Proposition B would create stricter standards for dog breeding and little else

Friday, October 29, 2010 | 4:19 p.m. CDT

COLUMBIA — Supporters and opponents of Proposition B, a ballot measure that adds stricter standards to current laws regulating dog breeders, have had a lot to say about the measure. Readers have made hundreds of comments about the issue at Many of them are questioning the Humane Society of the United States' motivation behind sponsoring the ballot measure and expressing concern that it can be applied to animals besides dogs. Here, we've tried to clear up some of the issues that readers have brought up in both comments and letters to the editor.

Will Proposition B allow the Humane Society of the United States to regulate animal agriculture or does it only apply to dogs? Is the society trying to get rid of animal agriculture?

The language in Proposition B refers only to standards of care for dogs who are bred for the purpose of selling their offspring as pets. The initiative defines "pet" as "any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof."

David Martosko, chief editor for, said Proposition B establishes two precedents that could lead to stricter regulations of animal agriculture later if Proposition B passes. First, he said, if the Proposition B definition of pet is used in later initiatives, livestock could be defined as pets. Second, the initiative allows the government to limit the number of animals a person can own, which he suggested could carry over into later initiatives.

The Missouri Farm Bureau is protesting Proposition B with an ad campaign suggesting that passage of the initiative would lead to similar restrictions on other animal industries, such as pork, beef, dairy and hunting. But Martosko said that the Humane Society of the United States has not yet taken a pet initiative and tried to apply it to livestock.

The society's website does list concerns about the treatment of farm animals among the issues it addresses, but Dale Bartlett, deputy manager of public policy for the society, said the organization's only focus in Missouri is on substandard breeding facilities.

"I can tell you we have no current plans to do anything on agriculture in Missouri," he said.

Would Proposition B replace or work in conjunction with existing laws?

The initiative contains the following statement: "The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare. This section shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulation protecting the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this section prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations in addition to this section."

Why are animal shelters exempt from Proposition B?

Barbara Schmitz, the Missouri state director of the Humane Society of the United States and the campaign manager for Missourians for Protection of Dogs/Yes on Prop B, said that animal shelters are exempt because they do not have the same profit motivation that professional breeders have. 

Tim Rickey, who does anti-cruelty work with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, said the difference in motivation can lead to inhumane treatment in breeding facilities.

"The goal is volume, to get as many puppies as you can from that dog over the span of her life," he said.

Rickey added that the fact that animal shelters are open to the public makes them more accountable, while private breeders can avoid scrutiny by not allowing others to see their facilities. He also said that dogs are kept at animal shelters for shorter periods of time than they are at breeding facilities.

What is the relationship between the Humane Society of the United States and the Central Missouri Humane Society?

The two are not affiliated. The Humane Society of the United States does not give money or take homeless animals from the local humane society. Alan Allert, the director of Central Missouri Humane Society, said about 90 percent of the animal shelter's funding comes from public donations and the rest comes from contracts with Columbia and Boone County animal control services.

The Humane Society of the United States website says that the organization was founded to give "a national voice to the fight against cruelty" after founders recognized that local humane societies were too busy with the daily tasks of running their shelters to focus on larger issues. Bartlett said Humane Society of the United States addresses big-picture items that local shelters can't handle.

"We're an advocacy organization," he said.

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.


Sarah Barnett October 29, 2010 | 4:48 p.m.

Thank you for this piece - it is important people in Missouri make an informed decision, and not fall for the scare tactics from opponants to Prop B.

In fact, those who have lived in Missouri for years may remember that 12 years ago, when there was a ballot initiative to ban cockfighting, the same arguements were made (ironically, by many of the same groups). It's been 12 years, and no attempt to impact livestock agriculture or sport hunting through the legislature or ballot initiative process has been made.

Fifteen states recently passed strong laws cracking down on abusive puppy mills, including major agricultural states, giving dogs basic humane standards of care such as food, water, veterinary care, exercise and shelter, and hopefully Missourians will make Missouri the 16th state.

Read the measure and get answers to commonly asked questions at

Vote YES on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 29, 2010 | 5:42 p.m.

No "current" plans???? Hmmm...

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 29, 2010 | 5:44 p.m.

Well Sarah didn't the cock fighting ban when introducded to the house ban rodeos and fishing???

(Report Comment)
Anne Hogan October 29, 2010 | 7:04 p.m.

Once again Jessica, you're trying to avoid the actual issue. For your reference, here is the language Missouri cockfighting ban - it specifically exempts rodeo activity and says nothing about fishing.

The article above clears up many of the issues that people seem to be confused about.

(Report Comment)
Cody Hobbs October 29, 2010 | 7:20 p.m.

Yea after we fought to get it taken off there ANNE

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 29, 2010 | 7:38 p.m.

Well CODY, all I can find on Proposition A from 1998 shows rodeos as exempt, and that's what was written into the initial petition, and the final vote:

And since no one is attempt to insert a ban against rodeos into Proposition B, let's move on, shall we?

(Report Comment)
Cody Hobbs October 29, 2010 | 7:52 p.m.

Um Shelly DO NOT TALK TO ME LIKE I AM STUPID!!! I was not the one who brought it up but, yet you do not set there and yell at them!!! So BITE ME!!!

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 29, 2010 | 7:58 p.m.

Well I think it proves that HSUS back legislation has tried to weasel their beliefs on animail rights into Missouri before. Does HSUS feel rodeos should be banned? How bout Circus's? How about Hunting?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 29, 2010 | 8:20 p.m.

Cody, your own words, not to mention keyboard use, say much about you. I don't have to say a word.

Jessica, how about Proposition B?

(Report Comment)
jim foster October 29, 2010 | 9:09 p.m.

Go to segment 10/25/10 and listen for yourselves. You want the real truth? It all comes out in the end folks. Listen to what was done to me on live radio.
Feel free to contact me via face book. Yep they showed themselves to the world!!!
Line #9 is the door to your meat supply. They won't stop with dogs.Look at California and Florida.

(Report Comment)
jim foster October 29, 2010 | 9:10 p.m.

Go back and take a look at the other states that this was done in and ask those people the end results. Now we have horses starving to death in back pastures during the harsh winter months. Humane???

(Report Comment)
John Doppler Schiff October 29, 2010 | 9:23 p.m.

Careful, Shelley. HumaneWatchers feel threatened by facts and may bite when backed into a corner.

Jessica, whether HSUS is involved in Prop B or not is utterly irrelevant. Missouri is voting on a law, not electing Wayne Pacelle as emperor.

And I'm sorry to be the one to put sand on your slippery slope argument, but the passage or failure of Prop B will not affect future animal welfare initiatives in Missouri one bit. Our legislative process will be unchanged, and Missourians or their elected representatives will still have to vote on any new laws.

That simple fact points out the real source of your fear. You're not worried about HSUS forcing its will on Missouri; you're really worried that Missourians will *agree* with HSUS that cruelty to animals is an evil, reprehensible act that should be stopped.

Give Missourians credit for their intelligence and perception. Nobody is "weaseling" legislation past them. They know what they support, they know what they believe in, and they'll vote accordingly.

That's why Prop B is favored by a significant margin in Missouri, despite the scaremongering of misinformation of its opponents.

Vote YES on Prop B!

(Report Comment)
John Doppler Schiff October 29, 2010 | 9:31 p.m.

Jim, I live in California. What was done in California that was so world-shatteringly awful? Prop 2? Guess what: I bought eggs just last week at the supermarket. Cage-free. From a California farm. Same price they've been for months.

So much for the supposedly disastrous repercussions of treating animals humanely.

(Report Comment)
Mary Haas October 29, 2010 | 9:31 p.m.

Well I think it is sad that anyone would associate with and support an organization that thinks it is okay to say: "I guess I forgot to tell the truth".

Given that HSUS representative lied about a Veterinarian... I decided to check out a bit more of the story.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 29, 2010 | 9:43 p.m.

"Jessica, whether HSUS is involved in Prop B or not is utterly irrelevant. Missouri is voting on a law, not electing Wayne Pacelle as emperor."

Spot on. Well said.

BTW, I buy eggs that are cage free. Organic, too. I'm amazed at how popular these have become after the recent salmonella fiasco.

And Mary Haas, I'm exhausted of the hyperbole--a mistake is not a lie.

And can we ever focus on Proposition B?

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 29, 2010 | 9:50 p.m.

Shelley, Shelley, Shelley, are you sure you do not work for HSUS????

"Despite recent claims to the contrary from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), recent poultry science does not support the conclusion that expensive “cage-free” egg production lowers the public-health risk from Salmonella." Agriview.

(Report Comment)
jim foster October 29, 2010 | 9:53 p.m.

Speaking of being backed into a corner? Listen to what happened when someone was unable to defend a position.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 29, 2010 | 9:57 p.m.

Yes, Jim, John is a animal rights CA person that apparently enjoys buying his eggs knowing how many unemployed farmers he helped leave jobless and with no source of income to provide for their families, all for the little chicken embryo he boiled and ate all because of the lack of common sense would have told him cooking it kills salmonella anyway!

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 29, 2010 | 10:07 p.m.

If HSUS is only concerned about the animals, then why are Shelley, Sarah, and John so concerned about controlling the narrative here?

Virtually everything here has had to do with Prop B. That which has not had to do with Prop B has to do with the HSUS character, which is related to the issue at hand. The HSUS cannot be trusted to do what they say the are planing to do. The CA Prop 2 started out with the demand that chickens be able to stretch their wings without touching another chicken. It has metamorphosed into a demand for cage-free chickens. Now the farmers that have already purchased new equipment to meet the first demand must now remodel yet again. Cage-free chickens are not happier, they are not ensured access to the outdoors, they are still de-beaked, How has this Prop 2 improved their lives and what else can egg farmers expect from the HSUS.

So now we come to Prop B. There is a lot of "wiggle room" in this proposition. First, we have the rigid 50-dog limit, which we all know will simply spiral downward over time. Then we have the line 9 (I believe it is), that ensures that the domestic livestock that live within a distance of a domicile can be classified as "pets" and under the control of Prop B. Pretty bad for backyard farmers who have a chicken tractor with 25 chickens, eh? Especially if they have a small kennel of dogs and maybe a small pen of meat rabbits?

And what about the Catch-22 of the ambient temperature between 45 and 85 degrees and the unfettered access to the out doors? If my small dog needs unfettered access and it's 20 degrees out, then how does that mesh with the minimum temperature demand? If I close my dog inside, because such temperatures are unsafe for dogs that average six pounds in weight, then am I in violation even though my concern is for the dog's welfare? If I allow my small dog unfettered access and it freezes to death, am I then guilty of animal cruelty even though I am conforming to the requirements of the law? And, on a related topic, even though animals under a certain age are not required to have unfettered access and puppies are exempted, how does this requirement affect my 3-ounce puppies when Mama needs unfettered access? Just curious . . .

So there it is . . . you wanted on-point discussion. When you answer these questions in a reasonable fashion, I have more of them.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 29, 2010 | 10:09 p.m.

Jessica, huh, I didn't know cage free eggs didn't come from chickens, and weren't raised by farmers.

And you quote an agri-business magazine as definitive proof?

Do you all even care about Proposition B anymore? You can't focus on it. In fact, most of the push back now seems to be against HSUS. Is that really the purpose behind the comments--not a push back against Proposition B, so much, but a push back against HSUS?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 29, 2010 | 10:10 p.m.

I do not work for HSUS.

(Report Comment)
Sarah Barnett October 29, 2010 | 10:14 p.m.

Jim maybe you can answer a question I have then, you see I read the article by Jo Ann from the egg council, where she talks about HSUS taking chickens and calling the tv station? See unlike what Barb said, where there was a couple (Jim and Mary Foster) who ran a puppy mill, there is not a single trace of this supposed chicken stealing (despite part of the complaint being we called media).

Because none of us at HSUS who would usually be involved in an animal rescue remember this one, which is odd, because despite rescuing thousands of animals each year, we do remember the situations we are called in to help with.

Now back to telling us we should look at other states where this has passed, that I DO agree with you. Fifteen states recently passed strong laws cracking down on abusive puppy mills, including major agricultural states, giving dogs basic humane standards of care such as food, water, veterinary care, exercise and shelter.

And people are still farming, able to eat (fun fact: HSUS Staffers eat food), and there were not herds of poodles running loose in the street.

I understand that any change can be scary, and not always convenient, but that shouldn't stop positive change. I strongly believe that if people stop, and actually read the language of the act, you will see that it very specifically focuses on dogs, and only dogs.

Read the act, get answers to commonly asked questions, and learn why the Humane Society of Missouri (that's the local humane society by the way), and many Missouri vets urge a YES vote on Prop B.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 29, 2010 | 10:22 p.m.

Shelley you brought up cage free eggs which by the way was backed by HSUS that is backing Prop B!

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 29, 2010 | 10:29 p.m.

Shelley, heaven for bid I quote an agriculture reference since eggs are agriculture. Is this better? Even though the Pew Health Group backs and is involved with HSUS legislation. Hmmmm...

(Report Comment)
Sarah Barnett October 29, 2010 | 10:36 p.m.

Mary I read your note, and was interested in what you said about Virginia. I work with a rescue in Virginia, and we pull animals from rural shelters (including Mercer County). Are they full - absolutely, is it primarily breeders bringing dogs to the shelters? No. Trust me - the rescue I work with pulls dogs from rural shelters, and while there is a variety, it is not, primarily breeding dogs. (and if it is, well it sure isn't breeders you want breeding any more because they aren't doing so hot of a job)

Please also let Heather Zimmerman know that many different shelters and rescues take the dogs rescued from puppy mills by HSUS. While we mention them in press releases, so that those interested in adopting can contact them, we generally don't give lists of what groups we work with to people just for the fun of it.

That said, the rescue I work with is one of them, and while it is extremely sad to see them when they first come to us, it is heartwarming to see them come out of their shell. In fact we were just talking tonight about one mom that came to us from a puppy mill raid - she was extremely pregnant when we got her, she gave birth to 6 puppies. Within a week she had to be rushed to the vet, because her uterus was infected and causing bleeding. They had to do an emergency spay, and several blood transfusions to save her. Her uterus was extremely infected when they opened her up.

Back to the dog, she has her own room in the house, and it was extremely sad to see her have no expectation of being allowed out. She had an open crate which she hid in when she first came. It was heart breaking. She has since come out of her shell, but she would still be living in a filthy crammed cage if it weren't for the HSUS team. Her puppies were able to be raised with her, and not taken away when they were too young.

Please feel free to contact me on facebook - unlike Jim I will actually give you my profile info, because I am happy to answer legitimate questions. (search for sarah barnett)

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 29, 2010 | 10:50 p.m.

Sarah, what does this article mean by no current plans? I would also like HSUS views on rodeos, hunting, and circuses and will these be addressed in Missouri in the future?

(Report Comment)
michelle johnson October 29, 2010 | 11:38 p.m.

Sarah, Barbara intentionally fabricated a story to defame Dr. Foster. St.Louis heard it and so did Mark Reardon. She stated that she had inspection reports and could prove he and his wife have over 500 dogs in Shelbina, Mo.
Barbara made a grave tactical error. The link is floating all over Missouri. Several of my fellow veterinarians in this state have now heard what Ms. Schmitz pulled and they are all pulling the plug on HSUS. The Tea Party and Republican parties have that link.

go to segment 10/25/10 and listen to the lie

(Report Comment)
John Doppler Schiff October 30, 2010 | 12:05 a.m.

Thank you Kim, that's a marked improvement.

HSUS has *nothing* to do with Prop B, for the reasons I discussed earlier. HSUS does not pass laws unilaterally. They are passed by legislators, or they are voted upon by the good people of Missouri.

Therefore, it is IRRELEVANT what HSUS wants, what you think they want, what you think they will do, or what you think they've done. That does not change the fact that no law goes into effect in Missouri without the blessing of its populace or their duly appointed representatives.

Is HSUS slipping some fiendish, legislative time bomb into Prop B that will explode 5 years from now, rendering all livestock illegal through some magical legal transformation?


Sec. 5 states "FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION... the following terms have the following meanings." [Emphasis added for the benefit of the obstinate and the oblivious.]

This is not a prescriptive definition that other laws must follow. This is not a declaration that henceforth, "pet" will be defined by this criteria throughout Missouri. It's exactly what it says: a definition of a term as used in this very specific section of law.

Oh, but wait... Kim, that's a stunning discovery. Rabbits would be considered pets for this law!

Except that every single mention of the term "pet" appears in conjunction with the phrase "covered dogs". Check it. It appears in Sec. 3, 4, and 7 specifically in reference to DOGS.

So yeah, it might be bad news to a farmer with rabbits -- if you can't distinguish them from a DOG. (Should I capitalize every mention of "DOG" for the benefit of the Prop B opponents who can't seem to comprehend the word? No, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt. But one more lapse, and I'm screaming "DOG!" in every paragraph until it sinks in.)

The 50-dog limit will inevitably spiral downwards? Only if Missourians or their elected representatives deem it necessary to do so. HSUS does not have legislative authority, and it's not a government agency.

And the temperature issue. Again. At least this one is directly related to Prop B! Hallelujah!

First off, every dog I've ever known has had the sense to come in out of the cold. (The dogs I've known generally weren't inbred puppy mill victims, if that makes a difference.) How many dogs do you know that prefer subzero temperatures over a comfortable heated kennel? That's a serious question. If there's some strange predilection for dogs to seek out fatal extremes of temperature, that's news to me.

Now, how do you accommodate the mother without endangering the pups? You give them a dog door at the mother's shoulder height. Mom can get out, pups can't. Simple, straightforward, effective, easily-implemented solution.

Any disagreements?

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 30, 2010 | 1:03 a.m.

I feel like we are debating Bill Maher. The proposition also states under regular exercise? and "provides some protection against sun, wind, rain, and snow," so if I put a tarp up is that sufficient? Also I don't think anyone ever answered how this keeps dogs from having matted fur and collars causing open wounds on necks? This is what keeps being shown and posted, so with these "common sense" regs I want to know how this Proposition keeps this from happening??

(Report Comment)
Mary Haas October 30, 2010 | 2:35 a.m.

Jessica read that bill. The dog must be able to go inside and out 24/7 365 days of the year. This means that in the dead of winter a breeder cannot prohibit the dog from leaving and going outside to have a litter in the cold. The dog must be maintained between the temperatures of 45 and 85 degrees Fahrenheit.

This proposition does not keep the dogs from having matted fur or any of the rest of it. That is the whole point. This bill is about controlling the humans... not saving the dogs.

We also have proof that the current laws when enforced do work so Prop B is not needed.

Sarah if you read my article it does not state WHO is responsible for that many puppies being there. It states what is true... that reducing the number of dogs that breeders could have DID not reduce the number of dogs at Mercer. I did not name the source of the dogs. This is part of my whole issue with these type of bills... They do nothing to stop the BYB problem which is the mainstay for shelter animals.

John do not tell me that HSUS has nothing to do with Prop B when they spend 1.7 Million dollars on it and Barbara S works for them does she not?

And Sarah maybe you can explain how people were not informed that clicking the link for more information on Voting YES was going to automatically place them on the supporting list of the website. That is just not right. Just because you want to learn more about a position does not mean that you support it. That almost cost someone a job.

(Report Comment)
Mary Haas October 30, 2010 | 2:45 a.m.

Oh and Sarah since you are bragging about the Humane Society of Missouri maybe you can answer as to WHY these dogs were not saved sooner and the local police had to be called because STL HS would not respond????

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 30, 2010 | 3:02 a.m.

Another question, along with my other unanswered questions, how is this proposition going to be more effective than Bark Alert?

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 30, 2010 | 6:50 a.m.

See what a puppy mill looks like:
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:
A picture says a thousands words.
More info about Missouri Puppy Mills & Animal welfare Law in Missouri can be found at:
Join the Campaign at:
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

(Report Comment)
Andrew Hansen October 30, 2010 | 7:36 a.m.

Ban puppies!

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 30, 2010 | 9:07 a.m.

John, please let's not be disingenuous. HSUS is behind this and many other similar bills and propositions through funding and lobbying. You can see HSUS tactics by following the history of CA Prop 2 and the agreement between them and Ohio Gov. Strickland. I, however, won't revisit those issues if you won't.

In all seriousness, there are breeds that like a maximum temperature of about 60 degrees or so. Most of the arctic breeds, such as malamutes and huskies of various types love to be outside in what we would consider bitter cold and in conditions that would kill my little dogs. My little dogs love temps no lower than the 70 degrees or so and will burrow under blankets if the temperature is much below 73. There is really no ideal upper or ideal lower temperature for all dogs--the Catch-22 that the temperature/unfettered access is very concerning and I think is a true stumbling block that makes compliance with this proposition practically impossible. While the intentions for creating the temperature range might be pure, the Prop B writers needed to have spoken to dog breeders to get them right and make them less simplistic. ( can understand temp requirements, but let's see them divided by breed type, age, and (dis)ability maybe?

The whole "unfettered access" part and the number limit part of the proposition are of major concern to all breeders, not just hobby breeders or commercial breeders. Unfettered access is, without a doubt, unreasonable as a demand. If airlines will not permit dogs to travel during certain times of year because they might sit on the runway in extremely hot or extremely cold temperatures while planes are being changed, then why should we permit our dogs to go outside in potentially dangerous conditions? Again, while the intention of the writers might have been fine, this unfettered access means 24/7, whether someone is there to protect them or not. I can think of many people who would not object to this requirement if the wording was changed to "unfettered access for 12 hours per day" or "unfettered access from sunrise to sunset" or even "unfettered access, with reasonable exceptions made for inclement weather or unsafe weather conditions," with inclement and unsafe being carefully defined.


(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 30, 2010 | 9:08 a.m.

Numbers seem to be the major issue being addressed in this piece of legislation. There is even a quote I have somewhere, from an HSUS representative named Anne, which pretty much sums up Prop B as being control of the numbers and equating number limits with humane treatment. John, we're both reasonable people and we know that's not true. My ex mother-in-law owned a poodle named Pepe, her only pet, and Pepe was covered with mats. His toenails were so long they curled around. His coat was so bad, his collar could not be removed, since the coat was matted around it. He lived inside and had a diet that he could consume with his rotting teeth. His temperament was terrible--I tried to clean him up and ended up getting seriously bitten. On the other hand, I have a friend with 23 dogs: about a dozen are AmStaffs, who live outside, and the rest are his late wife's dogs (Japanese Chins and Yorkshire Terriers). Every one of those dogs is clean and groomed; their teeth are pristine and their coats glistening. Numbers make no difference in terms of humane-ness.

I still wonder why a cap was put into place instead of a sliding scale that permits a certain number of dogs with a certain number of employees. Not a single HSUS employee or supporter has ever said why the first is preferable over the second. I can't think of a single breeder I know who would object to the second, while virtually everyone I know objects strenuously to the first.

There are other objections to this legislation, which is unnecessarily vague in some areas while also being unnecessarily rigid in others. I am convinced that Prop B has a good chance at being passed; however, I hope that some of these objections will be taken into consideration and that the law will be amended to reflect the concerns being raised.

(Report Comment)
Lisa Thompson October 30, 2010 | 9:48 a.m.

Typical of the lies being spread about Prop B. All the fuss about temps? Guess what? It's in the existing laws under the Animal Welfare Act! Those "deadly" temperatures are already the legal requirements! Obviously there must be exceptions made for whelping or every MO breeder would already be breaking the law!
"Dogs must be provided with a sanitary facility that protects them from extreme weather. Temperatures cannot fall below 45 degrees or rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit for more than four hours, and the enclosure must be ventilated to provide for dogs’ health and well-being."

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 30, 2010 | 10:17 a.m.

Kim Egan, unfettered access works both ways.

When a dog is too cold or hot outside, they can go inside for protection from the elements. Contrary to what others have said, I don't know of any dog so stupid they would stay in an environment that would cause them harm.

You and others seem to imply that dogs do not have any form of survival instinct. All animals have a survival instinct.

The unfettered access provision is the only way to guarantee that dogs have access not only to protection from the elements, but also access to an outdoor run in order to exercise. The existing rules only say that the breeder has to work out an exercise plan for the dogs, not that the breeder actually follows the plan. And when the breeder has hundreds of dogs, you know for a fact that they won't be following any individual exercise plan.

The new rules are the only want that an inspector can ensure proper care is taken with the dogs. They are enforceable, while the others are not.

And again, the rules regarding the number of dogs are enforceable, whereas saying things like "Well, you have to have one person per 50 dogs", and the breeder saying, well, Jimmy will take care of this 50, and Joe that 50, when in reality, Jimmy and Joe do not, and the owner manages all 100 on his or her own.

The existing rules depended on the honor system, and they failed. You're asking us to continue using a failed system.

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock October 30, 2010 | 10:21 a.m.

HSUS could have taken the millions they spent on trying to get this bill to pass and hired thousands of inspectors for the government and offered rewards to finding puppy mills and then the problem would be solved by enforcing the current laws. Instead they are trying to pass a bill that will solve nothing because there will be no additional inspectors. If they think the local deputies have time to inspect they are sadly mistaken.

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 30, 2010 | 10:24 a.m.

Lisa, show me those exemptions. Show me those exemptions particularly in conjunction to "unfettered access." In no way am I lying about anything; I am expressing valid concerns with what I believe will end up law. Disagreement with your position doesn't automatically make anything a lie, just as shouting a lie that you feel people will believe is the truth over and over at the top of your lungs makes it any truer. That's just the way it is, in any given situation.

Ambiguous legislation is bad legislation. No matter it's intention, it can be used to help or to hurt. There are conflicting requirements and ambiguities within Prop B, even though some requirements might strengthen and clarify certain parts of current law. Proposition B could have been a lot better if the writers had just taken the time to meet with breeders--hobby/show, BYB, and commercial--and get them to comment on all of the provisions.

By the way, John--I know that some rabbits are pets. I used to have a cute little black-and-white Dutch rabbit that I played with as a child. However, I'm talking about meat rabbits like the California, the Champagne D'Argent, or the Flemish Giant. None of them are pets nor are they suitable as pets. They are bred for their meat yield and their meat to bone ratio. The small ones start at sevenish pounds and they range up to close to twenty pounds. A rabbit the size of a Boston terrier can do a good bit of damage to a person with its hind legs and can seriously harm a child. These breeds are definitely livestock and should never be classified as pets. The line that we were discussing would make them so.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 30, 2010 | 10:35 a.m.

Allan Sharrock, think about what you're saying: where does the government allow those with interest hir inspectors? That would be like the government allowing oil companies to directly hire oil well inspectors, or airlines hire plane inspectors. Our government does not work this way. Fees and licenses may pay for inspectors, but these are collected from those participating in the industry, as is proper, and there is no sense of being beholden on the part of the inspector.

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 30, 2010 | 10:38 a.m.

A manager at McDonald's hires four new people. Michael is to work the register and drink prep, Taneisha is to work drive-thru, Logan works the grill and fryer, and Jose is a manager trainee. Everyone does basic store cleaning. The manager spends most of her time in the back, in the office, because they are preparing for an audit. Michael is lax about covering the register. Taneisha has to cover the register and drive-thru, negatively affecting her drive-thru times. Logan works the grill, but burns a lot of stuff in the fryer, so eventually he stops doing it and leaves it for Jose to cover. Jose gets fed up and says, "I'm a management trainee--I'm going to help in the office!"

Taneisha is eventually left covering most of the store, which leaves her in an impossible situation. People get angry at waiting so long, poorly cooked food, and unclean and unsafe situations. Now . . . here is the important part . . . business slows down and the store owner loses money.

The commercial kennel operator who finds him/herself with inefficient employees and becomes overwhelmed has the same obligation as the McDonald's manager: fire the slackers and hire new employees. It has nothing to do with humane care (despite impact on human care) and has everything to do with good business management. You want to deal with that aspect of commercial kennel management? Require commercial kennel owners to take a xx-hour management course as part of licensing.

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 30, 2010 | 10:44 a.m.

Shelley--the AKC already inspects a number of kennels every year due to the size of their operations or due to stud dogs being used a certain number of times each year. Why not let the AKC or the UKC partner with local agencies, since they already know something about dogs and their health requirements? Why not require people who breed a dog more than a certain number of times to get DNA and health certificates on their dogs, just as the AKC and various breed clubs do? There are many proactive steps that can be taken to protect dogs in commercial kennels.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 30, 2010 | 12:10 p.m.

Kim Egan, the AKC is nothing more than a marketing tool. It has no legal standing, and its recent actions as regards to partnering with the Hunte Corporation have triggered a lot of questions about the organization's goals nowadays.

DNA testing? You have dogs who aren't fed, aren't treated when ill, have erratic access to water, left to freeze without shelter or bedding in 28 degree weather, not cared for in such a way their hair mats up and they can't even walked, crammed into wire cages where they can't stand or stretch out and you're talking about DNA testing and management training?

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 30, 2010 | 12:33 p.m.

Shelley I would like to know when the last time you have been to a licensed kennel?

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan October 30, 2010 | 12:33 p.m.

Shelley, why is talking about that sort of thing so absurd? People who are willing to put the money into their businesses; hiring and training reasonable employees, DNA profiling and health testing their dogs, and taking business management courses prior to licensing are those who are interested in having a superior kennel and are willing to maintain their animals in a humane way. Those who just want to make a quick buck at it are going to be discouraged from trying--and if there were funding for more inspectors, then there would be a way to control the people who set up unlicensed kennels as well as ensuring that licensed kennels are complying with the strict, non-punitive regulations. Not every kennel has dogs with matted hair or refuses to DNA their dogs. Profiling is an excellent way of telling what puppies came from which dogs contained within a facility and would be an excellent way of controlling--or at least monitoring--how many puppies a particular bitch whelps or a particular stud sires.

As I said, there are many proactive ways of controlling what a kennel does. Setting limits and taking away rights are not the only ways to protect animals.

(Report Comment)
michelle johnson October 30, 2010 | 3:21 p.m.

If people want to be informed read the link written by Dr. Stoltz Pres. of the Franklin Humane Society who stands opposed. Tactics? I suggest everyone listen to the debate between Dr. Jim Foster and Barbara Schmitz/HSUS and decide who is guilty of tactics. Not HSUS ? go to segment 10/25/10 and learn what Missourians are learning about HSUS.

(Report Comment)
michelle johnson October 30, 2010 | 4:57 p.m.

Take a look at what they did to the swine industry in Florida. Egg producers and dairy are exiting California for other states. Those eggs are about to come in to California from Old Mexico. Get ready egg suckers!!!

(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 30, 2010 | 8:41 p.m.

Shelley, I too would also like to know the last time you went to a USDA licensed facility in Missouri? There are a little over 1400, so I know that you have ample to choose from. I would also like to know how many you have turned into Bark Alert, because the way you talk, you must have seen PLENTY of deplorable facilities, so that would lead me to believe that you have turned them in?

Bark Alert must be utilized, or it will not work. No GOOD, REPUTABLE licensed breeder wants to see substandard facilities stay in business. It is a black eye on all of us, because the humaniacs try to convince the general, unknowing public, that USDA licensed breeders are ALL the same.

Metaphorically speaking; 'If one rotten apple spoils the bushel, then why does the HSUS want to destroy the whole apple orchard?'

Sarah, did you ever stop to think that the poor female that was HUGELY pregnant, was so stressed from her uprooting that it caused her the complications? Animals are like any other life form, and yes, they do get infections, they do stress, they are born with birth defects, they do DIE! It's called, are you ready?...........LIFE! Who's to say that the infection wasn't caused by something you did? Sounds like the pregnancy was going fine up until you gained posession of her.
By the way, how much money did you make off of her litter of puppies? I'm sure that you 'adopted' them out right?

Just because a husband and wife have 2 healthy children, and the third is born with no arms, does that mean that the woman has been bred too much?......not saying that is what you said, however, it is another popular misconception that you and others like to state about breeders and their breeding stock.

I guess I would ask people this:

If so many people and prestigious groups,(some to include Missouri shelters), are against Prop B AND also against animal abuse, then why are they opposing Prop B?
Could it be that they are all wrong and the HSUS is right? OR is it that they are right and the HSUS is wrong?

Can you please tell me how Prop B is going to eliminate animal abuse by the non-licensed breeders AND hoarders?

If you want to stop animal abuse in the dog breeding industry, then UTILIZE BARK ALERT!

Vote YES on Prop B!
If you want animal abuse to flourish and lose all your rights and freedoms in America to BIGGER GOVERNMENT!!

I will be voting NO on Prop B!

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers October 30, 2010 | 9:46 p.m.

connie crewse, you sure you want to ask that question? After all, it digs up a can of worms about one the biggest problems with getting a puppy from a large scale breeder is that none of them allow potential owners to visit the kennel. They certainly don't allow visitors.

I'm not an inspector, and I've never been part of a rescue, so no, I've not been to a USDA kennel.

And I don't think I've once mentioned being to a USDA kennel. But I've met rescue dogs, I've seen them at the Humane Society of Missouri, I've seen the videos and news reports of raids and rescues, and I've heard others first person account.

I've also read far too many USDA inspection reports, which bothered me even more than the videos. There's something about reading of small dogs with collars so tight, they're becoming embedded in dogs necks, all delivered in dry, emotionless inspector speak, to drive home how widespread the problem with puppy mills is in Missouri.

Have I seen a USDA kennel...the rescue groups attending the Schindler auction actually had to sign a "contract" not to take any photos or video of the auction, and that was just an auction.

Dirty little secrets run deep in the puppy mill world.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 31, 2010 | 12:03 a.m.

Shelley, thank you for answering my question that you have not been to a USDA licensed kennel. Well, I have. In the past week, I have been to several unannounced. My kids have been to several also. I have purchased a dog from a kennel and I would do so again! Not one time have I ever seen anything like what is on that report, probably because if you notice most of those were not licensed and Prop B would not have helped! The auction that you speek has been in business for years. And when I say years, I mean it is a second generation going on third generation family owned business. I feel now days with corruption and the way society is today family owned businesses never last past the second generation and hardly ever see a 3rd! So for me, to see that a 3rd generation is up and coming has to say something about them. Yes they are very good family friends and living in a small area your reputation can be quickly and very easy ruinued and theirs is not. I am honored to know Christian people like them. Their hiring of security was not for the dirty little secrets you speak of, so lets get that straight. It was for the people that work (employed tax payers) and purchasers (more taxpayers) safety. You like to research information, you should research and find just what has been happening to some of these good licensed breeders since Prop B has become such a talked about issue. You barked about their not being two sides to the article but yet you are one sided to the auction. As you sit in your little area glued to your computer, why don't you research the opposition views and why they view them the way they do!

(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 31, 2010 | 12:22 a.m.

One of the reasons in the article about shelter's being exempt from Prop B's laws, was the difference of profit motivation between the shelter and the breeder. 'A breeder's goal is volume-to get as many puppies you can over the dog's life span.' So what's the motivation for the shelter? They avoided that for some reason.

I have a problem with that, as I know that shelter's so-called 'adoption' fees are comparable to that of the price of a PUREBRED PUPPY from a USDA licensed breeder. Again, what is their motivation?...could it be money also?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if a breeder is making a profit, AND a living off of these animals, would it behoove them to abuse them, as Tim Rickey would have you to believe? Most people 'protect' the assets in their business. If you have a demand for your puppies, then explain why a logical business person (USDA licensed breeder) would jeopardize or neglect that animal's welfare/being? I know I make sure that my animals are WELL taken care of so that I do have healthy litters; thus ensuring that I will be successful, along with customers that are equally successful in finding a healthy puppy. What an idiotic theory, but then again, consider the source here.

The reason that they 'claim' the animals aren't in the shelter long, hence why they should be exempt, is not the reason one would think. They are euthanized if they sit for any length of time. If they are taking up 'residence' (dead space) and not getting many hits, they will be euthanized in order to bring in another one that will hopefully be 'sold'....I'm sorry, I mean 'adopted'. They could care less about the animals, and are making a PROFIT just like the hard working USDA MISSOURI BREEDERS are. Except the only difference is, we don't go and 'steal' other people's animals and prey on the emotions of how we RESCUED them and now PLEASE DONATE and HELP US! = PLEASE REWARD US FOR STEALING!

They want to be exempt from Prop B because it will cut into their profit and they know it! If it's animal abuse to have an animal in ANY WIRE CAGE.....then isn't it STILL animal abuse if they are subjected to a wire cage in a shelter facility!? If it's animal abuse if a piece of food gets in their water bowl while under the care of a USDA breeder, then wouldn't one assume that it's STILL animal abuse if a piece of food is in the water bowl at the shelter facility!?

Vote No on Prop B!
No double standards!
If you want Prop B, then make EVERYONE adhere to those same laws that make it ANIMAL ABUSE!

Kick these animal activists out of our state once and for all!!

(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 31, 2010 | 12:27 a.m.

Shelters & Humane Societies Exempt?

Am I crazy, or does this sound a little double standard, same as Obama's Health care that he wants to FORCE on the American citizens, BUT!.....NOT THE PEOPLE IN CONGRESS?!
I say, if it's good enough for one bunch, it needs to be good enough for ALL!......After all, is it designed to be for the WELFARE OF THE ANIMAL?....Hmmmmmmmm........If this garbage is written for the sole purpose of 'better treatment' for the animals, then why must the shelters & Humane Societies be exempt?...One would think that they would PROUDLY accept and step up to the plate and be a 'role model'...........UNLESS, they know something we don't?......Makes a person wonder, doesn't it? Most of us know the answer, and that is it cuts into their margin of profit, and they don't want to lose any money!

I think if this passes, I'll just become a 'resue' or 'shelter'....I will just sit back with my hand out, not comply with any of the NWO, and CASH IN!! What a racket!!

This was not in the article, but I've heard Mr Rickey state that breeders 'club' their animals to death as a method of euthanizing.......AND......we can, because there are currently NO laws in place that say we can't? REALLY? MORE LIES RICKEY BOY! Last I knew, my USDA inspector goes over that EVERY inspection, and I also must provide a form (Veterinary Care Program) that must be signed EVERY year by my attending Vet, that states that he is the one that can legally euthanize IF that situation ever arises. I can guarantee anyone that is reading this nonsense or hearing it on TV, that it's nothing but a deceptive lie created to cause you to mentally visualize that kind of brutality. If I was to write "Club my animals to death" as means of euthanizing on my USDA form.....I would not pass my inspection! GUARANTEED!



BYE BYE H$U$, ASPCA, PETA & all the other AR groups!!

(Report Comment)
michelle johnson October 31, 2010 | 12:46 a.m.

Barbara Schmitz couldn't defend prop B and that is when she made up a story to discredit her opponent. A lie.

go to the 10/25/10 segment and listen to Barbara Schmitz and her whopper. Now they all want to distance themselves from HSUS.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 31, 2010 | 12:48 a.m.

And I thought Marina Shane was concerned about her Loss of freedom! Apparently she doesn't care about anyone elses!!!!

(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 31, 2010 | 12:57 a.m.

Shelley Powers

Still haven't answered the question.....

How is Prop B going to stop animal abuse of UNLICENSED breeders and HOARDERS? You know, the ones that the HSUS is using on their commercials? None of which are USDA licensed facilities. Seems to me, if there was so many bad kennels to choose from, why use video clips of a NON-LICENSED kennel and hoarder?

And seriously, you can't understand why people are apprehensive on allowing anyone on their property? Wow, where have you been lately?

USDA breeders have MANY factual stories, to include 'death threats', invasion of property, and death to their animals, just to name a few. We trust NO ONE! Anyone can 'pose' as a family wanting to purchase a puppy, how do we know? Because of the HSUS and the other terrorist groups, we have to protect ourselves and our animals.

I think that you are another person that has swallowed hook, line and sinker, all the deceptive lies and propaganda from the HSUS. I've posted this a million times, and I say it again. Are there bad breeders? Yes. Are there good breeders? Yes. There is good and bad in all walks of life, but for you to 'blanket' ALL breeders and then admit that you've NEVER even as much as stepped foot into a facility, is hypocritical to say the least.



(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 31, 2010 | 1:25 a.m.

Connie apparently we are all crazy for having all these questions! We should just "save the puppies" and forget about everything else!

(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 31, 2010 | 1:43 a.m.


Isn't that the truth!?

It's unbelievable to me that these people are so naive OR they are getting paid by the HSUS just like the signature gatherers AND Tony LaRussa.

I feel pretty confident that this will NOT pass Tuesday. I feel confident that we have gotten the word out...thanks to the Internet. Facebook has really been a great tool in reaching a lot of people.

We can't stop after 11-2-10 though. We must continue to educate people on the HSUS, ASPCA and all the others, but most importantly, the H$U$!

In my campaigning, one of my first questions has been, "Do you know who the HSUS is?" I would venture to guess that approximately 98% of the people did NOT know who they was. They do now!!! That is the ticket, to inform them on their hidden agendas, and people are quite shaken when they hear them. We give FACTS & TRUTHS.....and HSUS's own quotes are scary enough for the common, everyday Joe.....speaking of which, even Joe the Plumber did an article on the corrupt group HSUS, and the reason(s) that Missourians should vote No.

Most people get it, it's the simple minded ones, same as the followers of a cult, that are blindly walking to their own slaughter....We try to shout and warn them, but they are too focused on the ever-steady beat of that HSUS drum beat......kind of sad really when you stop and think about it. I'm just glad that my mind is more keen and apt to follow TRUTH than DECEPTION.

Keep up the good work......

We WILL defeat this Tuesday!!

VOTE NO on Prop B!!!

(Report Comment)
Jenny Thrasher October 31, 2010 | 11:19 a.m.

Interesting- my comments have been deleted from this page. Guess I must have struck a nerve when I listed all the current statutes that address the mal-treatment of animals in MO. So, in lieu of making too many more comments, I am simply going to list off all the statutes again, with their proper titles for the folks around here to just look up and see for themselves what is already illegal. All of these can be found by looking up the Revised Missouri Statutes:

Chapter 273, Relating to Dog Breeders, 2010-085, Version 1 This is the ACFA regulations, and is 22 pages long.
273.335- Substantial ongoing risk to health and welfare of animals
273.030- Dogs may be killed, when
273.338- Failure of reinspections after original violation,
578.005- Definitions
578.007- Acts and Facilities to which 578.005 to 578.023 do not apply
578.009- Animal Neglect and abandonment- penalties
578.012- Animal Abuse-penalties
578.016- Impoundment of animal found off property of owner,
578.018- Warrant for entry on private property to inspect
578.021- Neglected or abused animal not to be returned to owner, when
578.030- State highway patrol and other law enforcement officers, powers and duties to enforce animal
578.407 Prohibited actions against animals, equipment, facilities and records

Now. HOW are the laws not enough? How are they vague or preventative of law enforcement from stepping in as needed?

Do your research, folks. VOTE NO ON PROP B!!!!!

(Report Comment)
connie crewse October 31, 2010 | 12:14 p.m.

Hey Jenny!!
Thanks for all your hard work on shedding the truth and giving these FACTS!! I will copy and paste, and put it on the TOPIX where it will NOT be deleted! I'm sure that you have it on Facebook?.....What a great tool for getting the TRUTH out!

I just had this link sent to me, and I think it's important that the Missourians do their own research on the PILE of CASH that has been dumped into the Vote Yes on Prop B's campaign!

All the while, the HSMO is begging Missourians to PLEASE DONATE for food and supplies? Hmmmmm, check out how much money they've donated! It's all in this link, it's ALL FACT! Seems to me that they are doing rather well in these hard, economic times! Again, their definitions of 'broke' and 'Pet' are VERY different than most people's definitions!
TOTAL donations: $3,784,674.38 WOW is all I can say!




NO on PROP B!!

(Report Comment)
Mark A Landers October 31, 2010 | 12:44 p.m.

Thank you Jessica for speaking the Truth,

Last night while sitting with Leandra, a cavalier, as she gave birth to her puppies, I read numerous articles both for and against Prop B. I also read the comments.

She gave bith to the last puppy about 4:30 am.

There is a myth that kennels operators make a lot of money. But there are other forms of profit when operating a kennel.

Getting to assist in the miracle of bith. Helping the new mother clean newborn, tieing off it's navel cord, and placing in the infant unit where it is warm and safe until mom is finished giving birth is one of those rewards.

Watching a new mother tenderly clean and care for her newborns is another.

The joy of being greated each morning by a kennel of happy dogs is another.

Knowing the joy that one of my puppies will bring a "9 year old boy" experiencing his first puppy. Knowing that is just beginning of a 10 to 16 year relationship.

The list goes on and on...

I began to understand that people do not realize that those of us involve in animal husbandry don't get to clock out from a 9 to 5. And as much as I would like to sometimes tell the girls to just wait until the morning, it just doesn't happen that way.

Even with two more people working for me to sell my puppies, animal agriculture is a 24/7 responsiblitity.
When people ask why I don't do my marketing personally, I tell them the truth. Time I marketing is time that I am spending with my dogs.

Even though there are four of us working here with our dogs, sleep is often a precious commodity. When an animal needs attention you can not wait.

For those of you who have not been to the Please take time to check out the information on this site. By going there you will notice at the top of the page a little Cavalier and her three puppies. Her name is LTO Vidula. She is a sweet little girl that has enjoyed motherhood. No matter what the animal rights may tell you, motherhood is not a bad thing.

Vote No on Prop B
Mark A Landers

(Report Comment)
Mark A Landers October 31, 2010 | 1:09 p.m.

I'm a male, so I don't know personally about the joy of being a mother. I have witnessed it. I do know the love of a mother. But I've heard that motherhood is one greatest experiences of a womans life.

I do not think Motherhood is a bad thing.

The few "people posting" on the Pro B side of many the sites I read last night were nearly always the same few "people posting". Most of them appeared not be from our wonder filled state. I wish they could come and enjoy the Wonders of the Ozarks. F

Mr John D. Schiff, get out and experience life firsthand and don't miss all the little things...the simple things...that together make life grand. Please step away from behind your website and at least give life a taste.

There answers were nearly always the same.

I knew why the answers were the same as I'd been to the HSUS meeting in Springfield and have a copy of the three page "question and answer" sheet they were given to answer your question about Prop B.

The disturbing thing here is that they just follow orders. A few would go off "format", but even the "standard" response were in content of the post.

For example one frequent poster (on nearly every site under some variation of "Anne") always uses the same answer about the cost of prop B provided on this "question and answer" sheet.

Interestingly it the same answer you hear, Barbara Schmitz, Missouri state director for The Humane Society of the United State, use repeatedly to avoid the real answer as to the cost of Prop B.

It is the answer citing "one fiscal review done by the City of ST.Louis". One "review" cited rather just give the real answer.

The real answer:

The state estimates that government entities would experience a one-time cost of almost $655,000 if Proposition B passes, and ongoing costs of more than $520,000.

They repeat the same thing over and over as if to saying it enough makes it true, yet suggest, the Vote NO on Prop B people use that techique.

Vote No on Prop B
Mark A. Landers

(Report Comment)
michelle johnson October 31, 2010 | 1:39 p.m.

Everyone should go to this link and read this well written article.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 31, 2010 | 2:26 p.m.

Here's the jist of the opposition's arguement against Prop B...."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:
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:
A picture says a thousands words.
More info about Missouri Puppy Mills & Animal welfare Law in Missouri can be found at:
Join the Campaign at:
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

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 31, 2010 | 2:47 p.m.

Marina, do you want a list of unanswered questions I have asked??? I have about 4 pages of them!!!! So get the jist of what I am saying, VOTE NO!!!!!

(Report Comment)
Mark A Landers October 31, 2010 | 2:52 p.m.

To all the people who have spent so much of your time in opposition to Prop B...The Vote NO on Pro B people.

I was so proud of you when I read through the comments last night. It's been a tough time for me. You will never know how much your comments have meant to me. Thank you from my heart.

As a part of a tiny miniority of less than 1500 people being sterotyped in a "one size fits all mold", I know that I am not special and it's tough on all of us...this is wrong by any standard of moral conduct.

Thank you all coming to our support.

I posted a link to a Haggard song on a site earlier this week.

Here's another one....only it's Miss Tina...Talk to Heart...that's where real talking starts....So few words say so much...I can hear you when you tell it like it is."

No one can do "chore drag" like Miss Tina. Like our individual tastes in music or dress we are each unique. Each of the members of this tiny minority that is being attacked is an individual with richly varied identities.

The Vote No on Prop B people posting in the comment section were not posting off of scripts. They were looking up verifiable facts form credible sources. The vast majority of them are from this wonderful state of Missouri.

Most of the Vote NO Prop B people posting were "talking straight to my heart". And the Vote NO Prop B group "tell it like it is"

Thank you

Mark A. Landers
Promises Kept Kennels
pics on facebook

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand October 31, 2010 | 3:02 p.m.

Thank you Mark! We have sure All given our All!!! But it won't be over on Tuesday! I may be on a one gal mission, but I won't stop to keep them out!

(Report Comment)
Mark A Landers October 31, 2010 | 3:03 p.m.

Correction: I meant to say Time I spend marketing is time that I do NOT spend caring for my dogs.

This of one of the many myths that the animal rights industry has perpetuated. They have somehow led the public to believe that marketing and breeding are the same thing. They are not.

The comments I read last night would make good fodder for several episodes of "myth busters".

Mark A. Landers
Promises Kept Kennels
Vote NO on Prop B (I learned to put that on everything I post form the HSUS meeting also...although sometimes I forget)

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking October 31, 2010 | 3:43 p.m.

Marina Shane wrote:

"Hey, we are only interested in money & how much money we can make off dogs in puppy mills"

Show me one rich dog breeder (that got rich off of breeding dogs - other businesses and inheritances don't count). Animal husbandry is a very low paying job. People that do this make very little money at it, in general.

In many parts of rural Missouri, there isn't a lot else to do to make money. It's very expensive, particularly to do it well (which it what prop B is all about, right? - WRONG, details on request). And you'll make it all the more expensive and shut most of the industry down with this deceptively promoted and written bill.

Don't buy the hype. Vote NO.


(Report Comment)
Mark A Landers October 31, 2010 | 4:13 p.m.

I posted a face pic of myself on facebook a few moments ago...Ok sometimes my hair is's "tinted". The purpose of this pic for Jessica.

Around my neck in this pic is tiny silver chain. On it hangs a gift from my partner. It is a medallion of Saint Francis of Assisi.

Saint Francis of Assisi is the patron of Animals and Birds. Because of the respect Saint Francis of Assisi gave to all God's creatures.

Humans are also God's creatures. There has been little if any respect for the humanity and individuality of this tiny group of individuals.

They have been grouped together and defined by the actions of people not within the group and by the actions of a small percentage within the group. They defined by purposeful deceit and lies.

This can not be allowed to continue in America.

My paternal grandmother was born on a reservation near Ardmore OK. My maternal grandmother was a penecostal preachers wife born here in Missouri. From them I learned about spirituality and religion. Yet each of my grandmothers were more than the descriptive terms I just used.

My partner is a Catholic of german ancestory. Yet he is more than just that description.

My point being each of us is an individual. Sterotyping for whatever reason is human behavior.

Win, lose, or draw this is not over.

Everyone document everything you can. We will get our day of Justice.

Vote NO Prop B
Mark A. Landers
Promises Kept Kennels

(Report Comment)
Mark A Landers October 31, 2010 | 4:16 p.m.

Although sterotyping is a human behavior, it is NOT an acceptable human behavior.

Mark A. Landers
Vote NO on Prop B

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 31, 2010 | 5:09 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.
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:
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:
A picture says a thousands words.
More info about Missouri Puppy Mills & Animal welfare Law in Missouri can be found at:
Join the Campaign at:
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

(Report Comment)
connor davis October 31, 2010 | 5:31 p.m.

Hate to burst your bubble Marina. Several veterinary clinics in this state starting calling trees to our clients and we also have an email message going. We included the following link so that people can truly be informed on HSUS and what they will do to a licensed professional in this state. Follow the link to segment 10/25/10 and listen to what Barbara Schmitz did to her opponent.
This isn't our idea of good moral compass. The veterinary community is outraged at this kind of behavior. Prop B is a lie just like the same lie its leader told on live radio.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane October 31, 2010 | 5:38 p.m.

Conner Davis wrote: "Hate to burst your bubble Marina. Several veterinary clinics in this state starting calling trees to our clients and we also have an email message going." oooooooh... that's sooooooooo scary....NOT!
I had more people tell me this week that those ahteful calls & emails were just annoying to them more than anything and made them want all the MORE to vote YES on Prop B just to piss the ignorant anti-B people off! So please...keep calling & emailing.... your proving our points for us!

(Report Comment)
connor davis October 31, 2010 | 10:09 p.m.

I was a yes voter wrote:
I have been shocked at the lies HSUS has been caught in with this Prop B. Many in my neighborhood opposed this bill but I stayed a firm yes voter.
Then I listened to the radio program with the Vet and Barbara. I have talked to her and never did I think that she would get caught up in such a lie. So, now I really wonder how many other lies have been told the past few weeks. I began to research and ask more questions!
I hate to say this, but I think the other side has been truthful when I have asked them questions. I admire their truthfulness and must vote NO on Prop B.
The TRUTH always wins in the end.

*This just came up on a discussion board.

(Report Comment)
dan doherty November 1, 2010 | 1:36 a.m.

I wonder how many women on this message board are
pro-proposition B(dog welfare) and pro-abortion(human baby killing)?

I don't care if I get slammed for this, I'm used to it.

It doesn't change the facts; that many people are more interested in the welfare of non-human animals than they are the welfare of their own kind, and in many cased their own unborn child.

It is so saddening.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 1, 2010 | 3:28 a.m.

Dan I know very too well. Not that I don't love my animals! They are spoiled! But, if you take a step back and look from generation to generation, taking from our children affects the way our society is. Look at the children in our state that can not get the proper help from DFS because DFS lacks the funding to run their system the way it needs, to get these abused and sexually molested kids out of the home! History repeats its self, when you know no other way, you do not know it is wrong. HSUS thinks animal abuse is the sign for future abusers and people with a history of some kind of abuse, should not have pets. Well sorry, no, abuse starts with the raising and growth of a child. You do not see abused children's pictures on TV and internet, because it is against the law, so people don't see who, how, or how often kids are abused. But, its not illegal to put a mistreated puppy pic or a dead puppy pic on the news or net, so then falls the emotion. Dogs can't speak for themselves so someone has to, and then people feel like they have made a difference in the world. Does a severly abused child speak for themselves? No. So then they grow and repeat history.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 1, 2010 | 9:22 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:
I couldn't have said it better!

(Report Comment)
Dale Taggart November 1, 2010 | 10:23 a.m.

Proposition B from the SOS site:

(9) ”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.

Domesticated animals are cattle, hogs, turkeys, chickens, etc. I am really wondering why the word “pet” means domesticated animals. IF they get this definition in the state, will they be after cattle, hogs, goats, sheep, etc.?

This proposition is cleverly written: (8) ”Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or syndicate.

This will get Cargill, Tyson, all the big animal industry in Missouri, along with all of the small farmers and larger. IF this passes, and “pet” definition is in the law, I am in trouble! If I have 20 cows, one bull and 20 goats and one billy. 42 head. Not a problem until they have little ones, BAM, I am in violation of the new law. I cannot keep farming with this amount of “pets” due to the costs of equipment, fuel, etc., and loss of income due this 50 limit. AND I CAN GO TO JAIL!

(3) ”Necessary veterinary care” means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed “Acceptable” by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

I have to have a vet check all my animals once a year, and have to use them to doctor ANY ILLNESS OR INJURY? I can doctor my dog for a cold or minor cut. I do use a vet for ANYTHING serious, but this states ALL. IF the pet rules apply to all domesticated animals, and I have to have a vet check all of them once a year, this will bankrupt me and most farmers very quickly.

They are REDUCING the feeding! By this proposition: (2) ”Sufficient food and clean water” means access to appropriate nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health; and continuous access to potable water that is not frozen, and is free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants.

Current MO law states that the breeders feed twice a day. IF they are wanting to help animals, why only feed once a day?

This is on the ballot. PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU VOTE! OVER $620,000 dollars are minimally required for this proposition out of our currently strapped budget. Please consider the ramifications that this proposition could do to the farmers of Missouri. I am dead set against ANYONE who is cruel to ANY animal. I would support this bill if it had a funding source, and went after the ILLEGAL “puppy mills” and stated just that. With the 164 MILLION dollars that the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) currently has, why don’t they fund this effort? Why take away more revenue from OUR TAX DOLLARS to fund their Proposition?


(Report Comment)
connie crewse November 1, 2010 | 10:31 a.m.

Folks, do yourself a favor and go to:

This site has put the 'current' AND 'proposed' laws SIDE BY SIDE for your convenience.

COMPARE the present laws to the Animal Rights group's laws.......then ponder on that for a little bit, and ask yourself, why would such a group come in and spend MILLIONS of donated, OUT OF STATE dollars to enforce their animal rights beliefs?
Seriously, compare 'current' to 'proposed'!! It's amazing and OBVIOUS! Make sure you focus on the following:

"PET" shall be defined as 'domesticated animal'.....Google the LEGAL definition of DOMESTICATED ANIMAL!

Anyone that is NOT lazy, and actually reads the information that I've given, should be able to distinguish the 'theme' of this ANIMAL RIGHTS bill!

We ALL know that bills that get passed ALWAYS have HIDDEN agendas. They are NEVER as they 'seem'. The HSUS, the BILLION dollar organization that has initiated Prop B, sent an e-mail just as RECENT as NOV 16-2009 that stated the following:

EVERY "responsible breeder" is a "puppy miller"
EVERY 'family farmer" is a "factory farmer"
EVERY "responsible hunter" is a "poacher"

Now, do you really think that this SAME group has spent MILLIONS of dollars JUST to help save the animals? OR is the term, 'DOMESTICATED ANIMAL' their ticket into our farms of Missouri?

They have their sights set on Missouri, clearly because Missouri is one of the bigger Agricultural states, and they want to ABOLISH ALL ANIMAL AGRICULTURAL! Not my over exaggerated theories, but the ACTUAL QUOTES BY THE HSUS! EDUCATE YOURSELF ON THIS CORRUPT GROUP!

The AR groups are terrorizing farmers in rural areas. Any area with saturated 'Vote NO on Prop B' signs have been terrorized. Recently in my area, a family had their horse gate tampered with, and the result was 2 horses lost their lives in the highway @ 4:00am. I've had 'suspicious' vehicles STOP in the highway in front of my property, out of state plates, complete with empty WIRE animal cages in the back, for easy load up and haul! It's funny how they leave rather quickly when they see us coming toward them with 'protection'. We've had death threats! Why? These people 'bully' their agendas and beliefs ANY WAY THEY CAN! Even at the sacrifice of our animals, and not to mention our lives!

WE ARE AT WAR! WE ARE PRISONERS OF WAR! WE HAVE TO STAY AT HOME 100% OF THE TIME AND GUARD OUR PROPERTY, ANIMALS, HOME AND OUR LIVES! WHY? Not because we are doing anything wrong, but because these people will go to EXTREMES in 'scare tactics' to squeeze us out. Hence the name:




(Report Comment)
connie crewse November 1, 2010 | 11:07 a.m.

Marina Shame....sorry, I mean Shane

Answer the question that has been asked repeatedly, and that is, "How will Prop B stop animal abuse in rescues, shelters, UNLICENSED breeders and hoarders?"

The commercials are showing UNLICENSED and HOARDING places. Again, as my earlier post stated, IF there are SO many deplorable USDA LICENSED facilities, why on earth are they using video clips in their commercials of UNLICENSED and HOARDERS?

Prop B will NOT stop animal abuse in UNLICENSED, RESCUES, SHELTERS, and HOARDERS. They are not going to be affected at all by this. The unlicensed breeders will FLOURISH as Prop B is designed to REGULATE INTO EXTINCTION the USDA LICENSED breeders. Since families all over our Nation will ALWAYS seek out a purebred puppy for companionship, the UNLICENSED will be the next 'supplier'....hence they WILL flourish!

I'm sorry to not have this information, but anyone can find it I'm sure, and that is the 'rescue' facility in Missouri that was discovered and the images were far worse than ANY USDA licensed breeder facility. The same 'groups' that will be EXEMPT in Prop B. Why is that Marina? Obviously, they can not be trusted with animals, but let's deceive the unknowing public and lead them to believe that they are ALL good?

I've seen first hand myself in front of Petsmart in Springfield Missouri. Several months back, went there, and in the front of their store, was a HUGE 'rescue' group. ALL dogs were in WIRE CAGES. Not very roomy, I may add. Boney, depressed, and liquid feces that was squirted out at least 5ft from some of the cages! NONE of these were purebreds. I even asked a worker if there was any purebreds, and she said no.

If that was a USDA LICENSED breeder in front of Petsmart instead of the 'Rescue', with the same unhealthy, disgusting looking animals, except of course, ours would have been purebreds, what do you think would have happened?
My guess is that the local TV news crews would be there, slamming us, calling us 'puppy mills' and I'm quite sure that the ASPCA & HSUS would be called in and would 'steal', I'm sorry I mean 'rescue' the animals, then turn right around and 'sell'....I'm sorry, I mean 'adopt' them out for higher prices than the breeder was asking! What a racket!

Why is it animal abuse if a USDA LICENSED breeder has an animal in a wire cage, but it's not if a rescue, shelter or the local humane society does it?.....
Your answer will be that the animal is NOT living in the wire cage at the local HS or shelters. That's correct, they will be euthanized soon, their lives will not involve the duration of a wire cage. You and all the others are hypocrites and want to dictate your double standard garbage and MOST Missourians are seeing right through your 'formatted' comments and posts!


(Report Comment)
Anne Hogan November 1, 2010 | 11:09 a.m.

It really could not be any more clear that Prop B applies ONLY to dogs used for breeding. Dale, you are lifting those definitions out of context. Lines VIII and IX are subsections of paragraph 5, which states "For purposes of this section, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 273.325, the following terms have the following meanings". That means that those terms - as used in Prop B to describe breeding dogs - have those meanings within the context of the proposition.

(Report Comment)
dan doherty November 1, 2010 | 12:27 p.m.

Here are some BIG reasons rescue groups and shelters should NOT have been exempt from this horribly written bill:
1)PETA employees arrested for animal cruelty,Associated Press — June 17, 2005
Police charged Andrew Benjamin Cook, 24, of Virginia Beach, Va., and Adria Joy Hinkle, 27, of Norfolk, Va., each with 31 felony counts of animal cruelty and eight misdemeanor counts of illegal disposal of dead animals.
2)Dallas Animal shelter manager charged with cruelty in cat death
10:36 PM Mon, Aug 09, 2010 | Permalink
Rudolph Bush/Reporter
3)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.
4)Washington Horse Rescue Operator Charged with Cruelty(the
5) L.I. Animal Rescue Activist Charged With Euthanizing Dogs Without Vet License 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.
6)Madison,wi 05/20/2009 Rescue Owner Charged With Mistreatment
She's charged with one count improper sheltering of animals, 10 counts of mistreating animals and 5 counts of unlawful carcass disposal.
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals stated in their complaint that many of the dogs suffered from ailments such as severely matted fur, skin infections and open wounds and were housed in poor conditions.

(Report Comment)
dan doherty November 1, 2010 | 12:28 p.m.


cbcnews 11/26/2009
Five senior Toronto Humane Society officials, including president Tim Trow, and the board of directors were charged with cruelty to animals after a raid Thursday.
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:
where's the public outrage wayne?
does anyone believe the humane society didn't already know about these abuses?
please tell me again why shelters and rescues are exempt!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 1, 2010 | 1:05 p.m.

Dan, Prop B is about PUPPY MILLS (SUBSTANDARD COMMERCIAL DOG BREEDING FACILITIES)...Prop b isn't about shelters or rescues. If you are so outraged about the work of Missouri shelters & rescues, then I would encourage you to contact your legislators, or start a voter initiative and collect signatures from Missouri Registered voters to make the changes you want in that industry!

(Report Comment)
connie crewse November 1, 2010 | 1:16 p.m.

Just remember Missourians.....the H$U$ is still coming out ahead by the $MILLION$, EVEN IF Prop B is defeated! They have already won......MILLION$!! What a FACTORY FUNDRAISING group!

That is their ultimate goal! To become more wealthy, one state at a time! Again, check out just exactly how much $$ is being dumped into their pockets:

Keep in mind the HSUS's pitiful ads on TV that state:
'For just $19 a month, you will help a poor, abused animal'

If they was to tell the truth, their ads would actually say:
"For just $19 a month, only TEN CENTS will actually go towards helping an animal, the rest is going for our pension plans and more lobbying, which generates MORE MILLION$!"

An analysis of HSUS's 2008 tax returns shows that they received $86 MILLION in salaries, which is MORE than the White House payroll! $24 MILLION in fundraising expenses and $20 MILLION in legal expenses (which is the strategic swing back effect of stirring up conflict that allows for more fundraising!$).....They are FACTORY FUNDRAISERS!!

Now tell me if a group of this wealth and size has the POWER and MONEY to spread PROPAGANDA on the TV?

Missourians, if every major Missouri agricultural commodity group has come out in OPPOSITION of Prop B, along with the MVMA (Missouri Veterinary Medicine Association), Lucas Oil/Cattle, Missouri Farm Bureau, just to name a few and THOUSANDS of non-related individuals and businesses...does that mean that ALL of these INTELLIGENT organizations, groups and individuals are all too dumb to misread the "PET" shall be defined as 'domesticated animal'?......the answer is NO!

These groups are made up of people that are highly intelligent, and educated with Masters degrees, Law degrees, PHD degrees and so on. So explain to me how then that they have totally misinterpreted this bill and the wording contained in it?

Does that mean that people like Marina Shame (sorry, mean Shane) are much more intelligent and have better reading/comprehension skills than all the intelligent folks listed above? I'd say not. The answer is that she and others like her, have been completely brainwashed, OR more likely the truth, being paid to make these 'formatted' posts. H$U$ infiltrates ALL sources of 'comment' connections on the Internet. All of their comments are 'cloned' and are the same. Once in a while, you get a 'live wire' and they blow their cover, but they want to deceive as many as they can, as that is what they get paid to do.



(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 1, 2010 | 1:37 p.m.

Well then Marina here is another question for you that has not been answered!!
(1) ”Covered dog” means any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids, that is over the age of six months and has intact sexual organs." I see use of commas as seperating three diffrent items, my question is resultant hybrids, hasn't Wayne himself state that domestic animal are the result of human crossbreeding? . Dog, domestic dog, and canis lupus familiaris all three have the same meaning and refer back to one another. Resultant hybrids is genetic termanology only meaning cross breeding as a result or action of something. Now we go down to where it defines pet. Hmm... Looks to me that is the loop hole in this HSUSBS that lets you all come back into Missouri and continue to regulate animal agriculture!!! So, show me how I am wrong?

(Report Comment)
lacinda florez November 1, 2010 | 2:50 p.m.


(Report Comment)
Anne Hogan November 1, 2010 | 3:07 p.m.

Connie - I have a feeling I know where you got your numbers for HSUS's 2008 990, but they are wrong. You can see all of HSUS's financial information at

As for the pet definition, I'm going to copy and paste the same thing I said upthread, because it doesn't seem to be sinking in:

"It really could not be any more clear that Prop B applies ONLY to dogs used for breeding. Dale, you are lifting those definitions out of context. Lines VIII and IX are subsections of paragraph 5, which states "For purposes of this section, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 273.325, the following terms have the following meanings". That means that those terms - as used in Prop B to describe breeding dogs - have those meanings within the context of the proposition."

(Report Comment)
Anne Hogan November 1, 2010 | 3:14 p.m.

Jessica, once again I think the semantics of the proposition are confusing you. You cited this sentence from the proposition:

"Covered dog" means any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids, that is over the age of six months and has intact sexual organs.

And stated that: "I see use of commas as seperating three diffrent items"

In this case, the commas do not indicate a list. Canis lupus familiaris is inserted with commas on either side because it is a nonrestrictive modifier. That means that it clarifies - in scientific terms - "domestic dog". "Resulting hybrids" are just what they sound like - hybrids of Canis lupus familiaris.

(Report Comment)
Sarah Barnett November 1, 2010 | 4:17 p.m.

Dan, of course there are other forms of cruelty in addition to cruelty in puppy mills. However this measure doesn't focus on them. For those who seem to think that only unlicensed breeders abuse animals, view the Dirty Dozen reports -

Connie, I would hope that if someone saw a rescue outside or petsmart with animals that did not look healthy, they would call animal control to check on the condition of the animals. However, this measure is very specific to commercial breeders because the problem of puppy mills is very big in Missouri. There are responsible breeders in Missouri, who treat their animals well. But there are also puppy mills that put the profit above the welfare of the dog. Both licensed and unlicensed breeders will have to comply with these regulations.

Lastly, unless Cargill and Tyson start selling puppy burgers, this will not effect them. Read the measure, and by that I mean the entire measure at

(Report Comment)
lacinda florez November 1, 2010 | 4:27 p.m.

Cody Hobbs AND Jessica this is about dogs only grow up focus on the issue at hand and move along with the issues we are not in 1998 election year this is the 2010 midter election can you understand that?? And Cody are you twelve noone is yelling at you you can't yell through a keyboard. And if you didn't want anyone to respond to you than don't make a comment, problem solved.
VOTE YES ON PROP. B! It's only about treating DOGS humanily, you know the little thing like food, water, excercise, and vet care, why is this such a big deal? If you take care of the animals like your supposed to it wont be a change for you at all.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 1, 2010 | 5:22 p.m.

WOW Lacinda, I am sorry, but my questions are questions about the dogs. But, from your typos and your use of the repeat key, what are you 12?

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 1, 2010 | 5:25 p.m.

Jenny, let me tell you about comments being deleted. This paper is very nice to work with, all you have to do is call them and they will put them back up for you! Funny same happened to me!

(Report Comment)
dan doherty November 1, 2010 | 5:42 p.m.

Sarah Barnett November 1, 2010 | 4:17 p.m.
Dan, of course there are other forms of cruelty in addition to cruelty in puppy mills. However this measure doesn't focus on them."

That is but one reason this is a flawed bill that should be voted down.
Dogs and puppies need to be protected even from those who claim moral superiority over commercial kennels.

Of course this is also another reason why the Missouri State Veterinary Association is against the bill too.

(Report Comment)
dan doherty November 1, 2010 | 5:47 p.m.

YOU SAID,"Prop b isn't about shelters or rescues. If you are so outraged about the work of Missouri shelters & rescues, then I would encourage you to contact your legislators, or start a voter initiative and collect signatures from Missouri Registered voters to make the changes you want in that industry!"

I would think someone like you who claims to have a heart for animals would be equally outraged by the aforementioned abuses and neglect that occurs in shelters and rescues too.

It kinda sounds to me like you are defending them.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 1, 2010 | 6:29 p.m.

Connie Crewse wrote:
"Does that mean that people like Marina Shame (sorry, mean Shane) are much more intelligent and have better reading/comprehension skills than all the intelligent folks listed above?"

Yes, I would say so.
And since you insist on calling me names other than my own, would you prefer we start calling you "Connie Cruelty" or "Con-artist Crewse". Lowlife tactics like that are the reason why I don't repond to the garbage that you spew on these boards. Actually, your comments are so rediculous they don't even deserve reponses!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 1, 2010 | 6:32 p.m.

Thank you ANNE HOGAN for answering Jessica Bryand's question so well for me! I've been out canvasing this afternoon to help get the voters out & so wonderful to hear all the support for PROP B & YES voters coming out to the polls!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 1, 2010 | 6:35 p.m.

Jessica Bryand wrote: "WOW Lacinda, from your typos and your use of the repeat key, what are you 12?"
Maybe she has an injured hand like I do! Typing is so very difficult still!
Lacinda! Thank you for supporting Prop B!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 1, 2010 | 6:39 p.m.

dan doherty wrote:
"MARINA SHANE, YOU SAID,"Prop b isn't about shelters or rescues. If you are so outraged about the work of Missouri shelters & rescues, then I would encourage you to contact your legislators, or start a voter initiative and collect signatures from Missouri Registered voters to make the changes you want in that industry!"

Dan... the issue at hand is PRop B. Not shelters or rescues. I'm not defending them...just trying to staying on issue.
When we have a proposition dealing with shelters & rescues, then I'll get into that issue with you... till then, it's about Proposition B and substandard large scale commercial breeding facilities.

(Report Comment)
Michelle Cascio November 1, 2010 | 6:48 p.m.

Wow. I hope none of the opposition in this post has breeding dogs- because if you do- you have spent way too much time here and they might need to be cleaned and fed- oh- wait- but you don't really do that, now do you.

Hence Prop B!

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan November 1, 2010 | 7:27 p.m.

Michelle, I have a litter of two puppies sitting in their crate about eight feet away from me. Their mom is out stretching her legs and getting a bite to eat. They are all clean, happy, in good health, and the puppies are fat because mom doesn't have teats as much as she has udders . . . I have crate pads in the washer and refrigerated venison warming to room temperature for my dogs' dinner. Before I go to bed, I'll make sure all of their water bottles/buckets are washed, sanitized, and refilled. It doesn't take me long, since I only have a few dogs--but to assume that people are neglecting their dogs because they are online is simply casting undeserved aspersions--or maybe casting stones? How are your dogs/pets/children doing with you online so much?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz November 1, 2010 | 7:46 p.m.

Michelle just got pwned, as the kids say nowadays.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 1, 2010 | 10:13 p.m.

Well Michelle, you know that is why Dr. Jim is not here, he and his wife are taking care of their 500 dog puppy mill.

(Report Comment)
Mark A Landers November 1, 2010 | 11:57 p.m.

Anne Hogan and everyone else,

Look up the defination of "notwithstanding".

it simply means "in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by"

Please read my next post carefully as the word "notwithsanding" is what will both limit ownership of intact dogs to the number of 50 and will create a new defination for "pet" by replacing (in lieu of) the term "pet" with the term "domestic animal".

Mark A. Landers
Please think what doing and Vote NO on Prop B

(Report Comment)
Mark A Landers November 2, 2010 | 12:06 a.m.

There is no need to be confused with our current laws that are specific and well written.

Prop B may look simple but it's not. I know the part of Prop B that was actually on the endorsement forms is simple and deceptively easy to understand. The rest is not easy and not based in the best interest of our animals or our country.

An example: understanding(5) 9 in Prop B. One has to wonder how many attorneys it took to put this one together?

If Prop B did not intend to change the legal definition of "Pet" and only supplement the existing law, there is no acceptable rationalization for a new definition of "Pet" in Prop B. So logically this is intended to create a new definition of the term "pet".

At first it may seem complicated, but with a couple definitions it's pretty easy to piece together.
Two definitions should help clarify 5(9) for you.

Notwithstanding means "in spite of; without being opposed or prevented by."

And "in lieu of" which means "in place of or instead of"

Please note the term "notwithstanding" in the following two sections of Prop B.

"4. 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."

"5. For purposes of this section, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 273.325, the following terms have the following meaning"

5. (9) ”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.

section 273.325 2(4) "Animal", any dog or cat, which is being used, or is intended for use, for research, teaching, testing, breeding, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet;

Simply insert 5.(9) from Prop B as the definition of pet in 2(4) from section 273.325

It would then read "Animal", any dog or cat, which is being used, or is intended for use, for research, teaching, testing, breeding, or exhibition purposes, or any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.

Link to text of prop B

Link to text of section 273.325

Mark A. Landers
Vote No Prop B

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 2, 2010 | 1:10 a.m.

Here is some great comments from people who want to "save the puppies?" I would hope those that thought about voting yes might think about the people that will be caring for these puppies!!!

(Report Comment)
lacinda florez November 2, 2010 | 8:06 a.m.

@Jessica Bryand
No I'm not twelve I have a job and am trying to quickly respond to these outlandish remarks and personal attacks, this issue is not about you or I it is only about the care of these poor dogs. So I'm sorry if you personalize this, I also apologize for the typos but thats not really what this is about. I got my view across and I think thats whats really important! PLEASE VOTE WITH YOUR HEAD AND YOUR HEART! VOTE YES

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 2, 2010 | 9:45 a.m.

Mark Landers has been telling fibs...


Name: Landers, Mark
DBA: Promises Kept

ID: 9815
Date Submitted: 12/2/2009
Breed: Maltese
Date Purchased: 9/27/2009
Broker: Unknown
Petshop: Pawsh Puppies
Details: broncopneumonia, severely hypoglycemic, giardia, coccidia, anemia due to chronic illness/debilitation. Required oxygen for 4 days

ID: 4890
Date Submitted: 3/13/2008
Breed: Brussels Griffon
Date Purchased: 2/17/2008
Broker: Unknown
Petshop: Chi-Chi Couture Puppies
Details: Retained baby teeth.

ID: 1359
Date Submitted: 11/10/2006
Breed: Bulldog
Date Purchased: 7/17/2005
Broker: The Hunte Corporation
Petshop: Debby's Pet Land, Quality Pet or New England Pet
Details: Luxating patella; does not appear purebred

ID: 550
Date Submitted: 7/7/2006
Breed: Cocker Spaniel Mix
Date Purchased: 5/22/2002
Broker: The Hunte Corporation
Petshop: Pet City
Details: Neutered at brokers; slipped disc at 2 years of age. X-rays also showed calcium on the heart and bone abnormalities that were indicative of malnourishment. Undergoing testing for possible Cushing's disease. Sold as a "toy spaniel" but grew to be 40 lbs.

ID: 353
Date Submitted: 5/26/2006
Breed: Bulldog
Date Purchased: 12/8/2005
Broker: Unknown
Petshop: Paradise Island Pets
Details: behavioral problems

ID: 89
Date Submitted: 4/6/2006
Breed: English Toy Spaniel
Date Purchased: 2/23/2006
Broker: Unknown
Petshop: Petland #273
Details: congestion, running nose, and sneezing and coughing

ID: -2354
Date Submitted: 1/1/2005
Breed: Bulldog
Date Purchased: 1/1/2005
Broker: The Hunte Corporation
Petshop: Woof & Co.
Details: pneumonia; deaf

(Report Comment)
connie crewse November 2, 2010 | 10:56 a.m.

Terry Ward, let's take a closer look, shall we?
If any intelligent individual reads this, they will compare the dates along with the accusations. Let's go through each one and shed some light on your obvious ignorance, and let others that read this, see for themselves.

1) Maltese-9 MONTHS LATER this animal was diagnosed? Sounds like neglect on the consumer side.
2)Brussel-NOT UNUSUAL TO RETAIN BABY TEETH! Read and learn about this folks! Not a big deal!
3)Bulldog-16 MONTHS LATER-they suddenly think it's not purebred? Who is the 'AKC JUDGE' here? Pull some DNA if in question, luxating patella?...Bulldog?.....overweight? quality of food? proper excercise?....ALL key components-again...under the comsumer's care NOT the breeder!
4)Cocker Mix-slipped disc @ 2YRS! What did the owner do to cause this? Injury? Calcium build up and bone abnormalities; INDICATIVE OF MALNOURISHMENT! Did the breeder feed this animal for 2 YEARS!! There's your answer! Grew to 40lbs! It stated it was a MIX!!!
5)Bulldog-6 MONTHS OLD! with behavioral problems? What kind of environment has this dog been in all this time? Was the breeder living with this animal for 6 MONTHS?!
6)English Toy Spaniel-was out of breeders care for almost 2 MONTHS?
7)Bulldog-Dates do NOT make sense according to the claim. Why would a consumer 'supposedly' buy a puppy with an illness?

Thank you Terry for bringing this to light. This is ANOTHER LIE born from the womb of ANIMAL RIGHTS IDIOTS. They have given birth to yet another Internet site to DECEIVE people. HOWEVER, I LOVE to expose this site as well. I ALWAYS point out to the consumers that they MUST look at the dates of 'purchase' and 'submitted' and do the math. Most claims are so self telling of the 'hidden' agenda, that it's causing the ANIMAL RIGHTS people more harm by posting it! I LOVE IT!

I had a consumer purchase a puppy, took it home, gave it a bath, got soap in it's eyes. Next day, the eyes were irritated severely, rushed it to their Vet, he tells them that this puppy OBVIOUSLY came from a puppy mill, and that it had bilateral 'cherry eyes' and that he could correct it for a mere $3000 DOLLARS! Consumer was outraged at me, as they believed this so-called 'Professional'/Vet. I let her vent, and when she was done, I asked her if she had recently done anything, i.e. bath, which is a COMMON irritant to the eyes. Once we established that, I told her to try flushing the eyes with a sterile saline solution, get some triple antibiotic eye ointment W/O hydrocortizone, and check back with me in a day. She called me back, and was ecstatic to tell me that the eyes were much better, and she apologized for the initial complaint. She was definitely going to give her Vet a piece of mind as well, as he is RAPING people of their money, and feeding off of this 'puppymill' propaganda to get rich!


(Report Comment)
connie crewse November 2, 2010 | 11:24 a.m.

Terry Ward,

CORRECTION on Cocker Mix:


Way to go! Keep posting, as you are really doing your side a huge favor!

I would LOVE to see a site to expose the horrendous animals that are 'sold'....I'm sorry, 'adopted' out by the Humane Societies, shady shelters, and rescues. I know for a fact they make up information when they have NO facts!

My son 'bought'....I'm sorry, 'adopted' a MIX from the Humane Society and NOTHING was disclosed to them about it having Demodectic Mange.....which was apparent at time of 'sale'...sorry, 'adoption'. They were told it just had a little hair loss, and that the hair would grow back. REALLY? They took it to their Vet, and he immediately did a skin scrape and within minutes he diagnosed the animal for D-Mange. I also want to point out that this is a very SIMPLE and INEXPENSIVE test---point I'm making is that the HS KNEW what this animal had, but chose NOT to disclose! Ongoing health issue is what D-Mange is, but if the HS was to disclose that information to my son, I'm quite sure that he would not have taken on such a problem.
WHAT LIARS....ALL OF THEM! But let's not give ALL the facts on these groups?.....CONSUMERS BEWARE!!


(Report Comment)
Kim Egan November 2, 2010 | 11:36 a.m.

Terry, I hope you're not holding those up as being cases of cruelty. Retained baby teeth and luxating patellas are common in the small/toy breeds at Promises Kept. I have had several dogs out of the finest TFT lines in the United States have retained teeth--it happens because of the size of the mouth in question and the reduced ability to loosen with normal chewing exercise. It costs about $12/tooth to get retained teeth removed, not including the cost of anesthesia and pre-surgery testing, and dogs are allowed to go home the same day as the procedure.

Luxating patellas are graded, 0-3. Obviously, a zero score indicates normal range of motion. A dog with a score of 1 can lead a perfectly normal life because the knee cap slips, but doesn't normally pop from place. A dog with a 2 does experience some discomfort and may skip or hold its leg from the ground--it may develop pain in its later years. A 3 is basically crippled in that leg--the leg is usually held elevated and there may be deformity. But here's the thing: luxating patellas are polygenic, meaning that they result from the expression of several genes that work together. Two dogs with perfect knees can throw puppies with poor knees. Normally dogs with bad knees are removed from the gene pool and are sold as pets, since they can lead perfectly normal lives. I spayed a little dog way back in 2003 due to having one seriously slipping patella and gave her to my ex--seven years later she is still only occasionally skipping and runs him roughshod. However, LPs do tend to worsen over time, so a dog with an excellent to very good pair of knees can have one or both be only in fair shape as it ages. LP can also be exacerbated by exercise or it can be mimicked by injury to the ligaments.


(Report Comment)
Kim Egan November 2, 2010 | 11:40 a.m.

Very small dogs can also experience a very swift and severe drop in blood sugar by missing even a single meal. One reason why toy dog breeders usually feed their dogs twice a day--to avoid severe blood sugar drops. Upper respiratory conditions are also common in short-faced breeds--even pneumonia, which can develop quickly. I can personally attest to how quickly a puppy (or even an adult) can pick up giardia: I once worked at a kennel that trained water dogs--I was there as part of a dog trainer program. We were allowed to run our dogs in a field with one of the training ponds, which was nice due to the hot weather. Unfortunately, the pond was infected with giardia, due to the relatively large population of water fowl in the area. The dog that I was training and had been allowed to swim shared the common water dish with my other dogs--overnight I had gone from no dogs with giardia to having five of them. It happens. A few days treatment with an inexpensive medication fixes the problem.

As to the deafness, I'd love to know if that bulldog was white . . . I'm not defending poor breeding practices, but then again we have no proof that Mr. Landers engaged in poor breeding practices. I can't speak to the apparent mixed breedings, since I never saw the dogs, but I can tell you that most vets know very little about breeds of dogs. After three years, my vet was still calling my Toy FOX Terriers 'Toy FEIST Terriers. Some people just consider themselves too educated to learn new things . . .

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 2, 2010 | 12:15 p.m.

Terry you must have forgotten that this Proposition B you keep claiming that is so needed, doesn't apply to places like Hunte!

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers November 2, 2010 | 2:04 p.m.

connie crewse, the reported date is the date the problem was reported to the web site, not when the dog had the problem.

Terry, benefit of a doubt: the earlier inspection wasn't very good, disturbing in fact, but newer ones have been clean. Haven't seen one for 2010 but hopefully it was clean, too.

I don't know about anyone else, but I just voted. In a few hours, it's all over.

(Report Comment)
lacinda florez November 2, 2010 | 2:16 p.m.

@connie crewse
Wow so everything that is wrong with an animal is the owners fault and never the fault of the breeder. Things that make you go hum?

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan November 2, 2010 | 3:12 p.m.

Lacinda, Shelley, once the dog leaves the breeder's hands, his or her involvement is pretty much over in terms of faults--unless those faults were congenital, genetic, or due to failure to care for the dog during its formative period including gestation. Deafness is congenital; however, white dogs of any breed can be deaf. It's not necessarily a fault that prevents a dog from having a long and normal life.

Things like slipped disks, cruciate tears, and broken limbs all occur due to accidents or negligence of the person that has possession of the animal. Unless the slipped disk is accompanied by degeneration of the spine, it is not a genetic or congenital issue. It's unreasonable to expect a breeder to take responsibility for such things.

The same goes for behavioral issues. I had a beautiful little teenaged TFT puppy--she was 9.5 months old and had never had a bad experience in her life. Anything stressful was made into a game: "ooooh, what a big noise Leela! Did you hear that wonderful thunder?" I bred her; I bred her dam; I knew the person who bred her grand-dam. Her sire and her dam's sire had never known a moment of fear in their lives, except for Hurricane Katrina. When I sold this little girl to what I believed was the perfect couple, she was a changed dog. The husband was a large man and loud; he had large and loud friends. The woman didn't believe in pampering dogs, so she chose to "correct" Leela for being afraid. One day Leela just laid on the couch next to the woman's husband, went limp, and peed all over herself.


(Report Comment)
connie crewse November 2, 2010 | 3:12 p.m.


Really? Explain to me, in your own words, and by your personal experience, on the subject in which you are responding to, as I would love to hear your 'professional' opinion on animal husbandry.

I would love to have a debate with you.

(Report Comment)
connie crewse November 2, 2010 | 3:14 p.m.
(Report Comment)
Kim Egan November 2, 2010 | 3:15 p.m.

A reasonably educated dog person would have known that she was submitting utterly to him; she expected him to kill her. She was "corrected" for peeing on the couch and put in her crate as a punishment. When she told me that Leela had just shut down like this, I took the puppy back, gave her a full refund, and offered her another pup from my upcoming litter for half price. I thought that if we introduced the pup of her choice to her and to her husband early that a younger pup would acclimate easily. She wasn't interested and I didn't push the issue.

Leela came back in May. One puppy class and two Rally classes later she is starting to be the happy puppy I knew before she left my home. She's been spayed and has a permanent home here, just because I can't see her making it elsewhere after such a horrible experience. She was socialized no more and no less than other dogs that I've bred. I took her to puppy matches as a youngster and she played with children and adults alike. Did she have a soft temperament before she left? Yes, a bit. I even cautioned her new owners about that soft temperament, saying that she needed minimal (or no) punishment for wrong-doing and lots of praise for what she did right. But I couldn't be there 24/7 to make certain that her owners treated her right. If she had been returned to me because she was going blind due to a congenital issue, that would have been one thing. But behavioral issues? Many, many, many times that falls completely on the new owner.

In any case, none of those things that were listed would necessarily have been prevented by the provisions of Prop B. They seem to have been mentioned solely to discredit Mr. Landers. It just takes a minute of research to educate oneself to see when ad hominem attacks are made to distract readers from the issue at hand and to confuse them about the facts.

(Report Comment)
connie crewse November 2, 2010 | 4:05 p.m.

Kim Egan,

Thank you for your post, as we ALL have stories to tell, but unfortunately, they don't get heard enough. There are bad breeders in this industry, and it's just a shame that people are more willing to be educated by animal rights groups that have historically never been 'spot on' with facts and truths.

I appreciate the time you have taken to make your heartfelt posts here. They may not touch the 'Pro-B's' on here, but there are lots of people that read these that never post, so I'm sure that all of our comments have hit home with many.

Whatever the outcome of today, we will still be in this business, as the rewards far surpass the negativity that has been spread by individuals that know absolutely nothing about this side of the industry.

My goal from this day on, is to educate ALL people everywhere I go, and to everyone I sell a puppy to, about the negative impact on farming industries and the dog breeding industry caused by the corrupt groups of the HSUS, ASPCA, & PETA.

If people would realize that the simple word choicing by the HSUS in the bill: "PET" shall be defined as 'domesticated animal' is what has the ENTIRE Missouri Agriculture people in fear of. They would have NEVER helped us in this campaign had the HSUS stuck with the term: Canine or dog. They've strategically changed one small part, as most bills do, to attack later once it gets passed.

Clair McKaskil made a comment not too many weeks ago, that once Prop B passes, she wants to go after the sheep and goats next! What a shame!

People have taken care of animals for many generations, and have passed down hands-on experience to their children and so on. Now all of that history and experience is under attack by people that consider the 'life of an ant to be equal to that of my child'.....really Missouri? I'm just like everyone else on here, and the thought of people abusing animals literally makes me sick. The thought of people abusing another human being makes me sick too. But when you want to wipe out an entire industry, that has evolved from years and years of experience, it's a sad day in Missouri. If this passes, don't be shocked when they start attacking our farmers by limiting their number of cattle, pigs, chickens, etc. We keep this up, and our meat will come from overseas. I don't know about anyone else, but if China can't even produce a toy that is safe for our children because of the lead in it, what makes you think that their food will be safe?

Sad times to have people believe such a lying group of BILLIONAIRES instead of the humble, hard working families that put companion pets in homes, along with the milk, eggs, and meat on their tables!

I'm still voting NO on Prop B!

If this is defeated, please folks, use Bark Alert, it has been proven to work in just the short amoutn of time we have had it in place! TURN IN THE SUB-STANDARD KENNELS....PLEASE

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 2, 2010 | 4:23 p.m.

McCaskill gets political contributions from HSUS. Hmmmm... wonder why she would want to go after animal agriculture????

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 2, 2010 | 4:31 p.m.

Again do you have the reports from HSUS I have been asking for about your Puppy Mill HotLine?????

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking November 2, 2010 | 4:34 p.m.

connie crewse wrote:

"I'm still voting NO on Prop B!"

If you haven't yet, hurry up and do it!!!



(Report Comment)
connie crewse November 2, 2010 | 5:35 p.m.

Mark Foeking

Not to worry!

Getting ready to go!!!!


(Report Comment)
connie crewse November 2, 2010 | 5:38 p.m.

Mark Foeking

Forgot to add that I had to wait for someone to be here so we could go, as we are not comfortable leaving our place unattended.....know what I mean?

Too many 'suspicious' incidents lately.....thanks AR people!

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 2, 2010 | 5:55 p.m.

Connie and Mark, terrorism? We need a reality check because we are bonkers and spewing mis-information!

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan November 2, 2010 | 6:31 p.m.

On the contrary! I know someone with American Pit Bull Terriers. These dogs are never fought; they compete in conformation and weight pull events. He used to keep his gate unlocked, until he found it left open when he knew he closed it or closed with the wrong panel on top of the other. He once came home to find out (through a neighbor) that he'd had an unannounced and warrantless visit--through his closed gate. They had opened the gate, driven up the quarter-mile lane to his house, through the yard where his dogs were kept, turned around at his house (you could see the tracks in the grass) and back out again. Who knows what they were looking for or who had called them there--but his gate is *always* locked now unless he is expecting someone to arrive.

This guy is a harmless 60-something organic farmer who has never fought a dog in his life. Why should he feel as if he needs to live his life under lock-down, when he owns his property outright and has done everything he can to be an asset to the community?

(Report Comment)
Mark A Landers November 2, 2010 | 7:54 p.m.

Thank you from my heart for coming to my defense.

These blue eyes have been leaking tears of joy.

When you get time please set down with your families and friends and of course your dogs and watch my partners favorite movie:

Where the Red Fern Grows

Thank you again,

Mark A Landers

(Report Comment)
Kim Egan November 2, 2010 | 8:02 p.m.

Mark, it's one thing to slam someone on truly heinous acts and yet another to use innuendo to smear a decent person. I don't know you, but good luck to you in everything that you do. You might be happy to hear--if you don't know it already--that Prop B is being voted down by a very clear margin at this point in time.

(Report Comment)
lacinda florez November 3, 2010 | 11:16 a.m.

All the people griping this is prop b
■Have no more than 50 breeding dogs.
■Have their dogs examined by a veterinarian at least once a year.
■Give dogs constant and unfettered access indoors and outdoors.
■Keep dogs in enclosures that accommodate the animals' size.
■Have extra space for dogs, ranging from 12 square feet to 30 square feet, depending on the size of the dog.
■Have dog enclosures with cement flooring and no wire.
■Clean dog pens once a day.
what is so wrong with this??????????

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 3, 2010 | 2:57 p.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 finally 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.

(Report Comment)
John Smithton November 3, 2010 | 4:46 p.m.

This is a glorious day for Prop B supporters! Where is Ray Shapiro now? Where is Ray! Where is Ray!

He said Shelley and Marina would be running off with their tails between their legs.....look who's running now!!

(Report Comment)
Donna Ploss January 24, 2011 | 5:39 p.m.

Where are the dogs going to go?? As long as they don't come to CT. We have enough of our own problems without taking in dogs from out of state. Have been following this Prop. B and am ecstatic it passed! Any good breeder won't care about spending a little more money to care for the dogs and ensure they're safety. BRB on the otherhand, I hope they shut them all down!!! Congrats to all who voted FOR Prop. B!!

(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.