advertisement

GUEST COMMENTARY: Separating myths and facts regarding Prop B

Friday, January 14, 2011 | 12:01 a.m. CST; updated 9:50 a.m. CST, Friday, January 14, 2011

Fact: Proposition B was voted into law in November.

Myth: The election is over, and we no longer have to discuss Proposition B.

Bills submitted in both the Missouri Senate and House of Representatives seek to either repeal or modify Proposition B. The new activity has retriggered the contentious debate associated with Proposition B, giving fresh life to the many myths and misunderstandings surrounding the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. Here, I will attempt to address several of the more persistent.

Myth: There is no definition of "puppy mill."

Fact: The Missouri Federation of Animal Owners sued the state of Missouri regarding the text for Proposition B, specifically the creation of the misdemeanor crime of "puppy mill cruelty." Judge Jon Beetem upheld the language of the ballot initiative, ruling that it was neither "insufficient nor unfair."

In addition, the term "puppy mill" was defined in the case of Avenson v. Zegart, 577 F. Supp. 958, 960 (D. Minn. 1984): "A 'puppy mill' is a dog breeding operation in which the health of the dogs is disregarded in order to maintain a low overhead and maximize profits."

Summary: The term "puppy mill" has been legally defined. In addition, a judge ruled on both the fairness and sufficiency of the Proposition B language prior to the November election.

Myth: The voters were uninformed; the vote was unfair because it was skewed; the election was bought by outside interests.

Fact: Proposition B was probably the most discussed topic before the election, barring some of the political races. Both sides had a chance to state their opinions frequently, and in numerous publications. The Missourian had at least 33 separate publications on Proposition B that I could find. There are probably more.

It is a fact that the majority of counties voted against Proposition B (103 of 114 counties voted No). However, what counts in state legislation isn't the number of counties that voted for a bill, but the number of people. Proposition B passed, 51.6 percent to 48.4 percent. According to my estimates, Proposition B also passed in the majority of Missouri Senate and House of Representative districts.

A rural vote does not mean less than an urban vote, but a rural vote is also not worth more than an urban vote — yes, even when the vote is about dogs.

It is true that a majority of funding for the Proposition B campaign came from sources outside the state. However, only Missourians signed the petition to place Proposition B on the ballot (more than 190,000 signatures), and only Missourians voted to pass this bill.

If outside funding is an issue with Proposition B, it must also be an issue with other races in the last election. If we question Proposition B results because of outside campaign funding, we must also question the results of other races.

Summary: The majority of voters in Missouri voted for Proposition B. Both sides had sufficient time and space to air their views. The vote for Proposition B was legal and proper.


Myth: Proposition B will kill puppies

One of the more commonly repeated myths about Proposition B is that it will kill puppies. It's based on the section that requires ambient temperature for indoor kennels of between 45 and 85 degrees. Because puppies in their first few weeks of life require temperatures in excess of 85, Proposition B will "kill puppies."

Fact: The relevant sections of Proposition B are the following:

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog:

and

(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.

The temperature requirements outlined for indoor kennels in Proposition B are specifically targeted at adult dogs, not newborn puppies. These temperatures are necessary for the health of the adult dogs.

Puppies typically are kept warm by their mother when they're first born. If their mother isn't sufficient, breeders are free to use heat lamps, heating pads or puppy incubators, and they won't be in violation of Proposition B requirements.

Summary: Proposition B does not kill puppies.


Myth: There are no provisions to fund Proposition B

Fact: Proposition B is an amendment to Chapter 273 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. When enacted, it will be labeled as section 273.345. An existing Chapter 273 section, section 273.357, reads:

273.357. All fees collected by the director from licenses issued under sections 273.325 to 273.357 shall be used to administer the provisions of sections 273.325 to 273.357, and shall be deposited in the state treasury to the credit of the "Animal Care Reserve Fund," which is hereby created. All moneys deposited in the animal care reserve fund shall be subject to appropriation for the use and benefit of the department of agriculture to administer the provisions of sections 273.325 to 273.357. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 33.080 to the contrary, moneys in the animal care reserve fund shall not be transferred to the general revenue fund at the end of the biennium.

Proposition B is added as 273.345, including it within the range given above. Therefore Proposition B's funding is already mandated by law.

If existing funding is inadequate for Proposition B, it is inadequate for the existing regulations without Proposition B. Proposition B refines existing inspection criteria; it doesn't add to the criteria. If anything, Proposition B should lessen the burden on inspectors as it sets an upper limit for breeding dogs, requiring less of the inspector's time. In addition, we should see a decrease in bad breeders, who take up the majority of inspector time.

Summary: Funding for Proposition B is already covered by existing laws.


Myth: Proposition B does nothing about unlicensed breeders.

Fact: The requirements for Proposition B apply whether the breeder is licensed or not. Proposition B is also an amendment to an existing law, not a replacement, and existing regulations in the law provide additional provisions regarding breeder licensing and penalties for breeders who are not licensed.

Summary: Proposition B, in conjunction with existing, unmodified regulations, does apply to unlicensed breeders.


Myth: In no other industry does Missouri limit the number of products. No other industry is economically impacted by business regulations established by the Missouri legislature.

Fact: Proposition B does not limit the "product" a breeder has — a breeder can breed an infinite number of puppies because the breeder's "product" is puppies. That the bill places other restrictions on the business is neither new nor outside of the boundaries of state law.

Missouri does regulate any number of businesses in Missouri, and sometimes these regulations can have economic impact on the business. A Case in point: in 2010, the Missouri state legislature approved HCS SS SCS SBs 586 & 617, otherwise known as the Adult Entertainment Law.

This law mandated new restrictions governing adult entertainment venues. Several adult entertainment businesses have filed suit, claiming the new law violates their constitutional rights to free speech. In addition, these same owners have recently stated that the bill has "decimated" the industry-specific businesses, and that many have been forced to close their doors and lay off workers.

Therefore, Missouri does regulate businesses and such regulations may have economic consequences to the business.

Proposition B does place a restriction on the number of covered dogs a breeder has and how often the dogs are bred. However, Proposition B should also go far in removing the perception that Missouri is the "puppy mill capital of the US." This can have positive economic impact on breeders, some of whom have been forced to post disclaimers that they are not puppy mills at their websites.

Summary: Proposition B does not restrict the number of breeder products (puppies). In addition, Missouri has the right and has evoked the right in the past to regulate business in Missouri, even if such regulation has an economic impact on a specific industry.


Myth: Proposition B is about more than dogs. Proposition B is a threat to agriculture.

Fact: Proposition B is an amendment to Chapter 273 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, a chapter labeled "Dogs-Cats." The title of the bill ballot was "Statutory Amendment to Chapter 273, Relating to Dog Breeders." The word "dog" is referenced 33 times in the bill. The new law is to be cited as the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act".

No other animal is referenced in Proposition B.

The rumors about Proposition B being some slippery slope into restrictions on cows, hogs and chickens seem to arise from the following:

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

This section of the bill includes definitions of all terms used as part of the regulations in the bill, such as the use of "pet" in the following:

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog ...

The other seeming concern about Proposition B as it relates to other types of animals is that it is seen as some form of "slippery slope" that will open the doors to a floodgate of new animal legislation.

The fight for Proposition B was long and arduous and had to overcome both court challenges and an aggressive counter campaign — much of it based on many of the same myths and misunderstandings covered here. Even now, Proposition B is being challenged in both the Senate and House of Representatives, as we once again have to take up the battle in its defense.

This, even though Proposition B is against something the vast majority of us don't like (puppy mills), in order to refute a title that embarrasses the people of this state ("puppy mill capital of the US"), in favor of the type of animal most of us love and have in our own homes (dogs).

I find it unlikely that any future bill related to animals will find the way paved to easier passage because of what has happened with Proposition B.

Summary: Proposition B is not about any animal other than dogs. Proposition B is not a threat to other forms of livestock or to agriculture.

Shelley Powers is a self-employed software developer and technical writer currently living in St. Louis. She is not employed, directly or indirectly, by any animal welfare or animal rights organization in Missouri, the United States or elsewhere. Shelley's only interest in Proposition B is that of a concerned citizen.


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

Ruth Keezer January 14, 2011 | 7:03 a.m.

Shelley, your main problem is that you (and of course, HSUS) do not understand the basics of the dog breeding industry. In fact, you and HSUS are denigrating, demonizing, and insulting an honorable profession by labeling everyone who participates a 'puppymill' (by your description: "....the health of the dogs is disregarded...."). How outrageous! Our success as dog breeders depends on keeping the dogs healthy and happy! That description certainly does not fit the bulk of the legal, licensed breeders that this bill covers.
Having never raised puppies professionally, you and HSUS are trying to tell an entire group of licensed, experienced professionals how to do their 'job', without ANY input from the veterinary community or dog breeders or anyone who actually knows the subject.
Why is that? Hmmmm. Oh yes, the same HSUS who labeled MO the puppy mill state had their many LAWYERS draft the bill to intentionally put the puppymills (legitimate dog breeders whom they slander with the term) out of business. But the unlicensed, unregulated puppymills will continue because the funds that the state was using to pursue and shut down illegals (with Bark Alert) will now have to be redirected back to regulate Prop B.
The voters were not misled?? Oh my! The very wording of the bill using hate-words like ‘puppymill’ and ‘cruelty’ automatically generated a yes-vote. We had to overcome the gut-reaction to the hate-words.
Remember when the polls said 91 percent would vote for this? When voters learned the truth about Prop B, by November 2nd, the educated vote had grown so tremendously that the bill barely squeaked by. Another week and it would have been an entirely different outcome.
HSUS is the absolute MASTER of deception! So many are just NOW waking up and finding out what really happened.
The HSUS' emotional and deceptive 4-million dollar commercials swayed the underinformed urbanites that had no understanding of agriculture in any form. They use the same deception to fundraise, tricking people into thinking that their 19 dollar per month donations will help feed those poor shelter dogs and cats in the ads, when just 1/2 of one percent of incoming donations are granted to a few shelters. Just think of how many MILLIONS of people donated for the homeless and shelter dogs and had their generosity misused to fund this atrocity called Prop B!

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer January 14, 2011 | 7:19 a.m.

Shelley wrote: Puppies typically are kept warm by their mother when they're first born. If their mother isn't sufficient, breeders are free to use heat lamps, heating pads or puppy incubators, and they won't be in violation of Proposition B requirements.

You know nothing about raising animals OR interpreting this law. Put 'em in an incubator to live to keep them warm? Illegal, anyway with prop B.....not big enough.
The additional space required by Prop B AND the unfettered access to outside B will cause some mothers to spend more time away from their puppies. Pups will wander in the large space (away from the heat pad or lamp) searching for mother when they get hungry. Yes, pups will die!

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer January 14, 2011 | 7:32 a.m.

Fact: Proposition B does not limit the "product" a breeder has — a breeder can breed an infinite number of puppies because the breeder's "product" is puppies.

What?? If your INVENTORY is limited, your production is limited! A breeder does not breed puppies; they breed dogs to produce puppies. If a breeder is limited to 50 adult dogs, they CANNOT produce an 'infinite' number of puppies. In fact, they can not possibly produce as many puppies as if they have 200 adults. I think maybe you need a lesson in canine reproduction and simple math.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 14, 2011 | 8:07 a.m.

There are two additional bills:

Senate Bill 131

http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/BTS_Web/...

House Bill 99

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bil...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 14, 2011 | 8:40 a.m.

For some inexplicable reason, Ruth Keezer chooses to align herself with the despicable and abusive dog-factories and NOT with the future health and welfare of the animals from whom she makes an income.
Ms. Keezer is NOT a volume breeder.
Yet she continues to oppose any legislation that would control them.
And by doing so she is protecting them.
There is no sense in this.

..................................
Terry Ward
Pennsylvania

(Report Comment)
Robin Nuttall January 14, 2011 | 11:57 a.m.

Fact: Missouri's Proposition B labels all breeders with 10 or more intact bitches as puppy mills. That would include any and all people with more than 10 intact bitches, regardless of whether or not those dogs are ever bred or intended for breeding. Regardless of whether the dogs are responsibly bred show dogs with multiple titles.

Fact: Proposition B will force many legitimate breeders who were in compliance with the existing law out of business.

Fact: Proposition B will cause the death of thousands of dogs as breeders forced out of business must somehow dispose of their extra dogs.

Fact: Proposition B will place tremendous pressure on local humane societies and shelters as those extra dogs must go somewhere.

Fact: Proposition B will have no affect whatsoever on the overall mass breeding of dogs. Even if it stops all breeders in Missouri, the breeders will simply move elsewhere or dogs will come in overseas. There is a demand for purebred dogs, and that demand will not cease simply because of the passage of Proposition B.

Fact: Proposition B will do nothing to help bring non-licensed breeders into compliance because it will be no more enforceable than existing law. In fact, it will probably cause illegal breeders to simply go further into the dark black markets.

Fact: Proposition B does not make it "easier" for inspectors, since Shelly has continually stated that Proposition is supposed to be in addition to, not supplanting, existing law.

Fact: Proposition B IS an unfunded mandate. The law cited by Shelley is in place for existing inspectors and is woefully inadequate. No more money is going to suddenly appear to fund inspections and it is disingenuous in the extreme to imply that the funds are there. They are not.

Shelly is adept at word dancing around the real issues in her zeal to promote a bill which is fatally flawed and needs to be repealed. No one wants inhumane conditions to exist in dog breeding operations in Missouri or anywhere else. Unfortunately Proposition B is not the way to address this issue.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 14, 2011 | 12:08 p.m.

At this point I believe we, as readers, would gain more insight if we were to allow the debate to be conducted by the puppies themselves and their intact bitches. FACT

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer January 14, 2011 | 12:25 p.m.

Terry Ward from Pennsylvania, I am really confused about your post. I am ‘aligned’ with and fully vested in the legal, licensed dog breeding community in Missouri, who are VERY concerned with the health and welfare of our dogs.

I absolutely do NOT protect or approve of ‘despicable and abusive dog factories’

We, as dog breeders have unannounced inspections by USDA, MODA, AKC each year, in addition to our scheduled veterinarian visits and already comply with 22 pages of very strict USDA and MODA regulations designed to protect our dogs’ health and welfare.

We did not need additional regulations forced on us by an organization (HSUS/PETA) who only want to eliminate our businesses.

You might want to lay off that HSUS kool-aid for awhile.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 14, 2011 | 12:41 p.m.

Shelley Powers is the most consistently polite, reasonable and patient of posters.
For Ruth Keezer to accuse Shelley of 'word dancing' only emphasizes the spurious intentions of people who 'accuse' in order to deflect attention from their meritless position.

Ms. Keezer also alleges that as Shelley does not breed dogs, she has no business speaking against their abuse.

So... those of us who do not 'breed' children have no business speaking against their abuse either?

What WILL they come up with next...

Yet another attempt to defend the indefensible.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 14, 2011 | 12:48 p.m.

Ms. Keezer, I have said MANY times that you are obviously a responsible breeder.
I have said MANY times that the responsible breeder is vital to the protection of companion animals
I did NOT say that you ' approve of ‘despicable and abusive dog factories’.

I said you are protecting them.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer January 14, 2011 | 1:07 p.m.

For Ruth Keezer to accuse Shelley of 'word dancing' only emphasizes the spurious intentions of people who 'accuse' in order to deflect attention from their meritless position.

Why are you accusing me of saying something I did not?

(Report Comment)
Nelson Richter January 14, 2011 | 1:11 p.m.

I wish we worked as hard and discussed as hard human issues-homeless, mental health. Guess there is no money to be made from these issues.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 14, 2011 | 1:33 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward January 14, 2011 | 1:39 p.m.

Apologies to Ruth re:'word dancing'
That particular comment was meant for Ms. Nuttall.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 14, 2011 | 1:53 p.m.

Terry, thank you for kind words. I think it was Robin Nuttall who complimented me on my dancing skills.

Robin Nuttall, perhaps you can point to the section in Proposition B where it states that a breeder with more than 10 dogs is a puppy mill? The Proposition B text is linked with the article.

And I do believe I linked the relevant state statutes governing funding of inspectors. Can you provide more detail in why this funding won't be applicable to Proposition B? You must have a different insight into state law than I do.

In addition, commonsense dictates that an inspector will need to less time with a breeder who has 45 dogs than one who has 145 dogs. Are you telling me that an inspector would spend more time with the breeder with the smaller number of dogs? How so?

You keep saying that breeders will be forced to dump their dogs, or kill their dogs because of Proposition B. Do you have anything to corroborate your assertion? Do you have any factual data at all? I've, in the past, provided links to stories of rescues taking unwanted dogs from breeders.

In addition, what you're also basically saying is these breeders care so little for their dogs that they'll kill any excess in cold blood with nary a qualm. Doesn't exactly generate any sympathy for the breeders, does it?

Ruth, the space requirements also pertain to adult dogs. And I believe that the blue ribbon kennel, Santo Hill, sells puppy incubators.

(Report Comment)
Andrew Hansen January 14, 2011 | 4:06 p.m.

"One wonders why Nelson wandered in here as there are many many places online to discuss his mental health."
.
Not really. I think most of us could understand the comment as indicating that this debate shows society's priorities are out of whack in his opinion, and that we appear to value puppies over people.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 14, 2011 | 4:44 p.m.

Andrew, this isn't the only debate happening, either here in the Missourian, or in the state.

The Missourian has a couple of fascinating articles, including one on capital punishment, and another based on Mary Still's heroic efforts to get legislation passed on Payday loans.

It's just that the state representatives have submitted six bills to repeal or modify Proposition B, which was voted on in November. This has triggered the Prop B debate, all over again.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer January 14, 2011 | 5:53 p.m.

Shelley says: It's just that the state representatives have submitted six bills to repeal or modify Proposition B, which was voted on in November. This has triggered the Prop B debate, all over again.

Wow, six bills! That should say loud and clear that there is definitely something WRONG with Prop B!!

'The people' have MIS-spoken! I praise our representatives for trying to correct the peoples' mistakes! The representatives that are sponsors and co-sponsors of the new bills have my support and admiration for standing up to the multi-million dollar lobbying machine known as HSUS and for trying to reclaim Missouri for Missourians.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 14, 2011 | 6:16 p.m.

So..... 51% of the 'peoples' are befuddled fools..
Amazing.
Agree with Keezer or your vote doesn't count 'cause you're just too ignorant to get out of your own way.
One can only imagine what unspeakable horrors would be going on were it NOT for the HSUS and all the other pro-animal 'terrorists'.

No wonder you folks hate them.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 14, 2011 | 6:19 p.m.

Ruth, don't get so excited...it's the same small group of people submitting all the bills. There's no indication they have the support of the other representatives.

My impression is most of the state reps would rather not deal with any Proposition B bill. It is not a win for representatives who come from Yes on B districts.

Even people who voted No no Proposition B have spoken about respecting the vote.

You can't subvert the entire state in order to appease a small group of people in a non-growth industry.

(Report Comment)
connie crewse January 14, 2011 | 6:52 p.m.

@ Andrew

You are correct. The priorities of Animal Rights groups are animals first, then maybe, just maybe....humans!

They are extremists. They are irrational. You can not rationalize with irrational!
They are the same as Cult leaders. They say the same ole same ole, such as Shelley P., in hopes to recruit more 'followers'.

People in Missouri started waking up to the nonsense Prop B could bring. Prop B is unconstitutional and the way things are going (downhill), why have more rights stripped away from us? People are fed up with limitations. HSUS is chisseling away little by little, our American Rights, but thanks to Prop B, people are REALLY waking up to this garbage!

Prop B isn't going to stop animal abuse, just like speed signs on the side of highways aren't going to make people slow down, or billboards that say, "Driving under the influence kills"......people are STILL going to drink and drive!

I'm very confident in our Legislators, and that they know the repercussions of this Liberal, anti-American, Animal Rights bill.......they also know for a fact that Wayne has his eye on our agricultural farms. Our Legislators are smart enough to know that without us, this state is in HUGE trouble. You start wiping out agriculture, one industry at a time in this state, what will you have? Another poor state that starts to collapse internally. Just like the other states that have fell victim to HSUS.

People aren't dumb, and for HSUS to pretend it's all about the dogs is nothing more than laughable, and that comes from their own comments and track record! They have done that all by themselves!

HSUS is used to buying/bullying their way with people. I'm happy to say that their days are limited.
HSUS spent MILLIONS on Prop B.
H$U$ spent $4.04 per vote on Prop B
AG folks spent .13 cents per vote!

That right there speaks VOLUMES as far as I'm concerned! How many more MILLIONS are they going to spend to 'bully' their way into Missouri?

I'm proud of Missouri, as MISSOURI clearly said NO! Just look at that map again....because the Legislators are!

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 14, 2011 | 7:38 p.m.

connie, ask yourself something: which sounds more rational? My writing, or your comment?

Cult leader? Anti-American? Seriously?

If people think that Proposition B is unconstitutional, they have recourse to the court. As I mention in the writing, the adult entertainment folks sued over the Adult Entertainment Law. If dog breeders feel that Proposition B is unconstitutional, they can take it to court.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand January 14, 2011 | 7:57 p.m.

Why are we fighting for dogs, and not children? Are they not innocent? Can they or do they speak for themselves? Do abused children speak for themselves? No. In 20 years from now, how will those abused children feel about a society that fought so hard in the media for animal rights, welfare, cruelty, neglect and abuse, but forgot them? The last report on the Missouri DSS Children’s Division website is from 2008. It starts with total, “Child Abuse/Neglect Hotline Unit (CANHU) received 50,565 reports of child abuse/neglect, involving 75,781 children. The CANHU is operated year-round on a 24 hours per day,seven days per week basis by 50 trained and experienced Children’s Service Workers.” Well lets break that down, that is over 1,500 children per social worker and over 130 calls a day! But we feel we need to limit breeders to 50 dogs for "socialization and proper care." Requirements for physical conditions of the home for children are inadequate heating, inoperable electricity and heating in the home in cold weather, and lack of proper ventilation in summer and winter. That is it. That is all it states. And as I go on reading the requirements for conditions for children, I never once read where you are to feed your kids or provide them ”Sufficient food and clean water” means access to appropriate nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health.” What I read is under behavioral indicators as a child begs, steals food, or over eating/hoarding food. Now if a child’s actions come to stealing food, over eating and hoarding food, haven’t they been hungry for a while? But they can speak for themselves? For children we must only provide adequate space to provide some privacy to family members of various ages/sexes and to be kept from inadequate, insufficient, or unsanitary sleeping provisions (EXAMPLE-not enough or clean enough beds, cots, mattresses, and blankets for all, including an infant’s sleeping place which does not have sides to prevent falling out). That is it, that is all. We can go on about how there are no requirements for children for regular exercise, socialization, and protection from the outdoor elements,but dogs need ”Necessary veterinary care,” that is required once a year for dogs, but once again what about children? Nothing mentioned about medical care, a regular family doctor, clinic, or dental care. So for those that want to support Prop B go ahead, support an unconstitutional law that already protects animals more than the children of Missouri are protected, support the loss of revenue to Missouri that will allow for more budget cuts to Missouri children, support taking rights away from hard working Americans, support an increase in unemployment, because in the end you will be supporting Proposition B to it's fullest with your hard earned tax money!

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand January 14, 2011 | 8:02 p.m.

ShellyP states, "If dog breeders feel that Proposition B is unconstitutional, they can take it to court."

Yep ShellyP that is just what the Missouri Legislators are trying to avoid, by keeping the state from footing the bill of 1,400 lawsuits! But, really the taxpayer will be footing the bill. How about we vote that the supporters pay the legal fees and settlements of 1,400 lawsuits?

(Report Comment)
Robin Nuttall January 14, 2011 | 8:08 p.m.

Shelly, wrt people with 10 or more intact bitches being called puppy mills it's quite simple.

The Animal Rights activists who championed Proposition B went to court, and won, the right to call the legislation the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act." Thus, Proposition B specifically is meant to regulate puppy mills. I think we can agree on that. The text of Proposition B then goes on to state that its regulations will apply to (direct quote below):

"any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals..."

Thus, it is factual to state that the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Bill classifies all persons having custody or ownership of more than 10 intact bitches to be puppy mills. If they did not consider these people to be puppy mills, they would not have covered them in the act.

As for deaths of dogs due to downsizing, I think commercial breeders will have a very difficult time deciding what to do. You state blithely that "rescues will take in these dogs." Rescues and shelters in our state do not have the facilities or monies to take in the dogs. What are these breeders supposed to do? Turn them loose? They may end up forced into an untenable position. They will be forced by the law to give up these animals, but also have no place to put them. Thanks to the HSUS.

Shelley and others have a very black and white point of view. Their POV is that all commercial breeders are puppy mills. That no breeder is possibly capable of taking care of more than 50 dogs. That proposition B will force these breeders to close and then, like a wonderful light shining from heaven, the birds will sing and no dogs will be badly bred ever again. Somehow magically all commercial breeding will cease and all will be wonderful.

Unfortunately it's just a myth. It's something that sounds good and makes us feel good but it's not factual. Even if every breeder with more than 50 dogs in Missouri is forced out of business, that business will just go elsewhere. Even if Proposition B was workable, which it isn't, it would not stop dog cruelty because people who don't care about the law aren't going to care about it just because somebody signed a piece of paper somewhere.

And if all the commercial breeders in the entire world went out of business it wouldn't really make a dent in the number of dogs in shelters. 75-80% of dogs in shelters are mixed breeds! It's just a false correlation to equate commercial breeders with the dogs in shelters.

We all want inhumane treatment of dogs to end. Proposition B is not, and never was, the way to accomplish that. I sincerely hope that Proposition B is repealed.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 14, 2011 | 8:22 p.m.

Jessica, no, the state representatives are not challenging Proposition B because of 1400 lawsuits.

For one, I believe any lawsuit would fail, and lawyers in this state have probably already advised their clients of this fact. Breeders in Pennsylvania filed a lawsuit based on HB 2525, and the lawsuit failed.

For another, these types of lawsuits are typically treated as one lawsuit, which is why the adult entertainment folks are suing as a group, rather than individually.

However, if the breeders feel they have sufficient cause to show this bill is Unconstitutional, they should follow the proper course and file a lawsuit.

This is better than agricultural special interests subverting the vote of the people, and our state legislature.

And good luck with your new involvement with children's causes. I'm sure there are any number of organizations that will welcome your involvement.

(Report Comment)
Virgie Kates January 14, 2011 | 8:23 p.m.

The term puppy mill came from the 18th century & meant anyone owning more than 10 animals. They(HSUS) has taken the words "mill" & "factory" and given them a negative connotation. Actually in that day & time to own that many animals meant you were wealthy.

The fight in MO was not fair. It was fought at the grass roots level. And HSUS spent millions on TV in the cities showing pictures of animals rescued from UNlicensed breeders 5-6 years ago. These commercials ran nonstop. People that live in urban areas do not know or understand animal husbandry, as you Shelley didn't understand in the comments on another site. My son was the one educating you on what that term means.

Unfettered dogs WILL kill pups. Never before has a breeder had to let their dogs loose while expecting puppies. They will drop them absolutely anywhere. Just because you put a bed on the inside for them to use, doesn't mean they will. The survival rate of puppies whelped unfettered like Prop B is requiring was 60%-70% before current laws. With current laws & regulations from USDA, which were scientifically proven by veterinarian science, the survival rate is 97%-98%.

It also limits the products, the 50 dog limit includes both males & females. Plus, the required skipped breedings is limiting as well. Over 1/2 of the income goes back into the care & maintenance, now by limiting & cutting their income in half, where is that money going to come from to take care of the dogs? OH! I see, they can become a shelter! And maybe, just maybe get a small portion of that 1/2 percent of HSUS's grant money!

The current system has been paid by the LICENSED breeders through fees & sales. The state has not appropriated any money for it. If you are cutting or even eliminating their (the Breeders) sales, then where is this money going to come from? That leaves the state to come up with it, which in turn means more budget cuts from somewhere we won't want cut (like schools or Medicare). With all the millions that already has to be cut from the budget this year, I would think the public would be outraged if Nixon started appropriating money for the funding of this bill. I know I am at just the thought!

For someone who is spending a lot of time "educating" people on this bill and going from site to site "debating" you don't fully understand this bill yourself. This bill is supposed to be for the betterment of the dogs, yet in many ways it makes things worse. NOT just for the dogs, but for all of us!

In Wayne Pacelle's own words he "WANTS ALL LICENSED DOG BREEDERS ELIMINATED". It doesn't matter how well they take care of the dogs, he wants them gone. Along w/ ALL companion animals (& ALL animal agriculture). Do you own a pet? Do you want to lose it? This is the ultimate goal of HSUS & why they keep pushing for all these ridiculous bills & agendas. Please educate yourself properly before spouting their ridiculousness as well.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 14, 2011 | 8:24 p.m.

Robin Nuttall it's called the Puppy Mill PREVENTION Act.

Prevention.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 14, 2011 | 8:27 p.m.

Virgie

"Unfettered dogs WILL kill pups. Never before has a breeder had to let their dogs loose while expecting puppies. They will drop them absolutely anywhere."

Really? Never happened?

Well, then dogs must be incredibly rare and valuable, if they've never been able to successfully breed unless in a small wire cage.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 14, 2011 | 8:28 p.m.

"Prop B isn't going to stop animal abuse, just like speed signs on the side of highways aren't going to make people slow down, or billboards that say, "Driving under the influence kills"......people are STILL going to drink and drive!"

So by that argument then we should go ahead and allow people to drink and drive?

"they also know for a fact that Wayne has his eye on our agricultural farms."

Yes Connie. He wants to destroy you because he hates your freedom.

And Jessica is right, we should continue to allow anything happen to dogs because nobody has yet spelled out the same guidelines for raising humans. I'm sure the state of Missouri will be reeling in the loss of funds from the handful of dog breeders who wouldn't bother to meet the minimum requirements.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 14, 2011 | 8:33 p.m.

"In Wayne Pacelle's own words he "WANTS ALL LICENSED DOG BREEDERS ELIMINATED""

Really? What do they call this place?

Oh, I know what they call it...

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 14, 2011 | 8:33 p.m.

And reading through this explains to me WHY they call it that.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 14, 2011 | 8:34 p.m.

They want to kill your puppies so you can have no pets because they hate your freedom.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 14, 2011 | 8:58 p.m.

Looks like Bozo Martosko's peanut gallery is out in force..
If you love animals then you are an anti-american child-hater.
What next Connie...
Al-Qaeda sympathizer?

And still the anti-Hsus fringe does wail!
"The greedy HSUS would 'eliminate agriculture' and 'take away all animals" and 'force us all to become vegans!!!"
Does not the pixilated puppy-mill hugger understand that doing so would eliminate HSUS salaries and legislate HSUS out of the picture?
If I owned a garage, would I lobby to 'eliminate' cars?
If I were a plumber, would I force everyone to live in a tent?
If I were the Pope , would I force all Catholics to become Hindus?

Remarkable inexplicable lunacy.

Lord save us ......

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 14, 2011 | 9:12 p.m.

Terry says, "Does not the pixilated puppy-mill hugger understand that doing so would eliminate HSUS salaries and legislate HSUS out of the picture?"
______________________

No. There's always fish.

(That means there's always sumpin' to keep an activist non-profit organization and its troops stirred up.)

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 14, 2011 | 10:33 p.m.

M. Williams will provide examples to prove his argument?

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand January 14, 2011 | 10:54 p.m.

HSUS is already leading the Canadian seafood protest and oh yes, factory fishing!

http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 15, 2011 | 5:47 a.m.

Is Missouri unaware that a fish is an animal?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 15, 2011 | 6:10 a.m.

Friends of yours Jessica-Connie-Ruth ?
One of those "superior' Missouri breeders so maligned by the communists?

KMOV) –January 14, 2011

Humane Society rescues 34 small dogs from Carthage breeding facility.

The Humane Society rescued 34 small dogs were rescued from a licensed breeding facility on Friday in Carthage, Missouri.

The dogs were brought to St. Louis for care. Breeds rescued include Shih Tzus, Pekingese and Maltese.

Officials say the dogs are in horrible shape, and were kept in filthy conditions. They say they were living in stacked cages with no signs of water or food.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 15, 2011 | 9:08 a.m.

Terry,

Provide examples?

I've never known an activist organization to go out of business, regardless of their "political" affiliation. All they need is a "cause celebre", the PR to round up some troops with money, and they last forever. I've never known one to actually solve a problem (do they want to?) and then write a letter to their supporters, saying, "Well, we're done. We did it! Thank you for your support!" and fade away from the public scene.

Naw, they last forever. The top dawgs of these organizations have NO vested interest in a final solution; their supporters don't either, mainly because their involvement is so invested in their personal identity and emotional well-being. There's always sumpin' to protest, and that is what keeps things percolating.

Hell, why do you think Limbaugh and Olbermann stay in business, even when those they support "win"?

Solve a problem? Why do that? There will be no raison d'etre!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 15, 2011 | 9:35 a.m.

What an extraordinarily pertwitzed and disassociated perception of humanity has M. Williams.
The world is so full of problems that anyone who attempts to solve them is merely "invested in their personal identity and emotional well-being".?
You would discount 'activist organizations' like Doctors Without Borders & Save The Children as 'self-interested' ?
Have you so distanced yourself from empathy that you would discredit the empathy of others?
Dear lord, what DID they do to you as a child?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 15, 2011 | 9:36 a.m.

Jumping into the conversation between you and Terry, Michael, but your assumption is that one single event can solve most problems. This is rarely true.

Take, for instance, those working for animal welfare and Proposition B, here in Missouri, which is the topic of this writing. As we can see, even after a voter victory the battle isn't over, because some state representatives heavily involved with agribusiness are not looking at ways to repeal or revoke most of the provisions.

Hopefully Proposition B will survive, but then the battle for dogs in puppy mills isn't over. Missouri has the most puppy mills in the country, but isn't the only state with puppy mills.

Personally, I would love for this battle to be over. The more time I spend on fighting the puppy mills in Missouri, the less time I can spend on paid work. I imagine there are many Proposition B supporters who need to be doing other things, too.

We thought this was over the day after the election. Yet the very next day, some state reps were talking about repealing what the voters just voted on.

That the Proposition B battle isn't over isn't our doing.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 15, 2011 | 9:37 a.m.

Sorry, are _now_ looking for ways to...

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 15, 2011 | 10:36 a.m.

Terry,

Shelley jumped in, saved the day, and supported my point. She stated, "As we can see, even after a voter victory the battle isn't over".
____________________________

The battle is NEVER over for activists of ANY stripe. There will always be a raison d'etre, even if that raison has to evolve to fit the times.

I stand by my "investment" comment; whatever the "cause", folks get involved because they wish to identify with something, structuring their personal identity and emotional well-being, and getting invested. The investment and cause may be healthy, or it may be unhealthy...most of the time, the latter. Regardless, there is no end to a cause...

It hurts too much to quit.

(PS: On a separate note, for several days there's been much political hay made over electoral militaristic language. And Shelley uses the word "battle".

See how the emotion creeps in, just when you least expect it?)

(Report Comment)
Yves Montclear January 15, 2011 | 10:39 a.m.

Yikes! That does give true meaning for wanting to be the 'top dog'.

Terry Ward wrote:
--Officials...say they were living in stacked cages...--

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 15, 2011 | 10:56 a.m.

Michael, selective quoting only works when the reader doesn't have the original material to see that you've deliberately pulled a quote out of context in order to prove your specific point.

Just a friendly suggestion.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 15, 2011 | 10:59 a.m.

M. Williams says "The battle is NEVER over for activists of ANY stripe. There will always be a raison d'etre, even if that raison has to evolve to fit the times."

So?
What is your point?

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand January 15, 2011 | 11:02 a.m.

Terry Ward states, "Officials say the dogs are in horrible shape, and were kept in filthy conditions. They say they were living in stacked cages with no signs of water or food."

"Officials" as in someone having "official" authority??? I am sure you and the reporter meant to write "officious" those that use excessive eagerness in offering services or advice where they are neither requested nor needed, I am sure that goes intermutual with opinion too. You forgot to post the part where the breeder gave up the dogs, no big HSUS "raid" took place or Pacelle would have had a wonderful opportunity for a photo op while in Missouri.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 15, 2011 | 11:06 a.m.

Jessica Bryand, are you seriously suggesting that the dogs should have been left at the breeder, in the condition they were found? That it was somehow wrong to rescue these dogs?

That's how I read your comment: that you disapprove of these dogs being removed from these deplorable conditions.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 15, 2011 | 11:11 a.m.

Jessica continues to fear the Waynemonster under the bed...

CAMDEN COUNTY RESCUE: In an unrelated situation, today the Humane Society of Missouri, in cooperation with the ASPCA, is rescuing 71 small breed dogs from a licensed breeder in southwest Missouri. The breeder has decided to reduce their number of breeding dogs in anticipation of the passage of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, an initiative petition which will appear as Proposition B on the Nov. 2 statewide ballot. These dogs also will be taken to the Humane Society of Missouri’s shelter in St. Louis.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 15, 2011 | 11:17 a.m.

Terry:

The point? You were the one who said, "Does not the pixilated puppy-mill hugger understand that doing so would eliminate HSUS salaries and legislate HSUS out of the picture?"

And I said your argument was balderdash and nonsense. No activist group EVER goes out of business.

Shelley: I didn't take anything out of context. I simply used your statement to show that activist battles are never over; they evolve into another battle. Which is exactly what you said. We are in complete agreement.

In this case, I'm more interested in the psychology of the activist battle rather than the battle itself. Some of the ardent comments posted on this topic are quite revealing, but it's nothing not seen before from other "passion" groups like PETA, creationists, conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, Baptists, KKK, etc.

All require a heavy investment, and quitting is not an option...even when wrong. It hurts too much.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 15, 2011 | 11:17 a.m.

Actually, it was the Department of Agriculture working with the Humane Society of Missouri that performed the recent rescue

http://www.carthagepress.com/news/x12547...

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 15, 2011 | 11:26 a.m.

Actually, no Michael, this isn't _another battle_, this is the same one, which has not reached a successful conclusion. We thought we had a successful conclusion when we voted on Proposition B in November. Unfortunately, a handful of state representatives weren't willing to let the voters have a say in this issue.

Personally, I'm more interested in the results than the act.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 15, 2011 | 11:31 a.m.

Michael. your interest in psychology is laudable but how exactly is your curiosity relevant?
Do you feel that psychoanalyzing the supporters of Proposition B will
in any way help to solve the problem?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 15, 2011 | 11:42 a.m.

No Shelley. I simply do not believe HSUS or you or anyone else truly believed this battle would be over once Prop B passed. If I'm wrong, and it WAS believed the argument would be over, then I would say supporters of Prop B were deluded and misinformed about human interests and behaviors...I guess "incredibly naive" is the phrase I would apply in such an event.

But I refuse to believe HSUS or you or anyone else is that naive. You sell yourself short claiming such a mantle. You are too smart for that.

I've taken no public position on Prop B in this forum. I have my own fish to fry, and this isn't one of them. But I have taken an interest in the psychology of Prop B. One of the psychologies involved is the pitting of one group of folks (rural) against another (urban). Surely you or HSUS or any other supporter did not TRULY believe the loser would stay down for a 10 count. Did you?

If Prop B had failed, would you quit?

I didn't think so. So why would you think the other side would?

Like I said, activist groups never disappear...it hurts too much to quit. The psychological investment is too great.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 15, 2011 | 11:45 a.m.

Terry says, "Do you feel that psychoanalyzing the supporters of Proposition B will in any way help to solve the problem?"
_________________________________

No, but activists of ANY stripe would benefit from a similar self-analysis.

Even you.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 15, 2011 | 11:56 a.m.

May we assume that Michael is a psychoanalyst?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 15, 2011 | 12:03 p.m.

Michael Williams, you're mixing things up in a confusing way.

You say we're, Prop B supporters, are not willing to stop "an argument" once a result is achieved, in this case, evidently the Proposition B vote.

Then you're turning around and saying we're foolish to believe that the Proposition B vote would "end the argument".

So which is it: we're not willing to end after a result is achieved, or we we're naive to believe that a result could be achieved?

This is nothing more than a variation of the "loaded question" logical fallacy, best demonstrated with the sentence: "So when did you stop beating your wife?"

Regardless, as you say, "I've taken no public position on Prop B in this forum. I have my own fish to fry, and this isn't one of them."

If you have anything specific to say about this guest column, or have a position on Proposition B, one way or another, I would welcome your thoughts.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand January 15, 2011 | 12:31 p.m.

Wow, MO Department of Ag already has the authority with out Proposition B??? After reading ShellyP's link, I would say MO Dept. of Ag just needs what we have all been saying, enforcement of current laws.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 15, 2011 | 12:37 p.m.

Terry says, "May we assume that Michael is a psychoanalyst?"
________________________

You can assume any damnphool thing you wish.

But I'm spot-on with my analysis. I know people.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 15, 2011 | 12:41 p.m.

"The breeder has decided to reduce their number of breeding dogs IN ANTICIPATION of the passage of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act,"

Were it NOT for Prop B, the breeder would have NOT relinquished the abused dogs.
This action was instigated by the BREEDER , not the Dept. of Ag.
Were it NOT for Prop B, the breeder would have CONTINUED on under the wire with their abusive practices.

Jessica continues to ineptly defend the indefensible.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 15, 2011 | 12:49 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Michael Williams January 15, 2011 | 12:58 p.m.

Shelley: No, I've committed no logical fallacy. I simply entered this conversation by saying no activist group EVER achieves its objectives and goes away. It morphs, or evolves, but it keeps the passion going one way or the other. There was argument against this position. You said this wasn't another battle and that you thought the issue was brought to a conclusion successful for you and your supporters via the vote. I said you were either naive or not being entirely truthful because thinking that one side would go away just because they had lost was simply not rational thinking, and I don't think you are an irrational thinker. I finally asked if you would have quit if you had lost. Then, if you said "no", I asked, "Why would you expect the other side to quit?" I've received no answer to these questions.

So, we come full circle back to my premise...no activist cause disappears. It hurts too much because the passion and commitment are so great.

Why is this important? Why is it necessary for an activist of any stripe to question their beliefs and mutterings of their leaders on a frequent basis?

Because folks want to believe. And once they believe, they tend to stop thinking.

And THAT'S how we become cattle. We may be on a different ranch within different fences, but we still "moo".

(PS: Like I said, I have my own fish to fry. I only entered the conversation because words were written about an activist group committing suicide by solving a problem. That's nonsense, and I wanted to communicate that fact. Otherwise, I have no comments on Prop B and its merits or lack thereof.)

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 15, 2011 | 1:07 p.m.

Well, Terry: In your 12:49 post, you showed why you are not worth engaging in a discussion. You just had to resort to insults. Do you REALLY think such words help your position? Or do they just make you feel better, like the playground bully who's happy at calling someone else "fat"?

Your argument strategy betrays you. I'll not address you again.

(Such actions remind me of an ardent creationist or KKK'er. Too much passion and investment, but not enuf self-thought, to the point where a person's sole argument is reduced to insults.)

Done with you, Terry. Take a last shot if you wish or can't resist...it's my freebie to you.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 15, 2011 | 1:11 p.m.

Oops...recant.
The Carthage breeder did not pass an inspection.
So the raid was most certainly not her/his idea.
In anticipation of Prop B, the breeder relinquished the dogs for adoption as opposed to retaining 'ownership' while they were in 'custody'.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 15, 2011 | 1:45 p.m.

Jessica Bryand, actually this doesn't mean anything.

For one, this was an exceptionally bad breeder.

Two, most of the Department of Agriculture shut downs since 2009 have been illegal dog breeders, and hoarders, not licensed breeders. And no, it wasn't because we have sparkly grand breeders in Missouri, either--the USDA APHIS database demonstrates this, clearly.

Three, there are still many breeders out there operating under current laws where dogs are left outside 24x7, regardless of weather conditions, with minimal shelter, and typically inadequate bedding; dogs are kept in cages 6 inches longer than they are; water dishes have algae growing in them; dogs are not seen by a veterinarian when sick or injured; dogs are not allowed to recover between breeding cycles (which leads to both cancer and weakened bones and immune systems); dogs are not given access to exercise; dogs are over-bred until no longer wanted and then tossed aside, hopefully to be rescued (but no guarantee)...

Well, I could go on.

There was a breeder shut down last year where the USDA inspector turned the breeder in, yet the Department of Agriculture inspector had let the breeder slide. This time they did their job, last time, they didn't.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand January 15, 2011 | 2:58 p.m.

Shelly those are your opinions. Since you have NEVER been to a licensed breeding facility, how do you know the difference between a bad breeder and a good one? I guess you were not taught that there are always two sides to every story? I guess you do not believe in innocent until proven guilty either? These articles are very one sided, and I can bet where the "news tip" came from!

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand January 15, 2011 | 3:09 p.m.

And the breeder from Carthage apparently only had 30 dogs, so Proposition B, once again, would NOT have stopped this situation. So best not to use this as an example to prove your point.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 15, 2011 | 4:02 p.m.

Jessica, we had this discussion previously. Let me refresh your memory.

Since licensed breeders will not allow anyone other than inspectors to visit their facilities, and I'm not an inspector, it is not a surprise that I've not been to a licensed facility.

But I do know dogs, and I know that dogs that are hungry, thirsty, shivering from cold or panting from the heat, crammed into wire cages six inches longer than they are, with little or not access to exercise or even an area to stretch out in, or left injured or sick, are not well cared for dogs.

Evidently you believe these are all acceptable. We'll have to disagree.

As for your comment on the breeder having 34 dogs, and Prop B not applying, I would suggest you read Proposition B. It's linked earlier in the article.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand January 15, 2011 | 4:38 p.m.

Yes Shelly I have read it over and over. This breeder had 34 dogs, which would have been in the legal limit. And I know that you only write about what HSUS tells you, and what you read in the news, (very evident in your writing because you and HSUS repeat the same thing in EVERY news piece)therefore you are one sided. And fact, I am not an inspector, nor a breeder, and I have been allowed into numerous licensed kennel facilities. My point is this was a horrible example to prove your point in saving dogs with Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 15, 2011 | 6:11 p.m.

"September 21, 2010

CAMDEN COUNTY RESCUE: today the Humane Society of Missouri, in cooperation with the ASPCA, is rescuing 71 small breed dogs from a licensed breeder in southwest Missouri. The breeder has decided to reduce their number of breeding dogs in anticipation of the passage of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act"

http://www.hsmo.org/news/humane-society-...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 16, 2011 | 7:15 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Ellis Smith January 16, 2011 | 8:12 a.m.

Actually, Terry, "potable" refers to a premium gain alcohol distilled deep in the woods down in Shannon County, Missouri. It's considered far too valuable to feed to dogs.

This is the only known illegal still in the United States that was designed by and is operated by persons with PhDs in Chemical Engineering (from Missouri University of Science & Technology).

ATF knows about the still but thus far hasn't found a way to get through the mine field that surrounds it.

All product is aged for at least 24 hours.

(Report Comment)
Melinda Lockwood January 16, 2011 | 9:00 a.m.

Potable refers to drinkable water. It may well refer to the premium grain alcohol as well but if you have ever camped, you know that you always check to make sure that there is potable water. From the dictionary:
–adjective
1.fit or suitable for drinking: potable water.
–noun
2.
Usually, potables. drinkable liquids; beverages.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 16, 2011 | 9:40 a.m.

from Merriam-Webster:
po·ta·ble adj \ˈpō-tə-bəl\
Definition of POTABLE

: suitable for drinking

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand January 16, 2011 | 1:27 p.m.

Terry, just another example of HSUS "common sense" regulations, so continue to belittle my 'literary skills' all you like.

Potable
Main Entry: drink
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: beverage; alcoholic beverage
Synonyms: alcohol, booze, brew, cup, draft, glass, gulp, libation, liquid, liquor, potable , potation, potion, refreshment, shot, sip, slug, spirits, spot*, swallow, swig, taste, thirst quencher, toast

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 16, 2011 | 3:11 p.m.

1.
po·ta·ble/ˈpōtəbəl/
Adjective: Safe to drink; drinkable. More »
Dictionary.com - Answers.com - Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

*
Synonyms:
o adjective: drinkable
o noun: drink, beverage
o
Safe to drink; drinkable
+
there is no supply of potable water available

Related languages

* potable is also a word in: français, español

Usage examples

*
Canada's 13 premiers want to "make sure good, clean potable water gets to communities across Canada," Stelmach said.
Aug 6, 2010 - Ed Stelmach - Montreal Gazette
*
"In-situ uses not one drop of potable water," Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert told a National Post editorial board meeting in Toronto last month.
Oct 4, 2010 - Ron Liepert - National Post (registration)
*
"We're looking to bring in more potable water so that people can gain access to that and we can also ensure public health issues are met," Ms Nixon said.
Mar 2, 2009 - Christine Nixon - The Age

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 16, 2011 | 3:25 p.m.

EPA Standards
"Most facilities interpret the "potable, uncontaminated" water requirement for ordinary animals as water that meets, at a minimum, the EPA drinking water standards for human consumption". http://www.edstrom.com/Resources.cfm?doc...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 16, 2011 | 3:30 p.m.

Jessica might learn the difference between a noun and an adjective...

Main Entry: potable
Part of Speech: ADJECTIVE
Definition: drinkable
Synonyms: edible, palatable, safe to drink

Main Entry: potable
Part of Speech: NOUN
Definition: beverage
Synonyms: alcoholic beverage, cooler, draft, drink, libation, liquor

http://thesaurus.com/browse/potable

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 16, 2011 | 3:37 p.m.

Possibly the anti-Prop B contingent should acquire some basic language and grammar skills before they criticize ...

Lord only knows what other misconceptions they have ....

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 16, 2011 | 5:52 p.m.

Perhaps a break from the acrimony...

A photo that demonstrates why we fight for the dogs so much

http://photoblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/201...

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 16, 2011 | 7:59 p.m.

Shelley Powers: "A photo that demonstrates why we fight for the dogs so much.
"-----------------------------------------------------------

So they can be free to sit beside their owner's grave after he or she passes away? WTF?

That picture does not have the first thing in the world to do with a dog being neglected! But... Your post has everything to do with a person being fanatical!

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 16, 2011 | 9:51 p.m.

There goes RickyG, spreading love and joy and kindness and benevolence wherever he roams..
Such nobility.
What a man...

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 16, 2011 | 10:03 p.m.

Thank you Terry. And a Happy New Year to you too. LOL.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 17, 2011 | 5:24 a.m.

You're quite welcome.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 17, 2011 | 8:48 a.m.

Ricky Gurly, you're only here because you're bored, and normally I wouldn't respond to you. But you accidentally, without intention, asked a good question.

What does this photo show that's pertinent to this issue?

It demonstrates that dogs have been bred for 15,000 years to be companions to humans. It shows a loyalty, and deep affection that transcends death.

Ask yourself this: would "livestock" do this?

The trollish would probably say "yes", primarily to disrupt, but I think the serious people in this thread would say no.

Dogs are not livestock. You can't convert an old hog farm over to dogs, complete with the same flooring used with hogs, and say you're a "dog breeder". You're no such thing.

Proposition B will not impact on the true dog breeders, the ones who know what they are doing, the ones who care enough about the dogs to at least ensure enough space to stretch out; some outdoor exercise time; protection from the cold and heat; and clean and wholesome food and water.

True dog breeders also understand about breed-specific defects, and how to watch out for them--something that requires a close familiarity with all their dogs, which, in turn, necessitates smaller numbers of dogs.

Hopefully, once the fakers, the people in the business for an easy buck, are gone, there will be fewer ill and defective puppies sold to people, who end up having their hearts broken when the puppy they fall in love with, dies.

Yes, that's another aspect some state representatives seem to forget in their haste to undo what has taken close to two decades to create: they're not only condoning cruelty to dogs, but also cruelty to the small children, the elderly, the people like us, who end up with puppies who live just long enough for us to fall in love with them. Or who live into adulthood, only if we end up spending thousands to save them.

This picture shows us what dogs really are, and the true relationship that should exist between us and them.

Do you know why many licensed breeders won't let visitors, including the press or potential owners, visit their establishments? Because we can see at a glance that how the dogs are kept and bred is inherently wrong.

So they keep their practices secret, and convince a few state representatives that yes, this is the exact type of business we Missourians want to be known for.

Look at that photo and then place next to it in your mind another showing dogs in stacked wired cages, with the dogs in the lower kennels becoming coated with fecal matter and urine. Or another photo showing dogs huddled into plastic igloos on a ratty old blanket or some straw, desperately trying to stay warm.

Do we really want to preserve this?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 17, 2011 | 10:04 a.m.

Shelley, I suspect no silk purse will be made today...

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 17, 2011 | 10:05 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward January 17, 2011 | 4:05 p.m.

RickyG Has A Dream....

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 17, 2011 | 4:15 p.m.

Terry, why don't you just ask Shelley if she'll get a hotel room with you and get it over with? LMAO!

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 17, 2011 | 4:59 p.m.

Too inconvenient..
My husband would insist on joining us and
then who'd stay with the dogs?

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 17, 2011 | 5:17 p.m.

And who could argue with that.........?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 17, 2011 | 5:23 p.m.

OMG! Wonderdog! No WONDER RickyG hates Prop B.

Ricky, you got some 'splainin' to do!

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 17, 2011 | 5:35 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward January 17, 2011 | 6:14 p.m.

Now THAT made himself laugh..

(Report Comment)
Juan Mendez January 18, 2011 | 5:40 a.m.

Ward and Gurley should start their own site so they can stop ruining this one.

JuanMendez

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 18, 2011 | 7:27 a.m.

Now Juan, you can't say I didn't try...

We were all bickering very nicely until the Confederacy of Self-Admitted Boredom migrated over here from the Tea Party peanut gallery.
Unlike me, Shelley is ALWAYS reasonable and respectful.
So when Frick and Frack and the Gorgons unleash their snark on her,
I should roll over and play dead?

Puleeeeze....

This is about Propoposition B.
It is not about 'mental health' or 'children' or 'anti-americans' or 'emotionalism' or Ricky G's peculiar obsession with 'impotence' and 'fanatics'.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 18, 2011 | 8:04 a.m.

First of all Juan Valdez; I am short on coffee, and you posting on this forum is probably the reason why!

Second of all; I am just trying to get Terry to stop "stalking" me on this thread. No matter what my motive for posting is.... I am sure there are other guys she can "stalk".

Terry, I really am not "all that"; you could probably "stalk" a lot better....

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 18, 2011 | 8:22 a.m.

RickyG is not making sense, and continues to discuss issues not pertaining to Proposition B.
And, as he is beginning to appear MOST unbalanced and creepy, we will gladly give him the last word, which, if we are not mistaken, is VERY important to him.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 18, 2011 | 9:19 a.m.

You got a lot a nerve calling anyone "creepy" considering the way you seem to be "fixated" on me; Terry. LOL.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Juan Mendez January 18, 2011 | 10:22 a.m.

That is Juan Mendez not Valdez Mr Gurley.

Anybody stocking anybody on public newspaper outlets such as this is can look very creepy to others reading.

Juan Mendez.

(Report Comment)
Jake Sherlock January 18, 2011 | 10:44 a.m.

Hi everyone,

I'm getting a lot of flagged comment notifications on this thread, and you may notice a few posts missing. If a post is missing, it's for one of two reasons:

-- There was some type of personal attack, which is not allowed under our policy. That especially includes attacks on certain people who are no longer eligible to post at ColumbiaMissourian.com. Let's not pick on the people who can't defend themselves here.

-- Real names have to be used. If I'm not sure whether or not you're using a real name, expect an email. If I don't get an email back from you, your posts get removed.

Thanks for contributing to the conversation.

Jake Sherlock
Opinion editor

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 18, 2011 | 10:52 a.m.

"Anybody stocking anybody on public newspaper outlets such as this is can look very creepy to others reading."

You should go to the tribune and read the personal ads.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 18, 2011 | 10:53 a.m.

"-- There was some type of personal attack, which is not allowed under our policy. "

Send Jake to IRAQ!!!

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 18, 2011 | 10:54 a.m.

That's "stalking" not "stocking", Mr. Valdez.

And notice that on January 16, 2011 | 7:59 p.m. I made a post to Shelley, and Terry could not help but respond with a comment directed at me, NOT on the topic at hand; which is what my original comment to Shelley was about (her picture of what appeared to be a healthy dog by it's owner's grave and what it had to do with Prop. B). And that is not the first time Terry has injected personal comments to me into a discussion that was on topic.

Of course though; it does appear that Terry is going out of her way to "defend" Shelley to any poster that might have any reply to Shelley if it could be construed in the least bit as negative. Wonder what the relationship is there?

Now, don't get me wrong. I am not complaining. I am pretty "thick skinned" and don't really care what Terry has to post or even if it is about me. But, let's be clear on what is happening here...

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Jake Sherlock January 18, 2011 | 11:16 a.m.

Paul, I'm starting to think that's your answer for everything. :)

Jake Sherlock
Opinion editor

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 18, 2011 | 11:21 a.m.

You know what the problem is here. It is and should be obvious to anybody watching or participating. That is a lack of real news. It isn't like there is a shortage of real news out there. There is just a shortage of real news in here. There is nothing serious to debate here. The condition is so acute that many of the most seasoned debaters fail to come here to take their daily abuse. It isn't worth their time. There is nothing serious to debate so there are no serious debate watchers in the audience and no serious debaters in the wait. I just got done reading an article about how Starbucks is going to sell some of you a bigger foam cup so you don't need to order as many refills. While this will be important to many of you I'm thinking that even the most avid coffee drinker may be willing to concede that an article discussing, say, the state of events in Chad might be more newsworthy.
Chad. What is Chad? Who is Chad? Why did they Chad? Oh I know... It must have been because Starbucks gave them a 31 ounce cup to keep it in.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 18, 2011 | 11:23 a.m.

It is Paul's answer for a lot, Jake. And I like it! LOL.

Now get your rucksack and and your weapon, and prepare to board the plane to Iran! LOL.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 18, 2011 | 11:23 a.m.

Yes Jake. All of the worlds problems would be solved if we simply ...

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 18, 2011 | 11:25 a.m.

Correction, IRAQ! And I don't care if someone says that I don't know the difference..... Paul has not sent me there yet! LOL.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Juan Mendez January 18, 2011 | 11:33 a.m.

Yes my spelling was off Mr Gurley but I do not want to read about any sordid things you have going on or others have going on I am interested in this issue of the dogs and their kennel issues. That is why I am reading this paper online.

How does this issue effect those kennel owners in your area?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 18, 2011 | 11:39 a.m.

First, Jake, thank you for the note. The comments have veered quite a bit from the topic of the writing, and anything to help re-direct them back to Proposition B and the ongoing legislative effort would be terrific.

Having said that, I am going to respond to Mr. Gurley one more time, and not about Prop B.

Mr. Gurley, Terry and I share a common interest in preserving Proposition B in this state, and hopefully encouraging similar laws in other states.

Terry has also noticed that I seem to generate a great deal of acrimony with my commentary here at the Columbia Missourian. Why, I don't know. Perhaps because I am a fairly serious person, and yes, I am passionate about defending Proposition B. I will confess to even being on the pedantic side at times.

Oddly enough, I don't seem to generate the same level of personal dislike at any other publication--other than some dog breeders, who understandably don't like me. Especially odd, since much of it is from people who aren't even interested in Proposition B.

Regardless, Terry defended me in a couple of threads when the comments become personal rather than on topic. I don't know why this bothers you, but evidently it does.

My first reaction is not to participate in comments at the Missourian. That why I don't peeve people like you, and Terry or others don't feel they have to jump in and intervene.

Frankly, though, not participating is cowardly. Especially since the Missourian is probably one of my favorite Missouri publications.

I could wish that you would ignore me, since I drive you batty. If you can't, then I'm going to ignore you, and hopefully others will follow. I'm just not going to continue being sidetracked in these discussion.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 18, 2011 | 11:42 a.m.

I am not sure it does, Mr. Mendez. I mean to say that I am not aware of any local enforcement actions here in Boone County. It is kind of hard to say either way until the statutes are enforced here in this area.

I think that it is important to remember when it comes to laws or statutes, the Prosecutors have a good deal of discretion on what they choose to prosecute and what they choose not to prosecute. Law Enforcement Agencies have some discretion in what they choose to investigate too, including Animal Control.

With all things, I think it is necessary to be reasonable. Personally I feel like people like Shelley are going beyond the bounds of what is reasonable here. And that is "dangerous" because it can cause an abuse of the law or rather an "abuse of authority" through undue pressure from people like her; which is why I have used the term "fanatical" with her a few times. That has actually been the gist of my posts here.

Fortunately most Prosecutors and Law Enforcement Agencies are finding it more and more important to look at issues such as these with an eye towards being reasonable.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 18, 2011 | 11:44 a.m.

Typos...grrr...I hate my typos.

Jake, I like Paul's answer. I'll chip in for tickets.

(Report Comment)
Juan Mendez January 18, 2011 | 11:58 a.m.

Yes Mr Gurley we must be careful I agree but we must be vigilant to I think in watching how these kinds of things develop.

I have read how it effects the entire state from many sources and am now reading county by county area how it effects them and so far this is the best place for Boone County News on this issue. I really am curious to see Ms. Powers and others post those details about Boone County alone.

I really did not want to begin posting here at all but nobody is talking how it effects Boone County itself.

Juan Mendez.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 18, 2011 | 12:20 p.m.

I think that you should not feel uncomfortable posting here, Mr. Mendez. You seem right on topic, and your posts are pretty to the point and polite.

No matter how "nice" you are on here, someone is going to try to find a reason to "attack" you. It is human nature..

Personally, I like to use humor, hence the play on your name. No offense intended, I was jsut being humorous, that is all.

Same with Terry, I don't know him or her or even Shelley for that matter. I have nothing personal against them; my posts to them are made to inspire laughter and humor here; not to insult or degrade them.

But sometimes the way we post is somewhat "telling" about us. And I don't believe the term "fanatical" is improperly applied to Shelley based on her posts. I'll admit that I don't understand why Terry does not just stay on topic and make posts based on the topic, instead of the majority of her posts seeming to be in defense of Shelley? But, Terry has the right to defend anyone she or he so chooses..

I think that may properly illustrate my take on this thread.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Andrew Hansen January 18, 2011 | 12:24 p.m.

"Myth: The election is over, and we no longer have to discuss Proposition B."
.
I believe that is called leading off with a straw man.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 18, 2011 | 12:32 p.m.

Mr Mendez,

According to a Missouri Animal Alliance for Animal Legislation county map, Boone County has 5 commercial dog breeders:

http://www.maal.org/Puppy-Mills.asp#coun...

I don't have access to Missouri inspection or other records, but according to USDA inspection records for this county, 4 have cancelled their USDA licenses, which could mean either going out of business, or no longer selling to puppy brokers or pet stores.

Checking to see if there are past records for the cancelled breeders, all I'm seeing is a note that no records will be released for two breeders. Another that's cancelled had multiple repeating violations, including some fairly serious violations.

One breeder did not pass its pre-inspection license, and rightfully so: they're whelping puppies in outdoor kennels without a veterinarian's OK. And they didn't provide proper shelter for the dogs, including no bedding, no rain breaks, no shelter from the wind. I can only hope if they're still operating on a Missouri license, they do get closed down.

There is one active breeder, #4615, that would be impacted, and rightfully so. This breeder has several repeating violations.

All in all, from what I can see, and extrapolating from the USDA information, there would probably be, at most, 5 breeders in Boone county impacted, and rightfully so: they're not particularly good breeders.

This isn't to say I can find information on all breeders, this is just based on what I can find at the USDA. I've been invited to review the Missouri inspections and breeder information, but I just can't afford the copy fees right now.

(Report Comment)
Juan Mendez January 18, 2011 | 12:40 p.m.

Ms Powers have you personally inspected these breeders who you say are in violation or are you only going by the reports? I do not doubt you but I am wondering. I have learned over time first hand observation is better than reading reports.

Juan Mendez.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 18, 2011 | 12:48 p.m.

Mr Mendez,

First hand observation is not an option. Not only is the public not welcome at these breeders, our state representatives have actually tried to pass legislation to make illegal any videos or photos of these places taken without the permission of the owner.

All one can do is park on the road by the place and use a telephoto, but most breeders don't have their establishments within visual sight from the county roads.

However, when you read in an inspection report about outdoor kennels with no wind or rain breaks, and no bedding, you can make a safe assumption that the dogs are going to have problems with bad weather (hot or cold).

When you read about dogs with open, untreated sores, you don't have to go see for yourself to know this is not proper care for a dog.

I could go on, but won't.

So no, I'm not an inspector, and am dependent on inspection reports, and some of the video and photos others have managed to capture of those kennels, either as part of an investigation, under cover, or from the road.

Think of it this way: I don't have to swim in the Gulf to know the oil spill last summer was bad. The same applies with dog breeders: I don't have to inspect the kennels myself to see a bad breeder from the inspection reports.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 18, 2011 | 12:56 p.m.

No, Shelley has not peronally inspected any of these breeders, but she is more than willing to ASSume that they are "bad breeders"..

That has been my point all along..

Mr. Mendez, consider how quick Shelley is to make these ASSumptions. Consider how quick she is to border on libeling these breeders by posting that they are "bad breeders".. That should be all you need to see to determine how "fanatical" Shelley is about this issue. Hopefully one of these breeders will see her posts, and she'll find herself in court for libel.

Ricky Gurley

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 18, 2011 | 1:39 p.m.

Mr. Mendez, regardless of what so many say here, those of us supporting Prop B have visited, or have friends, who are responsible breeders.
We have no desire to put good breeders out of business.
A responsible breeder has no problem..and is actually proud..to show off their kennel and their beautiful dogs.
My dear friend (and next door neighbor) is a show breeder of champion Aussies..
ANYONE is welcome to visit the property as long as they call ahead first and are not daunted by the gaggle of teenagers always about the house.
Yes, she has, on occasion been verbally assaulted by some lunatic who believes that all dog breeders are bad..
And yes, it hurts her feelings..and makes my blood boil..but at the end of the day she is still a wonderful breeder and the lunatics are still lunatics.
If all the breeders were like my neighbor, there would be no need for Proposition B in the first place.
Her animals are not stacked on top of one another, or left outside in the heat or the cold and are not deficient in ANY way in their health.

She would no more sell a dog to a pet store than she would sprout wings and fly.
There is NO argument with this, no matter how anyone answers this post, or screams property rights or cults or fanatics or anti-american children haters or Wayne-Want's-To-Take-Away-Your-Animals.
No argument.
Period.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking January 18, 2011 | 2:07 p.m.

Terry Ward wrote:

"If all the breeders were like my neighbor, there would be no need for Proposition B in the first place."

If all (US) breeders were like your neighbor, the vast majority of dogs sold in this country would come from outside of the country (because of their small size). I assure you, if you think some breeding dogs have it bad here, that's nothing compared to what could be allowed to happen in someplace like Mexico. Here, they at least have honest, well-paid inspectors. There, the owner just figures out who to bribe and he can do anything he wants.

Without reducing the demand for dogs, reducing the supply just means someone else steps in to fill the shortage. And that's not necessarily good for the dogs.

DK

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 18, 2011 | 3:10 p.m.

Mark Foeking,

As a recent poll shows, more people are adopting dogs from shelters and rescues than buying them from stores:

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/37106782/n...

I think you overrate the number of dogs that come in from outside of the country. Regardless, the smuggling of dogs from other countries is happening no matter what we do about domestic breeders. We can't be afraid of enacting important legislation to protect dogs in commercial breeders in this country because someone in China (or South Korea or Mexico) will breed the dogs if we don't.

There are more than enough good breeders in this country--including Missouri--to fulfill the demands for pure bred dogs. And there are more than enough lovable mutts (and pure breds) at shelters for any demand we may have.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 18, 2011 | 3:14 p.m.

Found it...

dvm360 did an interesting story on puppy smuggling earlier in 2010

http://veterinarynews.dvm360.com/dvm/Art...

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 18, 2011 | 3:29 p.m.

They should quit picking on those meth cookers. Don't you know that for every meth lab we shut down we have someone trucking it across the Mexico border? And you know there's less regulation covering the ingredients in Mexico!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 18, 2011 | 3:58 p.m.

And God knows we don't want the dreaded socialist Big Government taking away Our Freedoms by putting the kabosh on
the importation of puppies from Mexico and China and our North Korean allies.
Too scary...
I think I need a drink.
"Honey, would you bring me a potable outta the fridge?"

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking January 18, 2011 | 4:48 p.m.

Shelley Powers wrote:

"I think you overrate the number of dogs that come in from outside of the country."

Right now, probably. I'm just looking at a future in which we shut down 2/3 or more of Missouri's breeders (and do this in other states). That's a lot of dogs that have to come from somewhere (given a constant demand). Obviously Missouri's breeders are selling their dogs somewhere.

"We can't be afraid of enacting important legislation to protect dogs in commercial breeders in this country because someone in China (or South Korea or Mexico) will breed the dogs if we don't."

But we can be afraid of passing poorly thought out legislation that will have the effect of driving puppy production across our borders.

If I thought that Prop B was a real step forward, I would have supported it from the start. But I'm really hoping that the legislature goes ahead with a repeal, and we pass legislation that is written by animal care professionals, not activists.

DK

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 18, 2011 | 5:21 p.m.

Mark, we will have to disagree about the viability of Proposition B. I have shown in this article that many of the so-called "facts" that people have been using against Proposition B are myths rather than facts. I could have probably written an article three times as long listing more, but the editor asked me to keep the writing to a reasonable length.

And you forget that many people who you call "activists" are people who are animal care professionals, and/or have been working with animals for decades.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 18, 2011 | 5:46 p.m.

Shelley, working with dogs for years does not make you a "professional".

Your attitude and the message behind your posts will get you labeled an "activist" every time, Shelley.

It seems to me that the majority of the people (at least here on this thread) would like to see Probosition B repealed.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane January 18, 2011 | 5:59 p.m.

As I will be in Jeff City Tommorrow advocating personally to our legislators to uphold the vote & not repeal or change the Puppy Mill Cruelty prevention Act, I thought I would reiterate a few things:
.
-Just because I (along with others) advocate for animal welfare,does not mean that we do not also advocate & volunteer for human welfare organizations also. Just as a parent can love two children, there is plenty of room in our hearts for both HUMAN AND ANIMAL welfare issues!
.
- Prop B passed with majority vote. The voters have spoken. Our legislators are BLATENTLY Disregarding the people of Missouri and the voting process. For instance... Representative Sally Faith is co-sponsoring HB94 & HB131, however, her district voted 66% in FAVOR of Prop B. SHAME ON REP SALLY FAITH. She professes to be in touch with her constituents....yet, outright disregards the majority will of her constituents! Our legislators seem to lately be working for the values of whoever pays them the most money.
.
-And finally, let's remember what kind of rediculous people ran the Prop B opposition campaign.... (And yes... Anita Andrews in this clip is not a hired comedian.... but an actual leader of the so called "Alliance for Truth".
.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-no... (Thought this thread could use a good laugh:)
.
To the good people of Missouri.... Please contact your legislators & tell them to UPHOLD THE VOTE.
.
Marina Shane-Lewis
.
PS. Great Commentary Shelley!

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 18, 2011 | 7:00 p.m.

Don't be fooled by all of this good speak. There's going to be a puppy shortage for sure. In fact, it's going to get so bad that the swat team won't have anything to shoot. My friend just told me that they are going to start rationing dogs at the pumps.

You know who really started this? It was those people who were telling everyone to spay/neuter. And I'll bet some of you played right into their hands! Didn't you? They paved the way for foreign crime syndicates to take over the market for puppy dogs. You can see how acute the shortage is if you look here:http://www.adoptapet.com/shelter80712-pets.html
Or here:http://www.adoptapet.com/shelter80711-pets.html
Or here:http://www.adoptapetvictoria.com/adoptable-pets/puppies/
And especially HERE:http://www.htsanctuary.com/adopt_dogs.shtml

First they came and took all the rail cannons and I did not speak out because I...

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock January 18, 2011 | 8:06 p.m.

The Daily show can make anyone look ridiculous Marina so I wouldn't really hold them to the standard of the opposition.

(Report Comment)
Juan Mendez January 19, 2011 | 4:28 a.m.

Ms Powers first hand observation is always an option if you are serious about what you claim to care about.

Juan Mendez.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 19, 2011 | 5:07 a.m.

We have done a bit of 'digging' on the multitudinous comments of Frick and the recently arrived Frack.
And what did we discover?
Frick and Frack have zero interest in Proposition B or the abuse of puppies.
Frick and Frack are only interested in ARGUING!

Frick and Frack argue about EVERYTHING in the manner of busybodies
seeking their pitiful five minutes of fame.
Frick and Frack would argue against the principal of gravity in order to see their names in print.
Frick and Frack see themselves as Very Big Men who, in the manner of previous centuries, shake their clubs and bare their teeth at 'emotional' women ..
What this reveals about their own emotional state is a subject for other discussions.
They are free of course to insert their babble into the issue of Proposition B.
Alas, it is too much to hope that the busybodies Frick and Frack will go away if they are ignored.
But WE will ignore them just the same.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 19, 2011 | 7:44 a.m.

oops..too early for spellcheck.

'Frick and Frack would argue against the PRINCIPLE of gravity in order to see their names in print."

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking January 19, 2011 | 7:57 a.m.

Paul Allaire wrote:

"They paved the way for foreign crime syndicates to take over the market for puppy dogs."

Well, many people don't want the dogs in the shelters and adoption agencies. Many of them get put down every day because they're unlikely to get adopted. Do you think pet stores would sell puppies if people didn't buy them?

I'd like to see, as much as anyone, people not buy a pet on impulse. But as long as they do, pet stores will need a supply of cute little puppies. And if they can't get them locally, they'll get them from whereever. I feel it would be better to keep it practical for commercial breeders to breed locally than have dogs shipped in from thousands of miles away.

DK

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 19, 2011 | 8:20 a.m.

Mr. Mendez,

If we broke the law by entering kennels without permission, than we would be labeled animal terrorists.

Your assumption of first hand experience being a requirement to be involved and/or concerned would then preclude us being concerned about Haiti after the earthquakes, or offshore oil drilling after the Gulf oil spill, or any number of issues and events.

Your requirement is too narrowing, too limiting, and forgive my bluntness, too arbitrary.

USDA inspection reports have to be thorough enough they can be used to determine if a certificate is to renewed, or if the breeder's license is to be pulled. Have you read any of them? Perhaps you need to spend some time with the APHIS database, looking at inspection reports before you deny their ability to convey the conditions of a specific breeder.

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

Also remember that I'm not making the decisions about who is in violation or not. It is the inspectors, either the USDA or the Department of Agriculture inspectors, who will make these types of determinations. And they will have the first hand knowledge you crave.

But you asked about Boone County breeders and I attempted to answer you as thoroughly as possible. You can take the information, or not. Up to you.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 19, 2011 | 8:25 a.m.

Mark Foeking, did you not read the article that I linked, with the poll results saying that people are more likely to adopt from a shelter than buy from a store?

It's difficult for me to take your concerns seriously when you ignore facts placed in front of you, if they don't corroborate whatever point you're trying to make.

This entire article is based on the fact that too many of the anti-Prop B arguments, in the past and even now, are based on misinformation. Their continued repetition is based on a belief that if one says something loudly enough, often enough, and using the CAPS KEY, it becomes somehow true.

Or perhaps more to the point, it convinces enough people so it doesn't matter if it is true or not.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 19, 2011 | 9:13 a.m.

Well we all know that Shelley can't have any real experience in dealing with dogs, dog breeders, and/or Kennels; she's too busy posting here.

And Terry's too busy defending her to even go outside.

These two don't know the first thing about the problem, they have not come out from behind their computers long enough to find out!

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Juan Mendez January 19, 2011 | 9:14 a.m.

Ms Powers do you honestly believe everything a United States Government employee reports or tells you?

Juan Mendez.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 19, 2011 | 9:25 a.m.

Mr. Mendez, what are you trying to say?

The United States Government, however imperfect it may be, is not the USSR.
It would be helpful if you would explain your own point of view here, and the reasons for your questions or your concerns regarding Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 19, 2011 | 11:12 a.m.

I think it is clear Terry, Shelley and yourself seem to be rather "unconvincing" in your arguments.......

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Juan Mendez January 19, 2011 | 11:47 a.m.

Ms Ward do you too believe everything a Government Employee reports and tells you too? Courts call that hear say and circumstantial evidence until there is a true evidence log which includes video footage of the alleged violations. Written reports were good enough way back when but today video footage is the real key in presentations of this type. I could be wrong though.

Juan Mendez.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 19, 2011 | 12:38 p.m.

Good try, Mr. "Mendez'..

Alas, your skills at camouflage aren't so good.

I am reminded of the loopy syntax of the ever persistent DRRosset of Texas/California/Wherever who is FOREVER attempting to hide his true identity behind many silly ones.
I believe the CM is not so keen on aliases, by the way.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking January 19, 2011 | 12:41 p.m.

Shelley Powers wrote:

"Mark Foeking, did you not read the article that I linked, with the poll results saying that people are more likely to adopt from a shelter than buy from a store?"

Yes, I did. However, it's not particularly relevant to my point.

How many buyers does 8% (the percentage of people that said they were planning on buying a dog from a pet store) represent nationally? Without that information, determining the effect on the non - shelter dog market of shutting down most of Missouri's breeders is difficult. It's a good trend - if I wanted a dog I'd go to the shelter - but removing the supply from these stores is a bass-ackwards way to do it.

We do know that all of these breeders are selling their dogs, and obviously people are buying them. Another article you linked indicated that puppy imports and smuggling were "a serious problem", which makes me think demand is great enough that it's worthwhile for people to break the law to sell puppies not bred in the US. If demand is not reduced every puppy not bred in this country will come from another country. Perhaps hundreds of thousands of them.

If you want to attack the problem of demand, then advocate legislation to do that. Several cities no longer allow dog and cat sales in pet stores, for example. But Prop B doesn't do anything about demand, and I think before we go doing something about supply, we should look at ways of modifying demand before we just push the puppy mill problem to Mexico or Asia.

DK

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 19, 2011 | 1:04 p.m.

Mr Mendez,

You are correct sir. When doing these inspections, it is not only important to report your findings but to also be able to back them up with evidence, and visiual evidence is the best option.

Reports can be "engineered" to convey a certain message that the person writing them wants to convey. Visual evidence "is what it is"; it lets the person reviewing the report make their own unbiased assessment based on what they can see with their own eyes.

If we made decisions based on reports alone, and did not have the option "drill down" to the evidence that is supposed to accompany these reports, even more innocent people would be in jail, and we'd all be making some very bad decisions that were influenced by people with their own agenda. Like Shelley and Terry.............

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 19, 2011 | 1:17 p.m.

Mr Mendez,

Since the inspection reports for both the USDA and the Department of Agriculture have to be able to stand up in court, if a decision to rescind a license is made, they are most likely quite accurate. In addition, inspectors also carry cameras with them to document violations. You don't have access to the photos in the database, but you can access them using Freedom of Information Act requests from the USDA.

And, as stated earlier, no action is made regarding a commercial breeder in Missouri without direct inspection--most likely multiple inspections by multiple people.

If these are not sufficient for you, then I would say there is little that our government, at whatever level, does that would be sufficient for you.

Mark Foeking, again, the problem with this state is not the large number of pet stores, but the large number of puppy mills. We can only legislate what we can control.

(Report Comment)
Juan Mendez January 19, 2011 | 1:20 p.m.

Ms Ward if there are video reports relating to Boone County Missouri in this Prop B issue could you please produce them to back up the State reports you and Ms Powers are standing by. I know the State will comply with most any Sunshine Law Request you make. I am very interested in seeing them. Sorry I cannot go on hear say of a Government Employee filing a written report,like you and Ms Powers are doing. Until the both of you can present here the video proof here as it relates to Boone County Missouri I am not a believer in your cause.

Juan Mendez.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 19, 2011 | 3:20 p.m.

Mr. Mendez,

You are so "dead on correct", sir. God I love it when people are smart enough to demand evidence and not just take somebody's word for something that can have a negative impact on people's lives.

I don't know about Shelley and Terry, but I actually have done 1 (ONE) "puppy mill investigation", and I DO have pictures, audio, and a detailed report that I think I can share with you, if you would like? The only thing that I have to do is try to obtain permission from my client, prior to sharing it. That should not be a problem because the investigation was concluded 5 (FIVE) years ago.

These investigations should have some sort of a standard in place for conducting them. Not just an inspection and a report. This type of "slipshod" investigative standard is what produces poorly informed and ignorant people.....

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking January 19, 2011 | 4:04 p.m.

Rick, as I recall, you investigated this breeder because someone else was alleging their care was very poor, and your investigation did not find this. It would be interesting to look up the USDA inspection reports on this breeder and see if they back up the person making the charges, or your investigation.

My experience with USDA (or AAALAC) inspectors is they are quite fair and impartial. I've never met one (or known of one through someone else) that seemed to have an agenda - they were just there to make sure the rules were being followed. I'm not concerned about the veracity of the reports - I'm more concerned with how people without institutional animal care experience might view these violations.

DK

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 19, 2011 | 5:12 p.m.

Yes Mr. Gurley, do share information on your investigation.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 19, 2011 | 5:19 p.m.

Mark,

You are correct. And I may have unintentionally given the wrong impression. This was not a complaint from the state or anything of that nature that I investigated. It was a request from another P.I. in another state that was asked to look into this matter by a client that had purchased a puppy from the Kennel. I don't really know how the state conducts these inspections. But, I do know that what Mr. Mendez posted is correct. His line of thought on this issue is reasonable and appropriate. I like the fact that he seems willing to reserve judgment and demand evidence rather than be swayed by these "emotionally charged" allegations from Shelley and Terry.

I am speaking simply from my 12 years of experience as a Private Investigator and I am speaking more to how we should be making our decisions on these cases, rather than how the state is doing these inspections. Mr. Mendez is just completley correct in his posts here. If more people were like him, we'd be in better shape because we would be making more informed decisions rather than allowing these "activists" to influence some people to make "emotionally charged" decisions.

This kind of goes to the heart of my argument in regards to Shelley and Terry. Fortunately the way Shelley and Terry are choosing to argue is a double edged sword that cuts both ways. It harms their argument as much as it may help their argument; thanks to the intelligent people like Mr. Mendez that demand more than just extrapolations by people that are making "exciting allegations".

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 19, 2011 | 5:39 p.m.

Shelley,

What qualifications do you have for evaluating my investigation?

No offense, but you already seem quite biased on this matter; so what makes you think you can look at this investigation with an "objective eye"?

Perhaps Mr. Mendez does not have any qualifications for evaluating my investigation; but he does get a BUNCH of points for being rational, unbiased, and objective on this thread. Although I should also note that I do not know Mr. Mendez or what his qualifications are for evaluating my investigation. I don't know you either, which is why I am giving you the chance to explain your qualifications by asking you the question.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane January 19, 2011 | 10:22 p.m.

What a wonderfully productive day at the Capital, today!
.
Since there is so much mis-information out there regarding the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, the Senators & Representatives I spoke with today were very pleased with having an issue-educated constituent bring documentation, hard numbers & data for review and open polite discussion. One Representive will be officially pulling their co-sponsorship of the repeal & admendment they had foolishly signed to begin with. All & all well worth the time & effort today. I'm so pleased to see such a high turnout from caring, concerned Missourians who are sick of the shame that the cruelty of Substandard Commercial Dog Breeding Facilities has brought to our state. And I was thrilled to hear from legislators the sheer numbers of phone calls & emails they have recieved in support of upholding the November Vote & urging them NOT to repeal, amend or change in any way the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.
.
Days like this make me proud of my fellow constituents. Thank you to all the supporters that made the journey to the Capital today. Keep up the momentum!
Continue to call write email & visit your legislators. Tell them to uphold the vote & the will of the people!
.
Marina Shane-Lewis

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 21, 2011 | 1:45 p.m.

The Missouri state representatives have introduced three more bills: one that would gut Proposition B, and two that would disallow the citizens of Missouri from even bringing something like Proposition B to the ballot:

http://puppies.burningbird.net/content/y...

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 21, 2011 | 3:57 p.m.

Public hearings have been scheduled for three of the bills: HB 94, HB 99, and HB 131. The hearing is Tuesday, January 25th, at noon (12 pm) in House Hearing Room 6.

This is a public hearing, the public is invited to attend.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 25, 2011 | 5:26 p.m.

A public hearing on Proposition B is being held by the Missouri senate, Wednesday, at 1pm in the Senate Committee Room 1.

Yes, there is an unseemly haste to the desire to strip us of our vote.

(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