advertisement

Election 2010: Proposition B passes narrowly

New dog breeding regulations approved by 51 percent of Missouri voters
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 | 12:31 a.m. CDT; updated 12:12 a.m. CST, Wednesday, November 7, 2012

WHAT HAPPENED: Proposition B narrowly passed with 51 percent of Missouri voters approving the measure and 48.5 percent voting against. With 99.9 percent of precincts counted by 12:30 a.m., the statewide tally was 992,094 in favor and 932,615 opposed.

BOONE COUNTY RESULTS:

  • Yes: 44.6 percent – 22,715 votes
  • No: 55.4 percent – 28,256 votes

WHAT'S NEXT: The regulations for Proposition B won't take effect until Nov. 2, 2011, so breeders will have a year to come into compliance.

Barbara Schmitz, Missouri state director of the Humane Society of the United States and campaign manager of Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, said a variety of tasks need to be completed in the year before Proposition B takes effect. She said that though Missourians for the Protection of Dogs originally formed to promote the ballot initiative, the partnership will remain intact to educate breeders and to help them follow the new law.

The Missouri Department of Agriculture also has work to do in the year before it begins enforcing Proposition B. A fiscal note released by the state auditor in December estimated the department would need seven more inspectors and one more administrative assistant to enforce the new law, according to a previous Missourian article. The department said they will decide whether they need additional training for inspectors at a later date.

NEW REGULATIONS: The citizen-sponsored initiative will add to existing laws regulating dog breeders in Missouri. The new regulations require breeders to:

  • 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.

These new laws pertain only to breeders who have 10 or more breeding females. 

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR DOG BREEDERS: In a previous Missourian article, Barbara York, president of the Missouri Pet Breeders Association, said the new regulations "are so cost-prohibitive that no one will be able to come into compliance." 

Breeders said the new laws might put them out of business because they don't have the money to build new facilities.

In the same Missourian article, one breeder, Hubert Lavy of Silex, said building a new shelter to house all of his dogs would cost him $50,000. He said Proposition B would put him out of business.

Karen Strange, president of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners, said very few breeders would be able to comply with the new regulations because of the space requirements.

She also said the debate about tighter restrictions on licensed breeders would continue despite election results.

"This will not be decided tonight either way, regardless of whether we win or lose," Strange said Tuesday.

WHAT ABOUT THE SHELTERS? Alan Allert, executive director of the Central Missouri Humane Society, said on election day that it is hard to know the initial impact of Proposition B on the shelters. 

"The prediction is that a lot of people will have to give up their animals," he said. "I don't know how many of them will be brought here."

Allert said that, when someone can't meet the current guidelines, the shelter will receive 20 to 30 animals from the Missouri Department of Agriculture. The department calls the shelter beforehand to see whether there is space for the dogs. If not, then the dogs go to a different shelter, he said. 

Allert said the Humane Society of the United States has rescues lined up and is saving money to deal with the problem, anticipating that Proposition B would pass.

WHAT IS THE COST TO THE STATE? The fiscal note said that enforcing Proposition B would cost the state an extra $521,356 each year and an additional one-time cost of $133,412 in the first year.

PRECEDENTS FROM OTHER STATES: Approval of Proposition B makes Missouri the fifth state to place a limit on the number of sexually intact dogs a breeding facility can own. Currently Virginia, Washington and Oregon limit facilities to 50 breeding dogs, and Louisiana limits breeders to 75, according to a spreadsheet entitled "State Puppy Mill Laws" produced by the Humane Society of the United States

According to the spreadsheet, 17 states don't have any licensing or inspections laws. California, Maryland, Nevada, Oregon and Washington don't require a license but still establish criteria for dog breeders or kennels.

Missouri has laws regulating breeders, and Proposition B would add to the existing laws.

VOTERS' VOICES: "I think all of the issues that were presented were unfortunately tainted by an attempt on one side or the other to distort and misrepresent the issue. I found it confusing, particularly on the puppy mill issue. I'm not sure that the voters were really presented with actual facts." – Carole Riesenberg, educator

"As far as Prop. B, that's confusing because one hand is saying that it will stop puppy mills, and I'm all for that, but on the other hand, they're talking about it's going to affect cattle ranchers, and it's not really clear on what it's about anymore. Those who are for it can't really tell you anything about it, and those who are against it, same thing." – Michael Kent, 47

"I voted against the puppy mill, Prop. B, because I think that there are more than enough laws on the books already that need to be enforced. And if a person is an illegal puppy mill owner now, they are going to be an illegal puppy mill owner later on. One of the issues I had was that the groups that pushed for this amendment excluded themselves from those requirements, and I think that overall it was just poorly presented." – Bob Glidewell, 54, writer

"I think the intentions are good. I think everything is fine as far as the sentiments, but I don't think the legislation is written in such a way that it's going to help a whole lot. You can pass more drug laws, but people aren't necessarily going to change their behavior." – Craig Datz, 48, veterinarian

"Probably the puppy mill thing is the most important. There's just not enough evidence to support that they're sage. Unfortunately, there's just too many lazy people wanting to make a buck off breeding animals. The legitimate breeders are already doing it right in the first place, so this won't affect them." – Rachel Penn, 37, full-time graduate student

"Prop. B, I totally agree with that. Just because you own puppies doesn't mean that you are providing for them effectively. It's going to increase our taxes, but if it's a good cause I am for it. Let's get these people some harsher policies. It's just not healthy for the animal; don't be a pet owner if you can't take care of your animal." – Katherine Evans, 37, accounting associate


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

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


Comments

carla thomas November 3, 2010 | 1:21 a.m.

I WANT TO THANK THE BEST FRIENDS SOCIETY AND THANK WAYNE PACELLE AND ALL THE MISSOURI NETWORKERS ON FACEBOOK FOR MAKING THIS A REALITY.I AM CRYING TEARS OF JOY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THIS IS FOR ALL THE DOGS OUT THERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(Report Comment)
Beth Robbins November 3, 2010 | 9:43 a.m.

How could anyone who cares about the welfare of animals be anything but relieved that this passed! As to the comments about the passing of Prop B putting some of these breeders out of business, AWESOME! As to the cost to the state of Missouri to enforce this new law, well if the state had done the right thing for animals long ago, it would not be in the position of forking up all this money now! The people of Missouri and the entire country have spoken. Clean up your act and insure the animals' safety and well being!!

(Report Comment)
nicole ohora November 3, 2010 | 10:44 a.m.

There are 200,000+ dogs in MO kept by 1,400 licensed breeders. If limited to 50 dogs each, thats 70,000
total. What will happen to the other 130,000? Each of the 350 MO shelters would have to take on 350+ dogs before the years end. 64% of dogs that go to shelters don’t leave. 83,000 dogs will be killed now that prop b has passed, way to go, "welfare" activists! this legislature only affects licensed breeders... in case you havent noticed, mill owners are not licensed and will continue their practices due to little enforcement from government officials. Passing this was a horribly foolish thing to do. While I love animals and agree that these proposed standards are a great idea, the proposed plans for "surplus" animals will have a disastrous effect on MO shelters and responsible breeders.

(Report Comment)
Stephen Woods November 3, 2010 | 11:09 a.m.

The passage of Prop B is a sad day for all who love freedom. First, the gullibility of so many people in urban areas vis à vis rural life is further exposed. What is more, its passage will bring yet more governmental intrusion into people's daily lives at a time when more freedom-loving people are waking up to the fact that virtually every aspect of our daily lives is now under governmental scrutiny and control. The election results across this nation yesterday were about much more than the economy, as important as that is. What America said was, "We want smaller government, fewer regulations, and lower taxes." The passage of Prop B directly contradicts that initiative. There were already enough laws on the books to deal with genuine cruelty to animals.

Anyone who believes that this issue will not eventually affect animal agriculture in Missouri is living in La-La Land. And anyone who didn't see that some dog breeders just wanted to eliminate some of their competition (and make no mistake; that's how they see it) is blind in one eye and can't see out of the other. Remember all the campaign rhetoric about job-killing regulations? Well congratulations, Missourians, we've just done it again!

Disclosure: I own no dogs, have never bred dogs, and don't personally know anyone that breeds dogs.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 3, 2010 | 11:28 a.m.

Congratulations to all of you who worked so hard in getting this bill passed.
To all of the responsible breeders who posted their reluctance, I ( and many others like me) are certain that your worst fears will not come to pass and hope that you will continue to do what you do well.
It is only the fringe who would have you put out of business.

To all of you 'humanewatch' knuckleheads whose ouija board told you that this will mean ' the end of animal agriculture' ...
You might in the future reconsider the wisdom of posting lunatic predictions for all to see. VERY bad for one's credibility in any future debate.

Alas, the real work now begins...as a great 'dog dumping' scenario
is on the horizon.
Many of these animals will be either sold at auction, traded out-of-state, dumped into shelters or simply let loose.
Some will be scuttled across the border to Kentuck-istan..
In the more isolated areas, many will end up back behind Billy-Bob's barn with a bullet (or a brick) to the head.

This mass dumping is one 'prediction' which is unfortunately very true.
My experience is with breed rescue only ... I cannot speak to what will happen when local overcrowded underfunded shelters become overwhelmed.
What I DO know is that breed rescues all over the country have been
hoping for, preparing for and yet dreading this for quite some time.
All of us are stretched already.

EVERYONE who supported this bill has a responsibility to help deal with , in any small or large way you can- it's inevitable aftermath.

To everyone who did NOT support this bill .. 'it did not go far enough' - it 'would do nothing to help ' - 'we need enforcement not more laws'
claiming 'We love dogs but'..
You ALSO have a responsibility to help deal with the aftermath..
Otherwise the 'we love dogs ' basis for your argument is a lie.
And you know who you are.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 3, 2010 | 11:41 a.m.

nicole ohora wrote: "There are 200,000+ dogs in MO kept by 1,400 licensed breeders. If limited to 50 dogs each, thats 70,000 total> What will happen to the other 130,000?"
.
Actually, there is no seizure of animals mandated by the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. The owners have one year to comply with the 50 breeding dog portion of the law. That means that they can only BREED 50 dogs. If they had over 50 intact breeding dogs, they do not have to relinquish them to a humane society. The breeder has options. one option would be to sell the excess dogs. If they cannot sell the dogs by the one year deadline, the owner could choose to simply have those dogs spayed or neutered until they could be sold. The law does not FORCE them to turn over the dogs to a shelter. If breeders CHOOSE to dump their dogs or kill them themselves, that is not the fault of the legislation. It is because they are lowlife scumbags who only cared about the profit they could make off the dogs without regard to the care of those dogs.
.
Stephen Woods wrote: "Anyone who believes that this issue will not eventually affect animal agriculture in Missouri is living in La-La Land."
.
I guess I live in La-la land then & have since 1998. In 1998 the same arguements were made during the cockfighting campaign. It didn't affect animal agriculture then & it won't now. This was about dogs suffering in Missouri Puppy mills. That's it.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers November 3, 2010 | 11:43 a.m.

nicole ohora, your histrionics aren't justified.

The majority of dogs released by breeders will, unfortunately, end up in dog auctions. We can hope to save as many of them as we can.

Others will end up at shelters. Some are going to be too old, too sick, to sour at life to save. Hopefully though we will be able to save most.

We'll need to support and fund our rescue organizations and shelters. I'd love to take over a big building somewhere to use as a processing way station for the dogs so they can get treatment, perhaps some socialization and other help, before going to foster or forever homes.

We've heard for months about how these commercial breeders love their dogs. Well, now they can show how much they love their dogs by ensuring the dogs go to a reputable and caring shelter.

Stephen Woods, the same farmers that cry out about government interference are the same people that hold their hands out for government subsidies, so you'll have to excuse me if I call bunk on your, "Oh poor us, big government is going to ruin our lives".

Farming is the most government subsidized business in this country, and that's saying a lot, because there's a whole lot of industries that manage to get government money.

"Every aspect of our lives", oh get a grip.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 3, 2010 | 11:43 a.m.

To those who voted yes on Prop B.... I thank you from the bottom of my heart. This has been a tireless campaign with Missouri volunteers working non-stop for passage of this legislation for years. I can personally attest to the long hours gathering signatures, notarizing signatures, filing those petitions forms, gathering endorsements, raising funds, calling, emailing, advertising, letter writing, sign posting, leafletting & electioneering. It was long hours & hard work, but worth every moment to know that we can finally take a huge step toward 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. www.maal.org

(Report Comment)
Pat Van Osten November 3, 2010 | 11:58 a.m.

For the people who are concerned about the money needed to hire more inspectors, I would say that the State of MO spends more taxpayer dollars dealing with the breeders who abandon their dogs at animal control facilities and shelters. What it costs to adjudicate, vet, feed, and house is astronomical. It is too bad that the reputable breeders could have not stepped up and helped put the puppymill breeders out of business. By puppymills, I mean no vet care, socialization, inbreeding, no humane care at all. According to Canis Major V. publications, puppy mills originated in the post-World War II era. Midwestern farmers looking for an alternative crop reacted to a growing demand for puppies, resulting in the development of the first commercial puppy business. As the business grew, both small and large retail outlets began to sell puppies through pet departments. At around the same time, the first pet store chains were born. The time has passed for these enormous cruelty factories. I would for one like to see well bred, socialized, healthy, puppies being bred, not the ones coming out of these facilities. We do not need anymore puppies being bred because there are no homes anywhere. Realistically, at least we could breed healthy puppies. When I was in Europe I wanted to throw up at what we have been breeding here. The dogs there do not even resemble the sickly looking dogs the U.S. breeds. It is because these mills inbreed. Throw a male in with a female and you have puppies without any consideration for what type of puppy one is breeding. In the end, the dogs and puppies pay with their lives. Can't all us work together to stop the cruelty and poorly bred dogs who are coming out of these mills? “Anyone who has accustomed himself to regard the life of any living creature as worthless is in danger of arriving also at the idea of worthless human lives.”—Albert Schweitzer

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 3, 2010 | 12:28 p.m.

Ahhh, Nicole..possibly you are too young to understand the contradictions in the messages you toss out into the world..

Nicole O'Hora : Let's see how many true Christians are on FB! Press Like if Jesus is your Savior!!, Let's start a Christian Revival on Facebook! Click "like" if you believe that Jesus is Lord!!!!,...

Nicole O'Hora: Anyone want a donkey? We have small old jack to get rid of if anyone wants him. Lol ! we have to get rid of ours scott said anyone who brings a trailer can just have him Text me!..

Nicole Ohara: ' I love animals'..

(Report Comment)
Stephen Woods November 3, 2010 | 12:35 p.m.

Shelley Powers wrote: "Stephen Woods, the same farmers that cry out about government interference are the same people that hold their hands out for government subsidies, so you'll have to excuse me if I call bunk on your, "Oh poor us, big government is going to ruin our lives".

Actually, I am a farmer and one that has never accepted and never will accept a penny of government subsidy, so there's not an iota of hypocrisy in me when I "cry out about government interference." I don't accept subsidy because I don't want the government telling me everything I can and cannot do on my private property. So call bunk all you want...that's nonsense in my case. And speaking of subsidy, let's ask how many of those that voted for Prop B also support abortion on demand that is most assuredly subsidized by taxpayers. Yet another absurd self-contradiction that the poor folks in La-La Land want to pretend doesn't exist.

(Report Comment)
Marcy Munoz November 3, 2010 | 12:41 p.m.

Congratulations Missouri!!!! I was hoping and praying from Ohio that Prop B would pass! I hope the sentiment to protect and love our dogs passes throughout all 50 states!

Great work...and THANK YOU!!!

(Report Comment)
Michelle Cascio November 3, 2010 | 1:03 p.m.

Ladies (and a gentleman or two)- I'm going to miss you all as I head back to my normal workload managing cases for the Puppy Mills Task Force. It was an honor to debate the opposition with you! Like Alan Allert stated in the article- we are here to help with the transition to more humane operations. If you know of anyone who needs assistance, you can contact Missourians for the Protection of Dogs or give me a call on the tip line- 877.mill.tip.

Hats off to you! Oh and Terry- love the knuckleheads comment. I guess people will soon see for themselves that this was, and will only be, about dogs.

(Report Comment)
Karin Simmons November 3, 2010 | 2:06 p.m.

I work for a veterinary clinic and we had lots of clients call because they were confused on Proposition B. The proposition was confusing and misleading. I won't deny that I saw one or two good points, unfortunately every thing else was so completely unrealistic or pointless. To say that this won't affect the breeders who already follow the current laws, which are good, is a delusion. It will affect them the most because those are the ones that are being inspected, like good breeders. Now with the pass of this proposition the state will have to hire more inspectors to enforce the legislation. Where are they going to get that money? Us! We are paying for that, and these are tough times. Instead of spending the outrageous sums of money to push this proposition, that money could have been used to enforce the laws we already have to get puppy mills better under control and, hopefully, many shut down. Some may say "get a pet from the shelter." I say, "Until they stop sending home unhealthy, and sometimes even dying, animals, that have been fixed as early as 6 weeks, many times done while their immune systems are compromised, they won't see a dime of my money." Who in their right mind would support that! Maybe that’s something else select groups should consider doing with their animals rights and welfare soap box.
It would be nice if intelligent, law abiding breeders could do what they love and offer a better solution than sick and dying animals from certain, I won’t say names, shelters. It just goes to show you that the uninformed voters and ignorant, so called, breeders screw everything up for everyone else.

(Report Comment)
Roger Wilco November 3, 2010 | 2:07 p.m.

Where is Ray Shapiro now?? hahahahahahha

(Report Comment)
Art Vandelay November 3, 2010 | 2:19 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward November 3, 2010 | 2:43 p.m.

To Stephen Woods:
I have a question.
Most of us supporting Prop B believe that the small farmer has been terribly used and unnecessarily frightened by the extremely sophisticated snarky DC corporate BIG AG lobbyists whose only interests are the likes of Monsanto...
People who actually do REAL farm work and are unfamiliar with the ways of hot-shot PR 'suits' are , unfortunately, fair game.
I am curious as to what sort of actual farmer breeds Teacup poodles to hawk on the Internet.
Granted, my experence with small family farms is limited to my experience with my grandparents.
They and their neighbors in NE Arkansas raised chickens and pigs and a few cows. They grew corn and vegetables and the most delicious strawberries.
With my grandfather I 'helped drive' the tractor and went fishing for gar in the canal.
There were huntings dogs around, yes.
But I do not recall seeing any barns full of Pomeranians and Peke-a-Poos.
Pigeons, maybe...and there were lots of goats, which, for some reason frightened the bejezus out of me when I was very small.
But no Pugs.
Or Labradoodles.
Possibly you can enlighten me.
Have things changed that much that the small proud hardworking farmer of my memory has taken to pandering to the pet-whims of Paris Hilton?

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 3, 2010 | 2:49 p.m.

Great to see this is what Missouri elected to take care of our puppies!!!! This was a fb message I received today!

"Between You and Pamela Newson

Pamela Newson November 3 at 12:26pm Report
You paranormal Freak! Hope you and your husband lose your jobs today.. Now get back to the funeral parlor, FREAK!!"

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 3, 2010 | 3:25 p.m.

Oh Shelley so all of this and the dogs will just end up the way you didn't want them to? Shame! Putting everyone out of work in the unemployment line and paying settlements from their lawsuits they ARE filing for those poor uncared for dogs to go right where you didn't want them to go????? I can not wait to get on here and say "I told you so!" I still have yet to have my question answered about who will pay unemployment and settlements??? HSUS??? Taxpayers???

http://agwired.com/2010/11/03/house-ag-c...

(Report Comment)
John Smithton November 3, 2010 | 4:48 p.m.

Where is Ray Shapiro now?, I concur.....

He said Marina and Shelley would be running with their tails between their legs come Election Day.....who's got his tail between his legs now?????

Where is Ray? Where is Ray! Where is Ray!

I hate to say it...but told you so. Ray was wrong!!

(Report Comment)
John Smithton November 3, 2010 | 4:50 p.m.

This is a glorious day for all dog lovers! We have won the battle and are victorious!!

Prob B supporters have won!

Ray Shapiro and the like were wrong!!

(Report Comment)
John Smithton November 3, 2010 | 4:51 p.m.

Is Ray man enough to admit his predictions were wrong?

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 3, 2010 | 5:10 p.m.

Don't hold your breath! Looks as if there might be a recount!!! Another great accomplishment by none other than Carnahan!!!

(Report Comment)
Kate Seitz November 3, 2010 | 5:13 p.m.

this proposition should be applied to humans. Can you imagine the lives that would be saved if you all showed this kind of passion about saving babies or making sure that those that are born are taken care of? I am an animal lover and I own one, spayed dog that I do love very much, but I think humans are much more important than DOGS....People need to focus on what's important. If government officials would simply ENFORCE and MONITOR the regulations that already exist, this would not have been necessary...get your priorities straight, people!

(Report Comment)
Christina Friedli November 3, 2010 | 5:13 p.m.

Since this law passed breeders now can't keep their puppies at a temperature above 84 degrees which means many puppies will die from the herpes virus since it a very common disease. Puppies under three weeks of age that are affected can not regulate their temperature and need a much higher temperature than 84 degrees to keep the virus from killing them. Here's to you Prop B yes voters... you won and must be happy that your vote will be the cause of many deaths. Puppy killers!!!

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 3, 2010 | 5:20 p.m.

Herpes and freezing!

(Report Comment)
John Schultz November 3, 2010 | 5:55 p.m.

For those clamoring for Ray, how many of you are local to Columbia and were commenting here well before Prop B, like Ray was? Or are you gonna skedaddle once you do your victory dance?

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 3, 2010 | 6:04 p.m.

Kate Seitz wrote: "Can you imagine the lives that would be saved if you all showed this kind of passion about saving babies or making sure that those that are born are taken care of?"
.
Good God... I'm so tired of hearing this from people. Can YOU imagine what the world would be like if everyone in it actually cared enough to volunteer even one hour per week to a cause they believed in? There are BILLIONS of people in the world. If you are concerned about babies & children, please go ahead and VOLUNTEER to help them. I volunteer for MULTIPLE causes. Animal welfare is only ONE of them. And FYI... I have 4 kids (Grown up now!)and 3 dogs & 3 cats. Who are YOU to tell me what causes I should support. Who Are YOU to tell me that I cannot support multiple causes? Get off your high horse.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 3, 2010 | 6:09 p.m.

Christina Friedli wrote: "Since this law passed breeders now can't keep their puppies at a temperature above 84 degrees which means many puppies will die from the herpes virus since it a very common disease."
.
Actually, the legislation says that it applies to breeding dogs & during whelping & recovery. (Section 7 reads: "This section shall not apply to a dog during examination, testing, operation, recuperation, or other individual treatment for veterinary purposes;") So no... puppies are not going to "Freeze" or "contract herpes" because of Prop B

(Report Comment)
Lucy Johnson November 3, 2010 | 6:28 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Christina Friedli November 3, 2010 | 6:53 p.m.

Marina Shane wrote:
Actually, the legislation says that it applies to breeding dogs & during whelping & recovery. (Section 7 reads: "This section shall not apply to a dog during examination, testing, operation, recuperation, or other individual treatment for veterinary purposes;") So no... puppies are not going to "Freeze" or "contract herpes" because of Prop B

Herpes virus most of the time is not known or diagnosed before death...they normally have it when born and it's not something easily diagnosed. This leaves no time to keep temps to low on any litter even during whelping . Why risk it? That is why most breeders keep young puppies in a environment of 90 to 100 degrees.. it doesn't harm them at this age nor would it harm the mother at these temps as long as she is at normal health and has a proper water supply. There are already laws in place for abuse of dogs... this prop B law is just hurting dogs and licensed breeders. Do you really think the unlicensed breeders that abuse their dogs will stop breeding? Let me answer that for you! Hell no. They don't care they were already unlicensed and illegal that's why this law is only hurting the good breeders.

(Report Comment)
Christina Friedli November 3, 2010 | 7:18 p.m.

It can be a nice day with temps at 85 degrees but hold on you can't keep your dogs at that temp it's a degree to hot. Complete stupidity!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 3, 2010 | 8:18 p.m.

Regarding Ray Shapiro:

May I suggest that gloating from EITHER side is unattractive?
Today 'we' win, 'they lose..,
Tomorrow or next month 'we 'lose, 'they' win.
Life really IS a circle..
Ray, it seems, is absent from all discussions.
Given his interest in most things political, his sudden absence in the aftermath of such an important election would..if he were my friend..
be somewhat worrying.
What if he were actually ill?
Farfetched, possibly.
But who would want to found gloating if this were the case?

The election is over, everybody fought the good fight and this is not Afghanistan.
It is time to move along and GET along with one another.

(Report Comment)
Christina Friedli November 3, 2010 | 8:40 p.m.

The fight is far from over. There are many legal ways to delay this and stop it. ;)

(Report Comment)
Janet Brown November 4, 2010 | 7:01 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Janet Brown November 4, 2010 | 7:02 a.m.

Better to have herpes than to suffer in a cage in which you can't even move in.

(Report Comment)
Janet Brown November 4, 2010 | 7:03 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Janet Brown November 4, 2010 | 7:05 a.m.

Ray, take some time to re-think your manner of thinking and writing to people on here. It might serve you well.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking November 4, 2010 | 7:54 a.m.

I'd like to know where all the dogs from the kennels that will be closing will go. I know something about some of the local rescues and shelters, and they're not going to be able to help very much (other than CMHS, who will euthanize, sometimes within a week, any dog that isn't a good prospect for adoption - they can't afford to keep them around).

DK

(Report Comment)
Laura Johnston November 4, 2010 | 7:55 a.m.

Folks,
Let's remember there is a comments policy on the site that asks you to refrain from personal attacks.
You can read the entire policy here: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/p/miss...

Comments that don't adhere to the policy will be removed.

Thanks,
Laura Johnston, ColumbiaMissourian.com

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 4, 2010 | 8:39 a.m.

Charles Dudley.
PLEASE take a deep breath and start over.
I WAS DEFENDING RAY!

My arch-enemy..my nemisis in all matters, yes!
.
BUT HE WAS NOT HERE TO DEFEND HIMSELF.

How we treat our enemies is what SEPARATES us from the Taliban..

(Report Comment)
Jason Entermyer November 4, 2010 | 9:23 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
John Schultz November 4, 2010 | 9:33 a.m.

Jason, nice guess, but incorrect. Ray is a different poster on the Tribune than the one you claim, and has been absent from there as well.

(Report Comment)
Nancy Griffin November 4, 2010 | 11:12 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Nancy Griffin November 4, 2010 | 11:13 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Nancy Griffin November 4, 2010 | 11:13 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Laura Johnston November 4, 2010 | 11:21 a.m.

Folks,
Please remember that personal attacks are prohibited at our site. Reread the comments policy if you have questions. http://www.columbiamissourian.com/p/miss...

Thanks,
Laura Johnston, ColumbiaMissourian.com

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking November 4, 2010 | 11:37 a.m.

Nancy Griffin wrote:

"Ray is posting on the Tribune with an upside down flag!!! How unpatriotic!!!"

Read John Schultz's comment just two above yours. BoCoMoBoogy is not Ray. Ray isn't posting on the Trib either.

DK

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 4, 2010 | 12:06 p.m.

As much as I disagreed with Ray Shapiro regarding Prop B (I supported it, he did not)....Ray is entitled to his own opinions. Ultimately, what mattered is that the proposition passed, and work can finally begin to help rid Missouri of the horrific title of Puppy Mill Capitol of the US.
.
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. www.maal.org
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer November 4, 2010 | 2:42 p.m.

HSUS spent MILLIONS of dollars and only managed to squeak the proposition by, despite all the lies, emotional manipulating ads on television, and the deceit, dishonesty, and venom of the yes-crowd. And now you are bragging as if it was a landslide. You should be thanking each other and HSUS for barely managing to BUY a crappy piece of legislation. Prop B was forced upon the legitimate dog breeding industry and on this state. Missouri did not overwhelming support this travesty, as you are pretending.
If you think we can all get together and support this piece-of-crap law now, you are badly mistaken. It is STILL a badly-written law that will KILL dogs and puppies. Is that what you are celebrating? The slaughter of thousands of dogs?

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 4, 2010 | 5:32 p.m.

Wow... actually, the above statement should read "Proposition B passed by will of the voters despite all the lies, emotionally manipulating ads on television, and the deceit, dishonesty, and venom of the anti-prop B/Pro-Puppy mill crowd."
.
Proposition B is a much needed and long overdue piece of legislation for Missouri dogs. Ruth, you are entitled to your opinion, as much as I am. I am proud of the good people of Missouri who saw thru the outright lies and scaretactics used by the anti-prop B campaign.
If there is a slaughter of dogs/puppies it will be because the cruel, cold hearted puppy millers who care more about greed than care of their dogs... kill there own dogs. No where in Prop B does it say anything about seizing or killing dogs. If the breeders over 50 dogs really cared about their dogs as much as they profess, they would find another way to come up to the regulations without dumping or killing their breeding dogs.
.
There is no seizure of animals mandated by the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. The owners have one year to comply with the 50 breeding dog portion of the law. That means that they can only BREED 50 dogs. If they had over 50 intact breeding dogs, they do not have to relinquish them to a humane society. The breeder has options. one option would be to sell the excess dogs. If they cannot sell the dogs by the one year deadline, the owner could choose to simply have those dogs spayed or neutered until they could be sold. The law does not FORCE them to turn over the dogs to a shelter. If breeders CHOOSE to dump their dogs or kill them themselves, that is not the fault of the legislation. It is because they are lowlife scumbags who only cared about the profit they could make off the dogs without regard to the care of those dogs.
.
The GOOD breeders of Missouri know this. It's the god awful puppy millers who are complaining.
.
Again...Thank you to all who voted YES on Prop B! Dogs Can't vote, but you gave them a voice yesterday!Please continue to advocate for their welfare by joining Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation. www.maal.org
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 4, 2010 | 6:15 p.m.

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/11/04/239...

Hmmm... wow what do you think of this!!??

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 4, 2010 | 6:30 p.m.

To Ruth Keezer:

Possibly after you have calmed down you might consider helping some of those 'thousands' of dogs by getting together with your fellow Doxie breeders to start a rescue...

Actually, Ruth, ' laws' don't kill , people kill..
This is not an argument that I suggest running with..

What is being 'celebrated' is a first step toward something that has been stonewalled for years by the Evil Geniuses who use you and other reputable breeders to do their dirty work.

But you cannot hear this, and I am sorry.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 4, 2010 | 6:40 p.m.

No suprise. I knew we would be fighting to keep this legislation on the books again in the Missouri Legislature. The opposition to the Puppy MIll Cruelty Prevention Act (Formerly known as Prop B:) has stated for months that when they lost this would be their new plan. Our lawmakers have little respect for the will of the people (unless of course those people line their pockets or finance their campaigns, that is!).
.
This same thing happened in 1998 with the cockfighting voter initiative. The opposition screamed & carried on about how banning the cruel & inhumane "Sport" of cockfighting would be the death of Missouri Agricuture, hunting & even fishing! Didn't happen then.... won't happen now. We are prepared for the next step.
.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 4, 2010 | 6:46 p.m.

To:Jessica Bryand

Such a challenge will be no cost to the taxpayers of course...

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 5, 2010 | 12:27 a.m.

Terry, so glad to hear that!

Marina Shane,

Wayne Pacelle President, CEO $228,981, in CA reported $8million, Missouri over $3.5 million, Louisinia ended their investigation of HSUS fraud after HSUS offered to build a shelter for the state. Every year HSUS falls further down the Charity Navigator scale and how bout that Wildlife Land and Trust? I didn't see them even on the report. Is that Wildlife Land and Trust like a "Trust Fund" or like I am to "TRUST" you will take my donation of $19.00 a month like your TV and Website say and stop puppy mills, animal cruelty, save, save, save all those animals, how again? Oh yes by giving MY hard earned money, that I was told was going to save an animal, is actually going to DemocRATS!!! Sure doesn't say anything like that on your TV ads! Why? Well because then HSUS couldn't be a factory fundraiser! How is that IRS Investigation going?

https://secure.humanesociety.org/site/Do...

"US Agriculture Secretary Ed Schafer questioned the HSUS handling of the Westland/Hallmark Meat Packing Company investigation, stating that HSUS "sat on four months of production that went out into the marketplace that's now being recalled!" Surprise, surprise, kind of like the salmonella research HSUS did on "cage-free" eggs. I sure would like to see that report too! Kind of like I would still like to see a report from the HSUS Puppy Mill Hotline with numbers of how many puppy mills you get called about across the nation!!!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 5, 2010 | 6:35 a.m.

To Jessica Bryand ..proud 'Spam Queen'
YOU GO GIRL!
Everyone deserves their five minutes of fame.

@ Jessica Bryand
Yesterday at 2:02am
Hitler/Wayne Daily Blog Post
And arose Hitler, "I then took the podium and told the crowd that our campaign was declaring victory." ...

NOV 01 2010
Daily Humane Bites #175: Is HSUS’s Support Still a Kiss of Death?
Posted by Jessica Bryand on 11/02 at 12:57 AM
I hope that everyone takes the time to read the Missourian. HSUS has really showed who they are on that site. Now, I do not think I got one answer out of all my questions. So even if you do not live in Missouri, read it anyway! You will see where they got the “common sense” to write Prop B!

Well I guess I will have to start in Michigan now that Missouri is over! I have already started in Iowa!

Posted by Jessica Bryand on 11/02 at 03:08 AM
We still need to keep spreading the TRUTH!!! Only a few more days!
I currently hold the "Spam Queen Crown" so lets see if someone can top me and steel it away!!!!
.............................................

'The means justify the ends'
Leon Trotsky

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane November 5, 2010 | 7:29 a.m.

Somehow, JB seems to think that I am both an ASPCA & HSUS representative. I'm pretty sure I've made it perfectly clear here that I am a longtime volunteer for Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation (www.maal.org).
.
If she has issues with HSUS or ASPCA, then she shouldn't donate to them. I personally don't like organizations like MOFED & Lucas Oil and Cattle Company since they support BIG AGRICULTURE which is putting our small family farms out of work & off their land by supporting the growth of factory farms. So I don't donate to them! Last time I looked though, this was still America, so Jessica can support the demise of family farms all she wants by donating to MOFED, etc. However, my money won't be spent supporting BIG AG. I choose to support organizations like Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation instead! (we also only shop farmers markets & purchase non-factory farmed milk & dairy to support small family farms, since IMHO BIG AG is ruining our environment & shutting down family farms)

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand November 5, 2010 | 9:24 p.m.
(Report Comment)
Janice Swofford November 5, 2010 | 9:34 p.m.

Wow... actually, the above statement should read "Proposition B passed by will of the voters despite all the lies, emotionally manipulating ads on television, and the deceit, dishonesty, and venom of the anti-prop B/Pro-Puppy mill crowd."
.
Wow talk about the pot calling the kettle black. HSUS spouts lies continually, and talk about emotional TV ads, who used celebrities to voice their opinions? The ad supporters of Prop B had where the 3 supposed breeders spoke, is a joke. The vet isn't a MO dog breeder she practices as a vet in TX. The other two ladies are now being investigated because they now own & co-own too many dogs and should be licensed. Hope they have fun with that. Now how deceitful is that TV ad?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 6, 2010 | 8:30 a.m.

Janice, for the life of me I cannot understand why you are taking such a position.
You obviously breed beautiful superior dogs, and by allowing someone to see your facility you cannot possibly have 'anything to hide'.
No one want's to put you out of business!!!!
Why could you possibly care what a loonie 'all breeders are bad' nutbag has to say?
These folks care for nothing but their own personal agendas and DO NOT SPEAK FOR THE REST OF US!!!!!
Why would you align yourself with a group of irresponsible neanderthal 'breeders' who are so distanced from what you do as to
be laughable?
The fact that you adopt out your retired breeders puts you at the very top of the line regarding breeders.
You are the BEST possible example of what can be accomplished.

I cannot cannot cannot understand ANY of this...

(Report Comment)
tom kelly November 6, 2010 | 5:37 p.m.

I didn't vote on this because I didn't, and still don't, know the truth.
Obviously misinformation was the prime ingredient in this controversy. I'm willing to bet that over half the people who voted either way didn't know all the truths of this proposition. They, in fact, did not know what they were voting for. They voted for who had the best misleading ads.

WHAT is the point in voting if we don't know EXACTLY what we are voting for?????????????

Prop B was never the problem. How Propositions are allowed to be presented and misrepresented IS the problem.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 6, 2010 | 7:00 p.m.

Tom Kelly
I have read some of your other posts.
This will likely sound a bit crazy but you would probably be an excellent lawyer if you ever decided to study it.
As for your above question..
In a democracy, law is often a matter of interpretation.
Rarely is any law 'written in stone'.
This causes enormous difficulties for anyone who does not have some knowledge of how the legal system works.
Or for someone who has no trust in the elected officials.
Laws are for the most part written by lawyers, and not by someone's Uncle Ernie who happens to be a congressman..unless Uncle Ernie happens to also be an attorney.
An educated citizen cannot be swayed by the'mob'.
Possibly you might consider investigating how law is made.
If you understood the 'how' a bit more, you would not feel so disenfranchised.
If the law is 'misrepresented' it is because in a Democracy, everyone is allowed to claim whatever they want.
And anyone is allowed to misrepresent,,no matter how irresponsible
their misrepresenting is, because of the concept of 'free speech' and because irresponsibility is not a crime.
Proposition B was actually quite simply written.
But because there are so many corporate interests who ..for many reasons..find such legislation contrary to their economic interests..the misinformation in this case was generated by EXTREMELY high powered corporate attorneys whose job it is to be extremely good at misinformation.
You are very right to question all of this..but it really is nothing more than business-as-usual and will never in this lifetime be any different
The wisest thing you could do is to educate yourself a bit on how law is made.
Then you would not need to listen to my opinion or Billy-Bob's opinion or the bus driver's opinion.
As an aside, american constitutional law is quite fascinating if you are so inclined to do some exploring.
It is not very 'glamorous', but it was created by some of the smartest and wisest people who ever lived.
Good luck!

(Report Comment)
Janice Swofford November 6, 2010 | 10:36 p.m.

Terry,

I do try to do the best I can, I just feel that Prop B is not the answer needed to take care of the problem we have in MO. There are lots of breeders who really do try to do it right and do care for their animals, this Prop though will even hurt us show breeders.
for instance, Robin Carnahan is complaining that she could have won, except Blunt had big money from out of state backing him, but it was ok for her to bring HSUS in from out of state to pour millions into Prop B.
People are saying the breeders are paying legislatures big money to repeal this Prop, well as far as I know there aren't very many breeders who have the money for that kind of backing. I know I don't.
I think if the millions would have gone to hire more inspectors and give Bark Alert more time we could have gotten rid of a bunch of the bad kennels, it has only been in effect since late 2009, so about 1 yr.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 6, 2010 | 11:56 p.m.

Janice, I am so sorry you feel this way.
But it does not make any sense that 'they' would go after someone like you when there are so many breeders with numerous egregious offenses.

Here is Pa the same fears were expressed, but to this day, my show breeder friends cannot point to one single responsible breeder who was forced out of biz by Pa's anti-mill law.
Yes, some kennels closed, but these were mostly the unspeakable Amish dog factories..
These are the Neanderthals who debark their dogs with broom handles and think NOTHING of shooting 50 or 60 dogs and tossing them in a pile in the back field because they don't want to pay for inoculations.
But they all just moved onto the internet and are selling their animals anyway.
Which is, in the end, what will happen in Missouri. Very sad...
Did you ever consider that many of these folks with whom you have aligned yourself are the CAUSE of Prop B?
If it were not for them, none of this would have ever come up?
Shouldn't THEY be the ones to blame for all this?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 7, 2010 | 11:57 a.m.

There are those of course who will deny that this practice occurs.
And the humane inspector legally cannot report an activity which he or she does not actually witness.
So again, you must take the word of the rescuers.
Many of the dog-factories though are located here in the Lehigh Valley.
And although there are many large working farms here (which is part of the great beauty of this place) the Valley is in no way as isolated as much of Missouri (where I grew up, by the way).
So a farm with upwards of 600 barking dogs would be a great nuisance to it's neighbors.
Yet many of the vast breeding facilities were UNKNOWN to their neighbors, most of whom expressed surprise when news of the existence of these nearby dog breeders surfaced.
The operators of these dog farms put up the greatest resistance to
the part of the new dog law which required veterinary care, for ALL the kennel's dogs, most especially in the area of inoculations and surgical procedures.
The idea of paying for anesthesia/surgery and anything else a vet does was looked upon as government intrusion into their way of life.
Debarking a dog with a metal or wooden object is quick and best of all, free.
No barking dogs, no unwelcome attention.
Finally, as they do not 'believe' in allowing the dogs outside, they were able to remain unnoticed for years.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward November 7, 2010 | 12:28 p.m.

Shelley and Marina, if you are still around:
Quite a few similarities between Pa. & Mo.

This is from some time before the present law was enacted.
From: MainLineRescue@aol.com
Subject: PLEASE FORWARD THIS OUT TO EVERYONE IN PA THAT YOU HAVE EVER MET. SUPPORT H.B. 39.

It takes an Amish farmer less than 5 minutes to "debark" one of his breeding dogs by hammering a steel rod down her throat - and breaking her jaw and shattering her back teeth. It takes 5 minutes for that same farmer/commercial breeder to cut off one of his dog's tail - in a filthy, dark barn without anesthesia. And it takes about the same amount of time for his thirteen year old son to tie the dog down and cut the puppies from her belly. Five minutes more to crop her ears using a pair of rusted hedge shears - the dog squirming and crying out in unbelievable pain.

So why is it taking Senator Stewart Greenleaf more than a week to decide that this is wrong? When we called his office last week to ask why his Committee is sitting on H.B. 39, we were told by his aide that Senator Greenleaf is "reviewing" the bill. What's to review? Everyone on Capital Hill knows about this bill. It is the companion bill to H.B. 2525 that passed into law last fall. When ask, repeatedly, if Senator Greenleaf would support H.B. 39, his aide would not commit. This is surprising to us considering Senator Greenleaf not only toured Pennsylvania's puppy mills with a reporter from the Inquirer in 1995, seeing firsthand the conditions these animals face, but he also coined the expression "Puppy Mill Capital of the East Coast" and expressed an urgent need for change. Well, Senator Greenleaf, here's your chance to bring about change and help these dogs!

H.B. 39 would make it illegal for anyone other than a licensed veterinarian to perform these procedures, or if it is already illegal for anyone but a licensed vet to perform the procedure, it will toughen the penalties. Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee and ask them to vote the bill out of their committee so it can finally go to the floor of the Senate for a vote. The bill passed the House unanimously, and passed the Senate Agricultural Committee unanimously two weeks ago (thank you members of the Ag Committee!). This bill is a crucial step toward protecting the dogs of Pennsylvania. Please email (or call) the below legislators and ask them to to support H.B. 39 and move it to the Senate floor. Important to note, Senator Greenleaf represents Montgomery County. MLAR covers Montgomery County and many of us live in Montgomery County (I know I do) so let your voices be heard!

Bill Smith
Main Line Animal Rescue

(Report Comment)
Jake Sherlock November 11, 2010 | 12:47 p.m.

It just came to my attention that the posts by Ray Shapiro dated Nov. 6-7 on this thread were not actually made by Ray. I've gone ahead and deleted the fake account and the posts that go with it.

It's really sad that someone would resort to creating a fake account because they don't like what someone has to say. We believe in open, transparent and mature conversation here. Creating a fake account on someone violates all three of those principles.

Jake Sherlock
Opinion editor

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements