REDUCES THE NUMBER OF DOGS BEING ABUSED."

That statement has no rational basis. Dogs can be treated very well in a large facility, or neglected and abused in a small one. Do you have any basis to state that care in a large facility is necessarily worse than a small one?

I'm arguing rationally, and you're screaming a statement that doesn't follow logically, and showing your own personal prejudice. Childish? Hardly.

Shelley Powers wrote:

"look through the USDA inspections of many of the breeders in this state and ask yourself: is the fact that many of the worse will close a bad thing?"

Closing many of the worse isn't a bad idea. If prop B would do only that, I'd support it. However, it is also likely to close a lot of the better ones also.

I doubt 2/3 (or more) of Missouri breeders run operations so poorly that they deserve to close. Kara Crass' facility doesn't, for example, based on her USDA reports. You can always find mistakes in any operation, and pull particularly bad operations into the limelight. But putting that into perspective is something that takes both experience and objectivity.

DK

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 26, 2010 | 12:31 p.m.

Thomas Kirby said:
("I don't know if you are a follower or a leader here, but this is a journey down a black hole.")

I suspect that many of these followers of the HSUS, spawn of PETA, propaganda are being groomed to believe that if this Proposition saves just one dog from "suffering" that it's worth it. Regardless of the far-reaching negative impact this Proposition will have on a viable service industry and the cash flow it generates for the state of Missouri and the individuals who depend on those who provide these desired goods and services.
Dogs have rights? What about Business Rights? What about Property Rights? What about Man's Rights?
It is the likes of HSUS followerers who are inhumane.
Inhumane to their fellow man.
Vote No on Proposition B.
Enforce the current 20+ pages of existing laws, rules and regs.
Use Bark Alert.
http://mda.mo.gov/animals/ACFA/barkalert...

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 26, 2010 | 12:33 p.m.

Large breeders unwilling to decrease the number of dogs will be impacted. However, their complaints that they can't make a living with less than 50 dogs don't make a lot of sense when you see so many breeders, such as Santo Hill Kennel, that do have significantly less than 50 dogs, in an excellent kennel environment, and who do very well.

I've seen a video of the "best" of Missouri when it comes to large scale commercial dog breeders. A blue ribbon kennel. This video actually impacted on me more than the ones showing dogs in deplorable condition, because people actually believe that the lives of the dogs in the blue ribbon breeder are good.

Dogs spending their entire lives in cages. Automatic water and food, and even cleaning. The only time they get human contact is the required grooming they need to meet standards, and vet visits once a year--both times, contact by people needing to get their job done quickly and efficiently because they have other dogs to see.

A model of efficiency, and absolutely, appallingly, soulless.

Nothing will ever convince me this is a "good life" for dogs. Nothing.

At least with smaller numbers, there's a chance the dogs might actually get a pat on the head a couple of times a day.

(Report Comment)
Andrew Hansen October 26, 2010 | 12:42 p.m.

I have been reading all the pro and con arguments, and it does seem that if nothing else Prop B is leaping two or three steps ahead of where we actually are.
.
Everybody seems to agree that the resources to fund the enforcement of the current laws is serverely lacking. So, how does it make sense to start adding more laws and regulations at this point? If we increase enforcement of the current laws then new laws may not be needed. And what is the point of added new laws that we can already predict will not be enforced?
.
Now, I am not going to question the motives of the HSUS as others have, but I will question if they have really thought this through. Prop B seems very one-size fits all plan from a national agenda, and not a reasoned attempt to best help dogs in Missouri.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 26, 2010 | 12:50 p.m.

("Now, I am not going to question the motives of the HSUS as others have, but I will question if they have really thought this through. Prop B seems very one-size fits all plan from a national agenda, and not a reasoned attempt to best help dogs in Missouri.")

Of course the H$U$, the spawn of PETA, has thought this through. They don't care about Missouri's economy at all. They only care about their national marketing plan. Missouri was just next on their hit list.
Organizational motives are important.
Do all the homework you can on H$U$ and that in itself will convince you to vote No on Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Andrew Hansen October 26, 2010 | 1:00 p.m.

@Ray: Well, in this case I think focusing on the HSUS actually clouds the issue. It does not matter if the HSUS is made up of angels or devils, Prop B appears to be the wrong action to take because it does not fit the actual situation in Missouri.
.
If the current laws were being vigorously enforced, then it might be appropriate to discuss/debate something like Prop B. But for the time being it is just inappropriate to even consider it.

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 26, 2010 | 1:35 p.m.

Powers advocates the punishment of people whose animals are receiving humane care. She advocates the punishment of most breeders for the misdeeds of others. This disqualifies her from having a valid opinion.

Powers lacks the right to take away any part of anyone's income without due process. This is the opposite of due process. It even corrupts due process of the law and the courts.

Ray, they find the people who would destroy everything just because they don't like one or two things about life. There is the lesson about the man who found a large pearl with a small flaw in it. He washed it with acid thinking that removing that small flaw would increase the value of the pearl. It took until he had dissolved the entire pearl before he realized that the flaw ran all the way to the center.

I would rather live with the flaws. These people would destroy literally everything. There is a code to this that is easy to break. With their criticisms of human industry and humanity, you can see that they want to destroy that which is human. Ironically this is against nature because nature created our brains.

We are dealing with a small number of control freaks who are steered by an even smaller number of full-blown sociopaths. We have to identify them, reveal them, and explain that our way is many times better than theirs. We also have to teach humanity that we can be proud of who we are. The people who we are fighting with fight to take away our pride in ourselves and the progress we have made. When they take away our pride in our progress there is no point in continuing to make progress and we won't. They will do what they can to bring back the dark ages anyway.

We have to stop them. We have to start us.

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 26, 2010 | 2:00 p.m.

Removing any portion of a person's income harms them. There is not enough of a "puppy mill" problem to justify taking away part of a legal business's income. This whole game is about unjustly removing someone's livelihood. This is Shelley Powers deciding that she will harm innocent people, and Wayne Pacelle deciding that he will harm innocent people, and Terry Egan deciding that he will harm innocent people, by stealing from them.

You can't say with any honesty that the people who choose to do this have any ethics at all.

They also create a disrespect for the law by corrupting the function of the law in people's lives. People who have done nothing wrong would be punished for someone else's misdeeds, and Wayne Pacelle is laughing at them all the way to the bank.

That little bit of animal welfare that they are using as an excuse is not worth getting rid of the vast majority of animals. It is not worth limiting the income of a commercial breeder. Harping on every nitpicking thing is profitable to the nitpicker but it damages people's lives. It's sick and criminal.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 26, 2010 | 2:12 p.m.

70 is the 'arbitrary' number of speed limits.
.08 is the 'arbitrary' number of blood alcohol/driving limits.
65 is the 'arbitrary; age of retirement.
12 is the 'arbitrary' number of jurors.
16 is the 'arbitrary' number of ounces in a pound.
4/15 is the 'arbitrary' number of the date taxes must be paid.

EVERYTHING must have a beginning.
The natural world determines it's own beginnings.
The man-made-world must apply a 'beginning' to it's creations
IN ORDER THAT THEY MAY EXIST, like them or not, agree with them or not.

Why this needs to be explained to people over the age of 5 simply boggles the mind.

..

(Report Comment)
Sarah Barnett October 26, 2010 | 2:20 p.m.

Kim, from your response to my message, you did not seem to want a response from me, so I didn't. when you say things like

"I would look a few up and ask for your commentary, but I have to take one of my abused and exploited pets ("companion animal" and "guardian" are two terms brought into popular use by AR groups, also to limit pet ownership rights, so I don't use the terms) to agility class tonight."

that gives me the impression that you don't actually want my response nor care what I have to say. Which is fine, but please don't kid yourself or others in saying that you actually wanted a response from me. On a side note people do bring bologna sandwiches to work - it's not an issue...except when a dog tries to eat them!

Lastly you actually didn't bring up specific bill numbers. To get back to the issue at hand, I would encourage EVERYONE to actually read the text of the act themselves, and make an informed decision: http://yesonpropb.com/about/read-act

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 26, 2010 | 3:06 p.m.

Sarah:
Why not also tell them to have their non-HSUS affiliated veterinarian and a trusted attorney read over this poorly written, dangerous Proposition so that they can best decide how to vote on November 2nd?

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 26, 2010 | 3:14 p.m.

Sarah, nice to see you again. I have a dry and rather sarcastic sense of humor and, if I recall, two other people and I had been joking on the Ellen DeGeneres forum (where you were posting at the time) about our "abused and exploited" dogs doing agility. You were witness to that conversation so I'm surprised that you didn't make the connection--and, being part of the "Emerging Media Department," (whatever that is) then I'm surprised that you didn't try to follow up.

As to the "companion animal" and "guardian" terms, you better believe that I spoke 100% the truth in regard to them. Changing the terms from "pet" and "owner" does not improve the condition of animals; all it serves to do is limit ownership rights--you know, kind of like Prop B is intended to do. I'm sensing a pattern here. In any case, I'm not the only one who refuses to use those terms. Cindy Cooke made some good observations on them in this article:
http://www.ukcdogs.com/WebSite.nsf/Artic...

And no, I didn't actually use bill numbers. As it was, I was running late to agility class. I live 2 hours away from the training site and there is always a chance that I will run into traffic on the way--so, if I said I *had* to leave, I *had* to leave. If you didn't contact me again, it was your problem; don't blame me for not doing your job and following up the conversation. It's a matter of a short look-see on the AKC website to retrieve them.

Re: the bologna sandwiches. Yeah, sure, post a picture and I might believe you. The HSUS is not the touchy-feely organization you want for us to believe.

Just because people don't disagree with the bill does not mean we have not read its contents. It is a foul piece of work that even Nathan Winograd, who gave it a positive thumbs up last week, says does not address the "illegal puppy mill" problem it purports to address. Read up on what he has to say, here: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=4473

Just one last observation, Sarah: if you can only talk to people who agree with you, then what good are you to the HSUS?

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 26, 2010 | 3:23 p.m.

Hey How about we all call a truce for 20 minutes & go post a tribute to a fallen Columbia soldier?
Sgt. 1st Class Charles M. Sadell Passes away today from injuries sustained in Arif Kala, Afghanistan on Oct 5th.

here's the column link:

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

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 26, 2010 | 3:40 p.m.

Kim Egan

Sarah came into comments and addressed you specifically, including an honest response as to why she didn't respond to you.

You, in turn, maligned her personally, maligned her job, maligned her capabilities, and then you wonder why the heck no one wants to talk to you?

You're not interested in a discussion, you're only interest is in hitting out at people because you're pissed at this bill, and why on earth can't all of us see the wisdom of your ways and just believe exactly like you do?

It doesn't work that way.

If you only want to use civility with people who agree with you, to use your own measure, what good are you to this discussion?

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 26, 2010 | 3:52 p.m.

Shelley: mind your own business. :D I was courteous to her in that I did not take direct quotes from her and post them here to prove my point. She did not give me the same courtesy. In addition, you didn't have full access to our conversation on the Ellen forum. Different conversational tone entirely.

I've provided a great deal of information and have been quite helpful in this conversation, I think. Sarah just came here to practice a little CYA. She contributed nothing but the tired assertion that the reason people are against Prop B is because they just didn't read the darn thing closely enough and, if we did, that rainbows would come out and we'd merrily join in the HSUS/AR square dance. I've read it and I square dance, but not to the HSUS fiddler and caller.

Oh, and here's another observation on "puppy mills." And people wonder why dog breeders and exhibitors are nervous . . .

http://endangeredowner.blogspot.com/2009...

(Report Comment)
Sarah Barnett October 26, 2010 | 6:34 p.m.

I talk to many people with different viewpoints, and honestly find them interesting, and also take their feedback seriously if they have a concern.
But this isn't about me - it's about dogs in Missouri. 12 years ago people raised the same stink when there was a ballot initiative to ban cock fighting in Missouri, and they're trying it again now. (same stink = this will shut down farming etc. Apparently people think people at the HSUS don't eat. Trust me - we do!)
Well those claims were false 12 years ago, and are still false today. I encourage every single person to read Prop B, and decide for themselves how they want to vote. Personally, I think anyone who reads it will vote Yes, because it is clear in how it helps stop puppy mills.
You can read it and also get answers to commonly asked questions here: http://yesonpropb.com/about/read-act

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 26, 2010 | 10:07 p.m.

These pro-Proposition people would think of it as a puppy mill if someone had even one breeding dog in perfect conditions. If they say otherwise they are lying to us.

They're going to save the animals in order to destroy them.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 26, 2010 | 10:30 p.m.

Worth a repost, IMHO:
("Thomas Kirby July 8, 2009 | 11:41 a.m.
The first thing that everyone should know is that these animal rights activists believe that all use of animals is abuse. They don't define it the way that the rest of us do.

Thank you, Kim Townsend, for trying to deflect the terrorism issue. You know that this is something that we have the animal rights movement dead to rights on, as far as overt criminal activity goes. What you said actually tends to affirm the fact that the animal rights movement is a human-hating terrorist movement.

Your "Best Friends" originated as a Satanic church that called itself the "Process Church" in the 1970s. It is also an end of the world cult and thinks that it is what would result if Satan and Jesus had a love child. Your "Best Friends" magazine refers to humanity as "destructive humanity." These facts are easy to find on the Net. It is also true that a group that calls itself "Hugs for Puppies" was just a few years ago the SHAC group that used physical violence, arson, death threats, and beatings against Huntingdon Life Sciences.

It is irresponsible of any state's attorney general to work with a group like the HSUS. When it comes to dogfighting, they might be working with John Goodwin who was jailed for two years for a string of attacks against mink farmers and other agriculture. When they attack dog breeders they are also attacking a needed industry and the HSUS hasn't made it a secret that they want to end all animal-based agriculture. I'm surprised how long Wayne Pacelle has gotten away with talking out of both sides of his mouth on that one. I'm also surprised how easy it has been for the HSUS and the Processeans to get state attorneys general to participate in such crooked endeavors as "puppy mill" busts.

I see that Karen Loveless is here, someone who is trying to destroy the business of dog breeding in North Carolina by pushing for the passage of destructive and unfair laws.

Zach Aldrich, you definitely need to do more research. These waves of attacks on commercial breeders have been around for more than forty years. There is a lot of material out there about the way that the animal rights activists have added so much corruption to the idea of ensuring that dogs are bred in humane conditions.

I think that the so-called puppy mill is almost always a better deal for the dogs than the so-called humane societies.

Thomas Kirby
www.animalculture.org")
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 27, 2010 | 12:29 a.m.

There is enough evidence against the HSUS that any state's attorney general or governor is not only justified in denouncing the HSUS, it should be mandatory. They're going to pretend that they didn't know.

(Report Comment)
Michelle Cascio October 27, 2010 | 11:02 a.m.

Thankfully, we have had many successful relationships with local law enforcement officials across the country that have resulted in the rescue of thousands of animals a year.

Each year, The HSUS's Humane Law Enforcement Awards ceremony pays tribute to officials who made significant progress against animal abusers in the past year.
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2...

(Report Comment)
Michelle Cascio October 27, 2010 | 11:10 a.m.

Oh- and Mr. Kirby-
No animal protection organization has been more resolute and outspoken about condemning violence and vandalism done in the name of animal protection than The HSUS. CCF says that The HSUS harbors an advocate of violence by having John Goodwin on staff, yet John leads our animal fighting campaigns and works hand in hand with law enforcement in cracking down on illegal activities. In his youth, John engaged in some radical animal activism, and more than 15 years ago, he renounced this activity. He is a stellar example to young people that legal channels offer the best means of effecting social reforms, and is a harsh critic of the claim that progress can be secured through illegal conduct. Our work is about the business of change, and we welcome people into the fold who change for the better.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 27, 2010 | 11:28 a.m.

@Michelle Casco:
I doubt you're from around these parts and probably work for or have close ties to your beloved H$U$, but as far as I'm concerned, our resident peacemaker has spoken.
My work is done here. (Amen to that.)
Use your noodle. Eat some Pasta and Vote No on Proposition B.

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

(Report Comment)
Michelle Cascio October 27, 2010 | 1:17 p.m.

I do work for The Humane Society of the United States, as the casework coordinator for the Puppy Mill Task Force. The task force investigates complaints of alleged cruelty in large commercial breeding facilities also known as puppy mills. I log the complaints, I work the cases, I contact local law enforcement and I deploy for the rescues. I provide care in the emergency animal shelter and I find placement for the SURVIVORS with local animal shelters and rescue groups. I doubt there are very many people with more direct experience with the inherent cruelty in puppy mills than me.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 27, 2010 | 1:42 p.m.

Michelle Cascio wrote:

"I doubt there are very many people with more direct experience with the inherent cruelty in puppy mills than me."

And if that's all you see, it's very easy to fall into the trap of thinking all large breeders are that way.

Why else would there be a 50 breeder limit? Even though common sense would dictate that if you can take care of 50 adequately, one could take care of 100 with twice the resources.

DK

(Report Comment)
Michelle Cascio October 27, 2010 | 2:29 p.m.

DK- it's not all I see. My daughter's grandmother is a reputable breeder. I respect her, she does not treat her dogs like commodities or a cash crop. Her dogs are bred for quality and she cares about the homes they go to. She follows up with the new homes, making sure the dogs are adjusting well and will accept any dog back into her home that might end up in a shelter.

Let's bring this back to Prop B and how the 50 breeding female limit per facility will help ensure the operations do not spiral out of control or become overcrowded, but will still allow individual breeders to sell hundreds of puppies each year.

Under Prop B, a commercial breeder who has 40 females and 10 males can produce approximately 200 to 400 puppies a year (breeding each female twice in each 18 month period). With these sales, a commercial breeder can earn more than $100,000 a year, well over twice the median income of the average Missouri family.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 27, 2010 | 3:00 p.m.

Anyone with a Facebook group, or an email list can you please post this report?

Enough is enough.
These twerps gotta go.

https://hsus.salsalabs.com/o/17003/image...

Be advised, the pics are beyond distressing.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 27, 2010 | 3:31 p.m.

Terry, I posted it to my web site, at the following link, if people need something to link:

http://burningbird.net/propositionb/dead...

I'll also post elsewhere.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 27, 2010 | 3:59 p.m.

Sorry, you had a link. Wasn't think.

I was just rattled by the images.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 27, 2010 | 5:24 p.m.

Thanks, Shelley..I don't look at those thing ever...been in the trenches to long to need my consciousness raised...No doubt you have also..
But this Prop is extremely important...
The reason that there is so much anti-humane brohaha from the Big AG corporate lobby snarks is that they feel that if Mo. steps up to the plate and passes this than many other states will follow.
It really has nothing to do with the the small farmer..the lobby-wonks could not care less about them other than how easily frightened ..and thus 'usable' they are.
The fringe of course is easily manipulated with buzz-words...'our freedoms', Big Government', 'Socialism' (as if anyone really knows what socialism is)
'liberals'. bla bla bla.

But then the fringe has always been used.
What the Big AG lobby IS afraid of if having to spend a few bucks making changes to their practices regarding the treatment of animals.

They know they have no choice, they're just doing everything they can to put it off for as long as possible....
Really nothing more then a business decision.
It was exactly the same with worker's rights...but most people aren't old enough to remember that dirty little phase of corporate history.
And the wonks are very clever...they have succeeded in making 'humane' a dirty word to the unsophisticated, the fearful and the fringe.
"Puppies' are really nothing other than a convienient scapegoat in the plan to
convince these poor folks that animals and their welfare is the enemy.
In the next post I will show you a bit of proof of this...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward October 27, 2010 | 5:27 p.m.

Here is the bit of promised 'proof'

From the AVMA website:

147th AVMA Annual Convention Daily News—
Monday, August 2, 2010—Atlanta, GA

'Convention guest speaker Wes Jamison, PhD, an associate professor of communication at Palm Beach Atlantic University, said animal protection organizations run successful campaigns by showing consumers the differential attitudes those consumers have toward treatment of animals kept as pets and for food.

Dr. Jamison also indicated that the veterinary profession, by emphasizing the importance of the human-animal bond, enables consumer hypocrisy, which is exploited by animal protection organizations.
He argued that the AVMA should instead advocate for the right of animal owners to use animals as they choose, whether that entails companionship, food, or labor.'

There you have it...
'The animal bond enables consumer hypocrisy'

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 27, 2010 | 6:32 p.m.

Terry Ward wrote:

"The fringe of course is easily manipulated with buzz-words.."

And "puppy mill cruelty" isn't a buzz-word? "Concentration camps for dogs" isn't a buzz-word?

Pot, meet kettle.

DK

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 27, 2010 | 6:39 p.m.

Here's a link for Terry's document:

http://www.avma.org/convention/news/2010...

I guess the days of James Herriot are over.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 27, 2010 | 7:01 p.m.

Just saw the first anti-proposition b tv ad, paid for by the oil guy who also owns a cattle company.

A bit of incidental humor: voice-over is talking about animals, while showing a photo of both a dog AND a little kid.

(Report Comment)
Michelle Cascio October 27, 2010 | 9:00 p.m.

Thousands of puppy mill dogs discarded like trash each year in Missouri

http://yesonpropb.com/media/press-releas...

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 27, 2010 | 9:42 p.m.

Michelle:
Disposing of dead animals is a human health issue, more than a bury with dignity issue.
It's also not a Proposition B issue.
Does your employer, H$U$ investigate kill-shelter dumpsters?
http://www.animal-abusesite.info/shelter...

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 27, 2010 | 9:54 p.m.

I thought we were trying to "save the puppies???" Now more tax money to be spent on another issue, when taxpayers money could be put to good use, like more law enforcement to bust meth labs, hire more state workers for every department, and fight child abusers. Hmmmm... I thought there was no other agenda except to "save the puppies?"

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 27, 2010 | 9:58 p.m.

Soylent Green is puppies!!!

(Report Comment)
Kara Crass October 27, 2010 | 11:32 p.m.

Sarah: '12 years ago people raised the same stink when there was a ballot initiative to ban cock fighting in Missouri, and they're trying it again now. (same stink = this will shut down farming etc.'

Actually, when the first legislation was brought to Missouri concerning Cock Fighting/Bull Baiting, it was fought because in the wording, Rodeos were included in 'animal baiting'. They were forced to take the bill and change it, to exempt rodeos and it then passed.

(Report Comment)
Kara Crass October 27, 2010 | 11:42 p.m.

As to the three women in the vote yes ad:

Cecily Barker is a show breeder AND president of Save Our Setters Rescue

Bev Stobart is a show breeder AND involved in Irish Wolfhound Rescue

Dr. Melanie Mercer is indeed listed on a website for a vet clinic in Dallas Texas and it even lists her picture. ALSO, she is a breeder of Irish Wolfhounds and that website also lists her kennel in Texas. She is also involved in Irish Wolfhound rescue.

I don't know the truth on where she resides, but it does look like she is not from this state. A native yes, but I'm not sure on the residence issue.

None of these women will be affected by Proposition B. And with all of them being show breeders and involved in rescue, it seems like a win win situation for them. I think it should have been clarified in the ad that they would not be affected by the proposition.

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B!

(Report Comment)
Kara Crass October 28, 2010 | 12:18 a.m.

I have been gone for awhile, doing some actual campaigning:0) But I have been reading and trying to catch up with latest arguments, sadly, it's all the same rethoric. I think it's close enough now, that I am signing off (I'm sure you'll be sorry to see me go:0) But I have stated my opinion and that's what it is, my opinion and my right to free speech and I think I can do more good out talking to people than arguing here. I just have one more observation to make, before I go. I see people still comparing dog breeders to slave traders, pimps and concentration camps. I find it personally very offensive and insensitive to compare dog kennels to what people suffered during slavery and in concentration camps. I think we should show more compassion towards people than that. I also still see people saying that it doesn't matter what HSUS' agenda is, that they don't subscribe to that way of thinking. That HSUS is just money backing them and they will take what they can get to 'save the dogs'.

It got me thinking, since everyone seems determined to bring up Nazi Germany in describing dog kennels. I remember in history class, one of the excuses used by the German people, on why they turned a blind eye was, 'they knew something wasn't right, that their neighbors were disappearing. But it wasn't their policy or their doing. They didn't believe in what Hitler was doing, but he had made Germany more prosperous than ever. Who were they to turn their back on prosperity just because they didn't agree with his AGENDA.'

You can't have it both ways, it's hypocritical to take their money and then 'turn a blind eye.'

If Proposition B passes, it is just one amendment away from affecting all livestock. This is the second time they have tried to pass legislation in this state and they will be back. When they come back again, against agriculture in this state, I just hope you fight as hard against them as you have for them.

PLEASE VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B!!!

(Report Comment)
Thomas Kirby October 28, 2010 | 12:55 a.m.

You know, I seriously hate liars. I hate the way that they can get over on people and tangle everyone's feet with lies and make us have to sort out lies.

(Report Comment)
Michelle Cascio October 28, 2010 | 2:39 p.m.

This state ballot initiative is being led by the Missourians for the Protection of Dogs.

Prop B is supported by more than 100 Missouri veterinarians and veterinary clinics; more than 100 animal welfare charities and organizations, including the Humane Society of Missouri, the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, Central Missouri Humane Society, Humane Society of Southwest Missouri, Wayside Waifs, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) and The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS); prominent Missouri citizens such as Tony LaRussa and Linda Bond; as well as responsible dog breeders, religious leaders, and Missouri businesses.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 28, 2010 | 3:22 p.m.

Kara Crass, the two show breeders are covered under the bill--they're exempt, like many others in the state. Who is exempt is as much a part of the bill, as who is covered.

Jessica Bryand, there are no new taxes with this bill. The estimated cost to the bill, is nothing more than what is needed now to ensure enforcement of existing laws.

As for the meth lab thing, this bill has no impact on that, or the money needed for enforcement. So, since there is no bill on meth labs, maybe we could focus on Proposition B?

Kara Crass won the Godwin Award for this thread.

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro October 28, 2010 | 3:39 p.m.

THE TRUTH ABOUT MISSOURI’S PROPOSITION B
Oct. 25th, 2010
“Puppy Cruelty Prevention Act”
http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=proposi...

(Report Comment)
lacinda florez October 28, 2010 | 4:05 p.m.

Vote Yes on Prop B. This will in no way impact farmers READ THE BILL! God forbid these breeders have any guidelines to follow. I mean who cares if you force a dog to have 200 pups before it dies or if it freezes to death in it's cage? If you have an ounce of humanity PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE VOTE YES!

(Report Comment)
lacinda florez October 28, 2010 | 4:29 p.m.

If your idea of making dogs walk around pregnant until they die your livelihood, than you need to go get a real job! I wish men could have babies because I would start a trade and keep you in cages by the hundreds and feed you enough to stay alive, keep you in the rain and snow and breed you till you die! Oh how does that tickel your fancy?

(Report Comment)
Cindy Cooke October 31, 2010 | 8:03 a.m.

I am a retired Air Force officer, an attorney, and for the last 33 years, a breeder of purebred dogs. I am one of the breeders of the Scottish Terrier, Sadie, who was Best in Show at the 2010 Westminster Kennel Club show. I am writing to express my opposition to Proposition B.

This proposal is the quintessential wolf in sheep’s clothing. Its proponents are claiming that their goal is the welfare of dogs. In reality, it is part of a national HSUS campaign to make dog breeding so expensive and over-regulated that we middle-class and blue-collar people who comprise the majority of dog breeders will be forced to quit. The requirements in Proposition B were clearly written by people with no real knowledge of dog husbandry. Let me review them for you:

• Numbers of dogs. There is no rational nexus between the number of dogs in a kennel and their care. Some families cannot take proper care of a single dog, while many well-run kennels can successfully breed, train, and care for large numbers of dogs. In addition, the animal rights community follows the Maoist “long march” philosophy—they don’t actually care what number of dogs you set to trigger their draconian regulations. They merely want to establish the legal concept that there is a number at which dog breeders must be heavily regulated by the government. The proof of this is that the proposed number has varied widely depending on the state in which these types of bills have been introduced. In some states, the number has been as low as 3, in others, as high as 200. Once a number has been incorporated into the law, HSUS and its minions will return every year to insist that the number is too high and must be reduced. They will grind us out of existence if you allow it.
• Prompt treatment for illness. Experienced breeders can distinguish major problems from minor and can usually treat minor problems as well as any veterinarian. This proposal would substitute the judgment of the animal control officer for all breeders as to what conditions require veterinary care and what constitutes “prompt” veterinary care. Proposition B assumes that all dog breeders are too stupid to determine when their dogs really need veterinary care. The real goal of this proposal is to drive up the cost of maintaining a kennel of dogs.
• Unrestricted access to outside area. As the most variable mammal on the planet, a dog’s need for spending time outdoors varies widely. A livestock guarding dog like a Great Pyrenees may spend days and nights outdoors while a Pekingese, bred to be a companion to wealthy women with bound feet, could happily live indoors its entire life. An American Hairless Terrier needs sunscreen when it goes outdoors, while Alaskan Malamutes can curl up in the snow and sleep comfortably. It is impossible to set a one-size fits all rule for dogs.

(More in next comment)

(Report Comment)
Cindy Cooke October 31, 2010 | 8:04 a.m.

Proposition B is designed to appeal to people’s emotions. HSUS has carefully shaped the image associated with the term “puppy mill,” through their hyper-emotional fund-raising ads. The owners of commercial kennels in Missouri are painted as cruel, heartless people who profit from the suffering of animals. Some years ago, the air-conditioning in a truck owned by a commercial breeder from Missouri malfunctioned, causing the death of some of the dogs being transported. During the media hysteria that ensued, the owner of those dogs wrote a letter that he published on the internet. I have never forgotten that letter, and when I sat down to write you, I went through my files trying to find it. When I couldn’t, I tracked Mr. Jim Hughes down via the internet and he was kind enough to go through his files to provide me with a copy. Here are some excerpts from Mr. Hughes’ letter. It will give you a more accurate portrait of the people whose livelihoods will be extinguished if Proposition B becomes law:

"We accepted Jesus Christ as our personal savior in 1965. We attend the Church of Christ in Neosho, Missouri every Sunday morning and night plus every Wednesday night. All three of our children are baptized members of the church. Two of their spouses and six of our eight grandchildren have become members of the church. I have never been arrested nor have any of my children or grandchildren. None of us have ever used drugs. None of us have ever drawn one penny of government money, nor even unemployment. I have been married to the same woman for 41 years. Not one of my kids has ever been divorced. My son, Doug, the general manager of Do Bo Tri [Mr. Hughes’ kennel], just returned from missionary work in India. He is a Sunday school teacher, a school board member, and a city planning board member. All my children work with the PTA, the summer baseball program and all school functions. We support 12 charities, including St. Jude’s, the Hope School, Alzheimer’s, and Parkinson’s.

Am I bragging? Yes, somebody has to. I am proud of my family and the way we look at life. I am proud of the way my kids turned out. I am proud of the respect and love we get and give from our church and community. And I am proud of my business. We have a state of the art facility, licensed by the federal government and the state of Missouri. We are inspected by the USDA, the state of Missouri and the AKC. We suffer more inspections than nursing homes and orphanages. We do this job right. I understand that some people take exception to what I do for a living, but I will not tolerate criticism of the way I perform the job. We do it right, we do it legal. We set the standard for the way this job should be done."

(More in next comment)

(Report Comment)
Cindy Cooke October 31, 2010 | 8:05 a.m.

Americans love dogs, and HSUS is effective at using that love of dogs to attack the very people who provide the best family pets in the world. If Proposition B succeeds in Missouri, two things will happen. Good dog breeders will leave your state, leaving you with the negligent and cruel outlaws who are already in violation of federal and state laws. And next year, the farmers of Missouri will find themselves in the HSUS crosshairs currently occupied by dog breeders.

If the HSUS anti-puppy mill juggernaut is successful, Americans will be forced to buy their pets overseas from countries where animal welfare is the lowest of priorities. HSUS has painted itself as the reasonable organization, compared to the radical folks over at PETA. Please don’t be fooled. If PETA is the IRA, HSUS is Sinn Fein. Their goal is a petless, meatless society. Those of us who truly love dogs will fight them to the bitter end. Please join us in that fight and vote “No” on Proposition B.

Cindy Cooke

(Report Comment)
Cindy Cooke October 31, 2010 | 8:44 a.m.

Let me add one more thing about Prop B--the requirement that a bitch may only produce a litter every 18 months. When I first started breeding dogs, we never did back-to-back breedings because we believed it was important to "rest the uterus" between breedings. However, theriogenologists (vets who specialize in reproduction) now know that a bitch's endocrine cycle is the same whether she is bred or not. The resulting elevation in progesterone that is designed to maintain a pregnancy, in fact damages the empty uterus. We weren't "resting" the uterus, we were damaging it. Vets now recommend more back-to-back breedings and a spay when the bitch's breeding days are over. This bill ignores all of the advances in veterinary science because it is based on a belief system that maintains that "forcing" bitches to breed and have puppies is harmful to them. Believe me, if these people knew anything about dogs, they would know that most bitches participate enthusiastically in the process, and are loving, doting mothers.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 31, 2010 | 10:47 a.m.

"HSUS and it's minions..."

I read this and I wanted to choke with laughter, but the issue is too serious.

I've never been called a minion before. I think I'll get that one made up into a badge.

First of all, thank you for telling the people of Missouri that we're too stupid to make up our own minds when it comes to the election.

You say we love dogs, but then you also say the only possible reason that this law is coming up for a vote is because HSUS has brainwashed us into _thinking_ we care about dogs.

I shouldn't thank you for your assessment of our intelligence, though, because you think dogs are too stupid to come in from the cold, so I guess you have an interesting perspective on intelligence. Oh, and I think you forgot the fact that outdoor runs can have an overhead screen from the sun? For that little hairless dog of yours?

Cindy, I also appreciate the unintended irony with your comment that begins with "Proposition B is designed to appeal to people’s emotions." The one where you immediately followed up with a personal note geared to generate an emotional response in the reader.

Takes chutzpah to write that kind of comment. Kudos! Especially when the good people you mention have a pretty bad rep when it comes to animal care.

Open the following page, search for do bo tri:

http://www.petstorecruelty.org/Hunte%20C...

And here's another one, again search for do bo tri:

http://www.petstorecruelty.org/Hall%20of...

As for the back-to-back breedings, I bet your vets are of the school that recommends resting every third cycle, aren't they? I've heard there's a debate on this: whether it's better to breed two cycles, and then rest, or every other. The 18 month period mentioned in Proposition B allows for both.

And then there's the issue of things like testing for hip dysplasia at 6-8 months. Isn't it true that breeders with dogs that have this problem don't breed their dogs again until checking to ensure that this defect isn't being bred into the puppies? And that's just one of the breed-specific defects?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 31, 2010 | 10:54 a.m.

And there's more on Do Bo Tri and the Hughes

http://www.pet-abuse.com/cases/8747/MO/U...

And this one, but search on Do-Bo-Tri

http://www.angasstar.com/puppymills2.htm...

And this one

http://idausa.org/news/newsarchives/news...

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 31, 2010 | 4:46 p.m.

Shelley, see this is where you really upset me at times. You have taken two cases, one not being the fault of Hughes and if you would have in fact done some research you would know that was another major media blitz by non-other than HSUS, (hmmmm... I wonder how those air conditioning units unplugged themselves?), but being liable due to ownership of company, and the other being because they had other animal breeding besides dogs? Hmmmm... anything else? No because see Shelley if you knew the Hughes you would know they are some of the most educated and respected in the pet industry. You would know, that Mr. Hughes was in fact a strong supporter and I believe he contributed to the laws that are currently in effect today in Missouri! So Shelley I should expect that you would not give credit where credit is due and maybe think about how inhumane puppy mills would be today had it not been for the Hughes family!!!!!

(Report Comment)
Cindy Cooke October 31, 2010 | 5:05 p.m.

Actually, Shelly, my vet makes recommendations based on the individual dog because the species is so variable. As for emotional arguments, I'm certainly passionate about preserving my rights to breed and OWN dogs. However, my arguments against Prop B aren't based on that emotion--they are based on facts. The vast majority of commercial breeders are decent, hardworking Americans who take good care of their dogs. That's a fact.

As for the websites you provided regarding Do Bo Tri kennels and Jim Hughes, none of those are what I would call dispassionate observers, would you? We're in a fight about the basic rights of human beings to own animals, to eat animals, and to breed animals. Prop B is by no means the beginning of this battle. HSUS and its minions (including you, if the shoe fits) have been laying the ground work for this for decades. What you're seeing now is the beginning of resistance from us. We're disorganized and we don't have much of a warchest, but what we do have is the Constitution and a refusal to quit. As Captain William Jesse McDonald of the Texas Rangers once said, "No man in the wrong can stand up to a fellow that's in the right and keeps on a-comin."

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 31, 2010 | 5:12 p.m.

I talked to hundreds of people yesterday about Prop B. The overwhelming majority.... said they would be voting YES on Prop B. So you puppy millers should be shaking in your boots because your scare tactics, lies, mis-information & propaganda isn't going to work. Missourians are too smart for that crap.
.
VOTE YES! Prop B
Prevent Puppy mill cruelty!
.
It boils down to this... This oppostion to Prop B can't come out and say "Hey, we are only interested in money & how much money we can make off dogs in puppy mills... so in order to get people to vote no...let's scare them by saying that HSUS is the big bad wolf at your door and spread a bunch of mis-information & scare the crap out of people so they will vote no & we can keep doing business as usual."
.
Missourians won't buy it. On Tuesday, Missourians will overwhelmingly support Prop B. Our dogs shouldn't be kept in tiny, filthy stacked cages their entire lives.
.
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.
.
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
.
I honestly believe that anyone who understands the horrific impact PUPPY MILLS have in the state of Missouri can only come to one conclusion . 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!

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 31, 2010 | 5:19 p.m.

Marina Shane or Marina Shane Lewis, but whatever, do you want my list of questions? Are you going to attempt to answer any of my questions???

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 31, 2010 | 5:24 p.m.

The second time I've been called a minion of HSUS. I am definitely going to have a badge made up.

Is the USDA a reliable enough source on Do-Bo-Tri for you?

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/newsroom/conte...

The original fine was $10,000.

Yup, come Tuesday, I'll be first in line to vote for Proposition B. Never been happier to vote for a bill.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 31, 2010 | 5:33 p.m.

Hey...knock yourself out, Jessica! Go ahead, put together your "list". I'm POSITIVE they've all been answered here already anyway. I'll be happy to answer ones that haven't already been answered though. (Doubt you'll have anything new though!)The opposition seems to have the same old same old lies, misinformation & scare tactics. I answered another poster with a 6 part dissertation & got no response from him.
.
VOTE YES! PROP B
PREVENT PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!
.
On Tuesday, Missourians will overwhelmingly support Prop B. Our dogs shouldn't be kept in tiny, filthy stacked cages their entire lives.
.
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.
.
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
.
I honestly believe that anyone who understands the horrific impact PUPPY MILLS have in the state of Missouri can only come to one conclusion . 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!

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 31, 2010 | 5:50 p.m.

Oh and here is another!!! TODAY looks as if local humane shelter in MISSSOURI was called and guess what?? "we don't know who to call. The local shelter says they are full and can not help....her heart is in the right place but she is hoarding stray dogs, can someone give me a name and pho...ne number to call? Everyone our neighbor calls just gives her the run-around. The sheriff told her to shoot the dogs."

Hey Shelley and Marina! Save the puppies!!! Its about the dogs!!!! REALLY?????

ONE IS ALL YOU HAVE SHELLEY on the Hughes AND THEY DIDN'T DO IT!!!!! HSUS SHELLEY!!!! I KNOW YOU THINK THEY ARE LIKE GODS AND I AM SURE SOME OF THEM MEAN WELL BUT GUESS WHAT LOOK ABOVE!!!!!! IS IT ABOUT THE DOGS SHELLEY???? What are they going to do when they have to house thousands Shelley??? You yourself have stated you have NEVER been to a licenesed kennel. Shelley come on down and see what a licensed kennel operation looks like! Better than over half the kids that live in our area! And yes I do give a lot of credit to the Hughes family. You do not hand down a family business from generation to generation without doing something right!!!!!

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 31, 2010 | 5:57 p.m.

And really Shelley, that family has been in the pet industry for like what? 50 years!!!! And that is all you have? Really? One documented, crap happens, because HSUS likes to make sure all eyes are on them, so they continue receiving factory funding! Yes Shelley good example.

VOTE NO!!!!

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 31, 2010 | 6:27 p.m.

Here is another for you Shelley, my husband worked for the Hughes for 12 years, and they still are very good hardworking, Christian, compassionate people that have set the standard so high you can only find one USDA violation in 50 years! They are the reason SW Missouri is the hub of the industry! So lets hear more about the Hughes Shelley, what else do you have? I thought this was about puppy mills? I would find it very hard to get anyone to believe the Hughes ran a puppy mill! And isn't it funny the one USDA violation they recieved wasn't even on their property in 50 years! Wasn't even in the state! Hmmm... nope doesn't look funny to me! Mr. Hughes backs legislation to have perfect healthy happy puppies for us to love and you want to try and drag him and his family down as puppy millers???? Better come up with something better!!!

(Report Comment)
Jon White October 31, 2010 | 9:40 p.m.

When I was a teen,I was a PETA member(until I saw how labs were set on fire and animals were destroyed horribly),I volunteered for the Humane Society in my home town.I was also raised on a farm where we milked our cows and ate their meat.While I understand the concern of everyday people where animals are concerned,I am stunned by the fact that so many folks are so misled by the HSUS.
I currently volunteer for a local animal rescue, (14 yrs now)and really want the public to understand the truth of what is really going on here.HSUS and their supporters have a definate agenda and the more we allow them to take our rights , the more they will demand.
Horses by statute(in Colorado) are considered livestock, BUT NOW they are considered by our agriculture dept to be PET ANIMALS.My neighbor is a rancher and he is furious,as we both know that while his ranch horses may currently not be included,we all know that they soon will!!!!
As you can guess I live in Colorado, where I used to be a Deputy,near Denver,and I have seen first hand how an animal was taken from an elderly woman because the dog had not had a grooming in 3 months,I watched in horror when others had a dog taken from them when they left the dog in the care of a neighbor for 3 days(food,water and shelter was available at all times, but the feces were not raked up in three days(in a 6 by 12 out door kennel)theses things were considered neglect and yes those animals were TAKEN from their owners.Never to be returned,destroyed in the name of Humane care!
Our agriculture dept has been completely taken over by the HSUS,and it is very apparent.Some of our PACFA inspectors as well as our so called animal protection agents are ALL ex employees of the Humane Society.
If Missourians have more moxy than Coloradoans,they will nip Prop B in the bud and never allow their rights to own an animal to be taken away. Stand up NOW before it is too late and don't think for one minute that B is where it will stop. I have sadly watched the decline of this state and would hate to see it happen in the great state of Missouri.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 1, 2010 | 9:19 a.m.

Refuting the hysteria:
.
In 1998, Proposition A was on the ballot to ban cockfighting in Missouri. The opposition declared that Proposition A would ban hunting, rodeos and fishing. Remember the hysteria that you wouldn't be able to put a worm on a hook because the word "baiting" (referring to fighting between animals) appeared in the ballot language?
.
Fast forward to 2010 and Proposition B. This proposal would amend the current law regulating large commercial dog-breeding facilities by raising minimal standards to a humane level. The opposition has declared that Proposition B would eliminate animal agriculture in Missouri, the family pet and, again, ban hunting. The language clearly is about only dogs.
.
The propaganda used during the 1998 campaign was false and misleading. The current hysteria over Proposition B is more of the same. Is the opposition resorting to scare tactics because it is unable to defend regulations that allow a dog the size of a beagle to spend its entire breeding life in a wire cage the size of a dishwasher with no veterinary care or exercise?
.
Do not fall for the opposition's lies. Proposition B would add stronger regulations such as an annual veterinary examination of the dogs, access to an exercise area and larger cages. Since 1992, there has been no reform of the current law and its standards of care. Too often, we have seen the results of a weak law, loopholes and lack of enforcement. Vote yes on Proposition B and help stop the suffering of these dogs
.
Letter to Editor written my Diann Valenti Published in the St Louis Post Dispatch:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/mai...
.
I couldn't have said it better!
.
VOTE YES! PROP B
PREVENT PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!

(Report Comment)
dan doherty November 1, 2010 | 11:41 a.m.

Here is a reason why RESCUE GROUPS AND SHELTERS should be included in the bill;
THIS WILL SHOCK MOST OF YOU!
.
.
cbc news 11/26/2009
HUMANE SOCIETY OFFICIALS CHARGED WITH CRUELTY
Left to die, group alleges
Christopher Avery, criminal lawyer for the OSPCA, alleges dozens of animals were neglected at the Toronto shelter, including dozens left to die in their cages without proper care and nutrition.

During the June raid, one officer recalled a cat whose skin came off in his hands when the officer lifted the cat up, the OSPCA alleges.

"There is absolutely no disease control or pathogen control in this building," Avery said, adding that the shelter "is absolutely disease-infested.'

"The animals are left to catch horrible diseases and die in their crates, based on the euthanasia policy and refusing to allow the veterinarians who work here to do their jobs."

The shelter will remain closed to the public while the OSPCA investigates further.

The roughly 1,000 animals in the shelter home will remain there, with investigators going through each cage to investigate the conditions of each animal. This could result in more charges, the OSPCA said.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2...

(Report Comment)
dan doherty November 1, 2010 | 11:43 a.m.

OK Lets see how many USDA and state of Missouri laws they violated;
CAN YOU FIND THEM ALL? ! !

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 1, 2010 | 12:14 p.m.

And USDA & Missouri law applies to A CANADA humane society, how again?
MORE "Let's change the subject from Prop B & mislead people" garbarge from those who SUPPORT PUPPY MILLERS!
.
Get a real arguement
.
VOTE YES! PROP B!
PREVENT PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!

(Report Comment)
dan doherty November 1, 2010 | 2:05 p.m.

so you agree that the Humane Society there was being inhumane in their treatment of these animals?
1,000 animals in one place at a Humane Society shelter!
Allowed to die in their crates!
"Absolutely diseased-infested" conditions!

Marina Shane your only argument was that it wasn't in Missouri! That's pathetic at best, cold, calloused and hypocritical more like it.

(Report Comment)
dan doherty November 1, 2010 | 2:08 p.m.

Just for you Marina,
Since you "called me out" that that HUMANE SOCIETY was in Canada;
Here you go;
Mid-Florida Retriever Rescue charged with 261 counts of animal cruelty May 30,2010
Charles and Diane O'Malley, owners of Mid-Florida Retriever Rescue located at 15195 Angus Road, Polk City, Florida were charged with 261 counts of animal cruelty. Bail had been set at $130,000 each, however the couple did not have to post bail and were released after a first-appearance hearing...Deputies had to wear gas masks because the odor was so strong in the house. Dogs were found living in urine and feces filled cages, in closets and in bathrooms.

or how about this?
L.I. Animal Rescue Activist Charged With Euthanizing Dogs Without Vet License
nbcnewyork.com 08/26/2010
The founder of a group that rescues unwanted horses faces animal cruelty charges for allegedly euthanizing three dogs without a veterinarian's license.
Mona Kanciper of Manorville, on eastern Long Island, also was charged with two counts of endangering the welfare of children. Officials said she performed the euthanization in front of minors.

Animal rights advocates are among the most hypocritical people in the world!

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 1, 2010 | 2:27 p.m.

Thanks Marina Shane, I am going to go voice my opinions!!!

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers November 1, 2010 | 2:47 p.m.

To save dan dougherty from having to desperately search through the internet...

Folks who run rescue operations without an associated shelter aren't covered under ACFA or Proposition B: AFCA, because they aren't a licensed shelter or commercial breeder, pet store, boarding kennel, or dealer; Proposition B because they aren't a commercial breeder.

Licensed shelters in Missouri are covered under ACFA.

The so-called "rescue" you highlighted was an animal hoarder. In Missouri, existing animal cruelty laws apply to animal hoarders and other individuals. There may also be local laws that limit the number of dogs/cats an individual has, and that add to the state cruelty laws.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers November 1, 2010 | 2:49 p.m.

Jessica Brand, that family paid one of the highest USDA fines for a commercial dog breeder in the state of Missouri.

Shades of Hunte Corporation...

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers November 1, 2010 | 2:53 p.m.

Jessica Brand

Easy on the caps lock.

I can't even read your comments, they're so full of caps lock and exclamation points.

If you want to ask me a direct question, do so in such a way that I can tell what you're asking. Otherwise I'll just have to assume you don't want an answer, you just want to rant.

(Report Comment)
dan doherty November 1, 2010 | 3:05 p.m.

I don't have to desperately search the internet, there are so many cases of animal neglect and abuse in shelters, many sanctioned and run by civil authorities too. There are many rescue groups with cases of neglect too.
All anyone has to do is enter a search and use just a few tags such as animal rescue,abuse,neglect, charged,shelters,etc.

Here are some more;
Dallas Animal shelter manager charged with cruelty in cat death
10:36 PM Mon, Aug 09, 2010 |
Rudolph Bush/Reporter

two employees of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) were arrested on 31 felony animal-cruelty charges for killing and disposing of dogs and puppies in
a dumpster."

Shelly,
Your "blame shifting" by saying they are covered or not covered by certain acts or licenses is a moot point.

The FACTS are that dogs and puppies need to be protected from the very same groups that claim moral superiority over all others.

Rest assured, if passed there will be attorneys working to change the narrow focus and have rescue groups and shelters included. The laws of unintended consequences swing both ways.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 1, 2010 | 3:36 p.m.

Ok Shelley here is my question for you on the Hughes, was the violation in their kennel facility? And one violation was all that you could find on that family in 50 years? And who was the first to report the accident?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers November 1, 2010 | 3:57 p.m.

The do-bo-tri Hughes had numerous USDA violations completely separate from the poor little pups stuffed into a truck without air conditioning in hot weather.

They've had violations back into the 1990s, and perhaps even earlier that pre-dated the web.

There have been numerous complaints about puppies purchased at pet stores that were sick, or dying, and were traced by to Do-Bo-Tri.

Here's a USDA report:

"Jan. 9, 2001--Licensed animal dealers Jim, Paul, and Sharon Hughes in Purdy, Mo., John Baker in Neosho, Mo., Sue Kerr of Wheaton Mo., and Do-Bo-Tri Kennel, Ltd. in Purdy, Mo. APHIS intends to show violations in the areas of veterinary care, handling, transportation, housing, sanitation, and husbandry. "

That was before the USDA revoked their license.

Yes, definitely Proposition B would apply to these people. Big time.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers November 1, 2010 | 4:01 p.m.

Search on the kennel name and Google returns _pages_ pointing to article and stories about this kennel, and the folks associated with it.

(Report Comment)
Jon White November 1, 2010 | 4:42 p.m.

Ok so what I am getting out of all of this is that because some people are law breakers,a law should be in effect to prevent anyone from making money off of their right to raise an animal?
Maybe there should also be laws to prevent everyone from driving because someone is driving drunk.
Or ban guns because someone was shot by one?
Read,Read Read it CLEARLY states domesticated animals...even acfa can see it...What is wrong with allowing people to read for themselves,the only propaganda involved here is clearly pertaining to those who are pushing for it!
Go to...http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp
Don't be fooled,educate yourselves,the radical people and supporters of HSUS and PETA would love to see less animal ownership and more dead animals.
And by the way, every state has enough of their own shelter and rescue animals without more from other states being pulled in to meet the supply of purebreds(dog resale is all it is).Our rescue takes in all kinds of dogs and we rarely have purebreds,milldogrescue has brought in plenty.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 1, 2010 | 5:20 p.m.

Funny Shelley they are not even in business any more! Why don't you look that up! And that was for the same one that they paid out one time? Because in 12 years my husband worked for them that was the only time they had violations!

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers November 1, 2010 | 5:40 p.m.

Jessica, bull. I've found violations online about them in the 1990s. But thank goodness they are out of business, except all they did was sell out to Hunte. I imagine that Hughes is still working for Hunte.

And this is off-topic, other than Proposition B would definitely apply to a kennel like Do Bo Tri.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 1, 2010 | 6:07 p.m.

dan doherty wrote: "Marina Shane your only argument was that it wasn't in Missouri! That's pathetic at best, cold, calloused and hypocritical more like it."

Well, the case in point is that we are talking about MISSOURI laws, MISSOURI PUPPY MILLS. Not rescues/shelters much less rescues/shelters in other countries or states! Let's stick to issues, sir.
.
VOTE YES! PROP B
PREVENT PUPPY MILL CRUELTY!

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 1, 2010 | 6:08 p.m.

LMAO Shelley, I don't know... Hmmmm... Maybe you should call Hunte and ask them?

(Report Comment)
dan doherty November 1, 2010 | 10:44 p.m.

It has been noted that Marina Shane has avoided answering my questions regarding how she feels about the Humane Society abuses of animals at their own shelter!
Giving her the benefit of the doubt, (perhaps she is still deciding how she feels about this),although it is pretty much a no-brainer if one actually cares about animals more than animal rights organizations;

I ask you again one more time;
"so you agree that the Humane Society there was being inhumane in their treatment of these animals?
1,000 animals in one place at a Humane Society shelter!
Allowed to die in their crates!
"Absolutely diseased-infested" conditions!"

And it DOES have a lot to do with Missouri, because if animal rescue and shelters are abusing and neglecting puppies other places you can bet they are in Missouri and we need laws in place to prevent those abuses from happening, but they conveniently exempted themselves.
It is for reasons like this that we should

DRIVE MARINA SHANE CRAZY....
...........................and
..........................
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B :)

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 1, 2010 | 11:47 p.m.

"Jessica Bryand, there are no new taxes with this bill. The estimated cost to the bill, is nothing more than what is needed now to ensure enforcement of existing laws." Shelley call Nixon and ask him. I am tired of giving facts and then it being turned around as an opinion!!!! I live in a free country, I have the right to my opinion, so when it comes to voting and politics I go on FACTS!!!! You seem to have all your facts in a tiny little spread sheet but you only want your facts not ALL the facts!!!!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 2, 2010 | 11:46 a.m.

Cindy Cooke-the UKC's clever lobby-wonk is busy busy!
Supporting dog-farmers in California, Indiana and now Missouri.
From Ms. Cooke's playbook:

'We’ve been at war for a long time. Like Al Quaeda, the leaders of the HSUS patiently prepared for war.'

There you have it!
Al Quaeda=HSUS
Wayne Pacelle=Osama Bin Laden

That explains everything!
WHY DIDN'T WE KNOW THIS BEFORE?

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 2, 2010 | 12:10 p.m.

Wow Terry the lightbulb came on for you! Yes terrorrism! Animal enterprise terrorist act!

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers November 2, 2010 | 2:07 p.m.

Terrorism?!

You people have got to get a reality check. Seriously.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 2, 2010 | 3:14 p.m.

Shelley have you read the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Ente...

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 2, 2010 | 3:21 p.m.

dan doherty "DRIVE MARINA SHANE CRAZY...." Actually, what you think doesn't phase me one bit, Dan. I know you are completely irrational on the subject & just trying to deflect from the real issue.... which is puppy mills & Prop B. All you and Jessica & CC spew around here are mis-information, scare tactics, and laughable propoganda. since you can't come out in public & admit that you are Pro-puppy mill, you try to side step the issue at hand and divert attention from the real issue to off topic issues.
.
And those of you calling animal welfare people "Terrorist"... shame on you. Shelley is correct... you people need to get a reality check.
.
Please join me in voting YES on Prop B!
Prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty!

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers November 2, 2010 | 3:43 p.m.

Bonkers.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 2, 2010 | 4:27 p.m.

I am not a dog breeder! So who is spewing mis-information?

(Report Comment)
dan doherty November 2, 2010 | 6:25 p.m.

Marina,
I see you still did not answer my question.
I AM for licensed,commercial breeders right to operate a business under the current USDA and state of Missouri rules.
I have never denied it.
Gee, I've been called a lot of things, but "irrational"?
Seriously?
There has been no misinformation from me, I can substantiate every claim I have made, and am prepared to do sso.
Nice try though, and you are still my favorite flake in the cereal box!

(Report Comment)
Nancy Warner November 7, 2010 | 12:19 p.m.

Here is the big question? What is a Puppy Mill? In their advertising, the HSUS, lumped "all 3000 of us" (all of the current licensed or registered entitees) into the Puppy Mill definition and that includes Animal Shelter, Boarding Kennel, Carrier, Commercial Breeder, Commercial Kennel, Contract Kennel, Dealer/Broker/Internet Listing Service, Exhibitor, Rescue, Hobby/Show Breeder with more than 10 intact females, Intermediate Handler, Pet Shop, Pet Sitters, Pound/Dog Pound, Hobby/Show Breeder 10 or less intact females and Exempt with 3 or less intact females. These are the categories in the current law and this is where they got their 3000 from.
Puppy Mills do not register and fly under the radar. They did nothing to address this situation and just want all honest registrants or licensees to be put out of business and for those that can afford and will make the needed changes to their set-ups, the price of dogs will go up and be passed on to the consumer.

If they wanted to do something productive for all breeds... #1: along with mandatory microchipping and DNA, #2: they would have required that all dogs not be bred before the age of two (when they have finished maturity and growth in mind and body) and after age eight (along with the breaks, breed twice, ship once that most show folks already adhere too) #3: that all dogs be tested for each testible malady that can plague any given breed. IE: Hip dysplasia, vWD, CERF the eyes, knees, elbows, etc.

People with show dogs do this as a regular practice and I love being able to claim "Excellent" on my dogs OFA Radiographs (and even Good or Fair becaue they are passing results also). When you test two or three generations for their maladies and can breed dogs free of such maladies, you can most assuredly have healthy litters in the future.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 7, 2010 | 8:07 p.m.

NANCY, HOW 'BOUT A DICTIONARY???????

Mill: A process, agency, or institution that turns out products in the manner of a factory:

Puppy: young dog

PUPPY-MILL: AN INSTITUTION THAT TURNS OUT YOUNG DOGS IN THE MANNER OF A FACTORY.

WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT?

THESE ARE SIMPLE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WORDS!

WE USE THEM EVERY DAY!

HERE ARE SOME OTHERS:

CAR-THIEF
TRASH-CAN
LIGHT-BULB

DING-BAT

NUT-BAG
DIM-WIT

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 8, 2010 | 11:25 a.m.

To those who voted yes on Prop B.... I thank you from the bottom of my heart. This has been a tireless campaign with Missouri volunteers working non-stop for passage of this legislation for years. I can personally attest to the long hours gathering signatures, notarizing signatures, filing those petitions forms, gathering endorsements, raising funds, calling, emailing, advertising, letter writing, sign posting, leafletting & electioneering. It was long hours & hard work, but worth every moment to know that we can finally take a huge step toward repealing our title of Puppy Mill Capitol of the US.
.
Thank you to all who voted YES on Prop B! Dogs Can't vote, but you gave them a voice yesterday! Please continue to advocate for their welfare by joining Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation. www.maal.org

(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