advertisement

Prop B under fire again in Missouri's Senate

Wednesday, January 26, 2011 | 7:22 p.m. CST; updated 9:28 p.m. CST, Wednesday, January 26, 2011

JEFFERSON CITY — Dozens of dog breeders and their supporters spilled out of Senate committee hearing rooms and jammed the hallways of Missouri's Capitol for two days this week, calling upon lawmakers to undo a ballot initiative Missouri voters approved in November.

"Proposition B will flat out put me out of business," said Hupert Lavy, a longtime dog breeder from Silex.

Lavy talked with reporters outside the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing room, which was so crowded that Senate staff wired a TV in the hallway for those who could not get into the room to see.

In 2010, Missouri voters approved an initiative that would require stricter regulations on dog breeders in the state. Supporters of the initiative say the restrictions would decrease animal abuse and neglect, and improve quality of life for dogs and puppies.

The new law:

  • requires large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles.
  • prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets. 
  • creates a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations.

Lavy said the new regulations are too expensive and out of touch with animal breeding. He said the regulations called for by Proposition B will "kill animals" and drive 3,000 people out of work.

"Whoever wrote (Proposition B) has never raised an animal," Lavy said.

Before the committee are measures to completely repeal the ballot proposal, to amend the proposal and to remove the limit on the number of breeding dogs a facility can have.

Lavy acknowledged that the chances of a full repeal are slim but said he will continue to fight the law and change the worst parts of it to keep his kennel.

The sponsor of the bill to completely repeal the measure, Sen. Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, said the wording of the voter-passed law is so vague that it could be extended to cows, horses, sheep and all other livestock crucial to Missouri's trade and economy.

Although Proposition B was described as a bill dealing with dog breeders, it includes a definition of a pet that covers any "domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner."

Karen Strange, a supporter of the repeal who spoke on behalf of the agriculture community, expressed concern over the broad definition of livestock and the threat the new regulations pose to farmers.

"Our people are the working farmers of the state of Missouri who have put their heart and souls into their farms," said Strange, co-founder and president of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners.

While critics charge that the proposition could open the door to the regulation of animals other than dogs, Kathy Warnick, president of the Humane Society of Missouri, disagreed.

"Proposition B applies to dogs and puppies. There is no other reference to any other species," she said.

Warnick said that the primary goal of Proposition B is to upgrade the lives of dogs.

Proposition B passed with 51.6 percent of the vote in Missouri, with a majority of those votes coming from the Kansas City and St. Louis areas.


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

Terry Ward January 26, 2011 | 8:28 p.m.

ANY attempt to inject anti-Hsus rhetoric, communists, city-people, out-of-state-money, starving children, animal-rights agendas, the-elinimation-of-agriculture, Humanewatch, you-want-to-put-breeders-out-of-business, Peta, Wayne Pacelle's haircut, vegans, you-don't-know-where-your-food-comes-from or the Taliban into this discussion will provide DOCUMENTABLE proof that your brains have fallen out.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 26, 2011 | 8:50 p.m.

The accusations of "pet" being used to extend these rules to other livestock are absurd, and isn't it past time to stop depending on people being too stupid to know what Proposition B is about?

I refer you to a fellow guest column of this publication

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

As for the accusation that these rules will "kill" dogs--yet more unfounded hyperbole, that bares no relation to reality.

This is no threat to farmers. And since this seems to be the only concern for these representatives, they should have no problem with the bill, and the representatives can move on to other things.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 26, 2011 | 8:52 p.m.

make that 'bears no relation'

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 26, 2011 | 9:00 p.m.

So what do these representatives have to say to the consumers that have their hearts broken because of sick and genetically defective puppies?

http://www.consumeraffairs.com/pets/pupp...

Or don't they matter, either?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 26, 2011 | 9:10 p.m.

Shelley says, "This is no threat to farmers."
__________________________

I have no idea if this is true or not, which is one of the reasons I've refrained from posting on this topic.

But, this statement is not the issue, is it? The issue is one of "believability" and "trust" in HSUS.

INO, past HSUS performances have led many to say, "If HSUS said today was Wednesday, I'd sure be checkin' the calendar to make sure it wasn't Tuesday or Thursday!"

HSUS has a credibility problem.

Why do you think many rural folks voted against this issue? It wasn't because of what Prop B would or would not do for doggies. It was because the law (and HSUS) are perceived as untrustworthy "camel's noses under the big tent." No one believes there is not a "next step".

I admit it. I believe there is a "next step". This ain't over yet, even if the legislature lets the law stand. I voted accordingly. INO, Prop B did not get my vote because I do not trust the actions, words, and promises of HSUS. To put it in another way, I believe we will all get "Hussman'ed"...somewhere down the road.

I don't think I'm alone, either.

(PS: So, if I'm right, arguing the merits of Prop B or lack thereof is a fools errand. Better you try to defend HSUS and other financial backers, because THAT'S where the long-term problem is.)

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 26, 2011 | 9:49 p.m.

Anti-Hsus rhetoric is a lame and transparent game of hide-the-issue.
Plus, it's insulting and assumes your opponent is stupid.
Please take your goat and your conspiracy theory to the shed at the bottom of the garden and leave them there.
Next to the bucket for lost brains.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 26, 2011 | 10:03 p.m.

Terry: It may or may not be transparent, but it's the game you are playing.

Or, you can remain in denial.

I don't care, either way.

Except with my vote.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 26, 2011 | 10:09 p.m.

" refrained from posting on this topic."??
Are there two Michael Williams'?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 26, 2011 | 10:14 p.m.

Terry:

No.

There are nine last time I checked.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 26, 2011 | 10:14 p.m.

This is not about HSUS. Yes, HSUS was a backer, but so was the ASPCA, and the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, and the Humane Society of Missouri, and Stray Rescue, and Wayside Waifs and host of other organizations.

What this is about, is the dogs. It is about ensuring a decent life for dogs within commercial breeding operations.

These "slippery slope" responses are absurd. Look at how much work Proposition B has been? So now we suddenly think our task will be easier with chickens and cows?

The problem that agriculture has isn't with HSUS--it's with us.

We're changing. We want to know more about the livestock in farms and ranches. We want to know that animals are treated humanely. We definitely want to know our puppies don't come from puppy mills, and their parents aren't suffering a life of misery.

But agriculture can't come after us: we're its customers. So it looked around and found the biggest target it could find that is voicing the concerns of the people: HSUS.

What agriculture doesn't know is that going after HSUS won't change our wanting to ensure that animals are treated right. It isn't going to ensure no other bills are passed ensuring better lives for animals.

People are changing, and agriculture really needs to change with us.

If agriculture is smart, it would work with us, and, yes, HSUS. But agriculture instead chooses to go after dogs.

Dogs.

Puppies.

How dumb is that?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 26, 2011 | 10:18 p.m.

So you AREN'T the Michael Williams who was handling out prescriptions for psychotherapy awhile back?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 26, 2011 | 10:38 p.m.

AHA! Tis the same Michael Williams as before, amateur psychotherapist!
We will refer to our original post at the top of the page.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 26, 2011 | 10:51 p.m.

Terry: Hey, a couple of posts long ago meets my definition of "refraining".

You should be blessed with such a skill at "refraining".

In fact, I've never commented on the merits or lack thereof for Prop B...until I just told you how I voted.

Shelley: As I mentioned to Terry, I believe I outlined the game you are playing. Trying to convince folks HSUS and the like have no next step is the problem. Trust is the problem. Credibility is the problem. Past history is the problem. You can talk "doe-eyed puppy dogs" all you want on this place, or elsewhere, but you won't get very far because the REAL problem is not being addressed.

You think it's about dogs.

It isn't.

I think I'm right about this. And, if I am, your efforts to sell Prop B's merits are, as I said, a fool's errand. Like in snow, there is no traction.

Best to change tactics.

Hey, I'm helpin'!

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 26, 2011 | 11:11 p.m.

(Yawn)
Nytol.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 6:56 a.m.

Guy comes into a club walks to the bar, climbs up a stool and throws up all over the floor.
Guy gets down off the stool, walks to the door, yawns, and waves goodbye.
Moral?
Boredom doesn't contribute much except vomit.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 27, 2011 | 7:22 a.m.

Michael Williams

I have no interest in people's wanting to find some devious "next step" to Proposition B. Will HSUS continue to fight for legislation here and in other states about animals? Of course it will, why would anyone think otherwise?

But the only way that Proposition B "threatens" cattle and other livestock owners, is the fact that, for once, they're not calling the shots.

They tried to kill Proposition B by a blitz ad campaign just before the vote, giving the most outrageous statements.

They hired HumaneWatch to spread misinformation and rumor.

When these didn't work, and Proposition B passed, now they're yanking the chain of the state representatives, telling them to pull this bill because they want Missourians to know, once and for all, they _own_ animal legislation in this state.

How dare we vote on animal legislation. That is the message they want to send. Not to HSUS--HSUS is just a scapegoat, a convenient boogey man.

No, they want to let us know in this state that we have no control over agribusiness, they do. Paranoid, controlling, disregarding the rule of law...what won't they do, to keep their control?

Do you really think cattle, chicken, and hog farmers care about the dog breeders? For the most part, no. But the dogs are animals, and they exist on what could pass as a farm, and how dare we pass a bill without their permission?

You want to see an agenda with HSUS, but all I see is an agriculture agenda.

So no, I won't allow this discussion to be reframed: this is about the dogs. I don't give a darn about whatever ongoing battle is happening between HSUS and agribusiness. I do care about the dogs, and Missouri actually condoning practices that should shame every single one of us.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 8:06 a.m.

Could anyone (OTHER than breeders) explain EXACTLY what it is about Proposition B that causes you PERSONALLY to have so much anger or vitriol or disdain for the bill and for those of us who support it?
Can you provide proof that this attempt to protect dogs affects you DIRECTLY ?
Can you provide PROOF that Proposition B will cause you personal harm in any way?

(Report Comment)
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 8:49 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 9:01 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 9:04 a.m.

Kennel owners have made themselves perfectly clear.
My question was directed not at you.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams January 27, 2011 | 9:16 a.m.

Shelley:

YOU may think the argument is about dogs when it comes to Prop B, but to your opponents....it isn't. Any verbiage that deals only with doe-eyed, floppy-eared puppy dogs is gonna fall on deaf ears.

Hey, we all tilt at windmills, one time or the other.

(Report Comment)
Juan Mendez January 27, 2011 | 9:20 a.m.

The good honest breeders have nothing to worry about. It is those not responsible who are worrying the most by all I see on this subject.

Juan Mendez.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 27, 2011 | 9:22 a.m.

jarrot connor, Proposition B was in the works in 2008, so you must have been aware of this as pending legislation. Did you just make an assumption that it wouldn't matter what bill was passed?

I don't find your name in the USDA database of breeders. What's the name of your kennel? If it is modern and up to date, will you allow people to visit and see for ourselves the state of your operation?

People end up saying things in comments that can't be verified, and we're supposed to nod our heads and say, "OK, I'm sure every statement is 100% accurate".

So no, I don't believe you about your cost of cement and decking and your three employees.

And you all keep talking about breeders moving to other states. Hogwash.

The people who are commercial breeders here are typically born and bred Missourians. They're most likely Missourians first, and dog breeders last.

Will breeding operations open in other states? Maybe, maybe not. I have a feeling dog sales to pet stores have declined in recent years.

If they do, well, they are that state's problem. We can only control what happens in this state.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 9:22 a.m.

Aphis has no record of any 'Connor' listed as owning a kennel.
As you have '100 dogs', possibly you breed in another state?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 27, 2011 | 9:24 a.m.

Michael Williams, I can't do anything about your reading comprehension abilities. I see "dog" when I read Proposition B, you evidently see something else.

Fine.

(Report Comment)
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 9:35 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 9:46 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 9:46 a.m.

Mr. Connor does NOT wish to verify that he is indeed a Missouri kennel owner as he stated earlier?
Mr. Connor wishes to insult Shelley Powers instead?

(Report Comment)
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 9:51 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 9:56 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Shelley Powers January 27, 2011 | 10:28 a.m.

Terry, I find it unlikely that "jarrot connor" is a real name. Best to ignore.

(Report Comment)
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 10:48 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 10:55 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Anne Hogan January 27, 2011 | 11:14 a.m.

Firstly, Jarrott, the kennels you described are not illegal - they are licensed. You can read more about these deplorable kennels at http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2...

Second, as much as the opposition would like to make Prop B about the HSUS or any other issue, it is about Missouri's breeding dogs. Missouri voters did not vote for the HSUS, they voted for Prop B. Therefore, it would behoove opponents to focus their arguments on the merits and language of Prop B instead of using the HSUS as a straw-man.

(Report Comment)
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 11:23 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 11:26 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Anne Hogan January 27, 2011 | 11:29 a.m.

Actually, Jarrott, I was pretty clear that the issue was about Prop B and not HSUS. I did post a link to the Dirty Dozen report, because you seem to be under the incorrect impression that only illegal kennels have substandard operating procedures.

(Report Comment)
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 11:37 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 11:43 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Anne Hogan January 27, 2011 | 11:48 a.m.

"You couldn't even get the support of the majority of shelters in this state."

I'm not sure where you're getting that information. You can see the three page list of animal protection charities that endorsed Prop B at You couldn't even get the support of the majority of shelters in this state.

"Donations are dwindling because people are now aware of where that money is actually going."

Again, this is an unsubstantiated opinion, not a fact. Can you show any proof to support this?

(Report Comment)
Anne Hogan January 27, 2011 | 11:50 a.m.

My apologies, I didn't properly past the link in my above comment. It should have read:

I'm not sure where you're getting that information. You can see the three page list of animal protection charities that endorsed Prop B at http://missourifordogs.com/about/endorse...

(Report Comment)
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 11:52 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Paul Allaire January 27, 2011 | 11:59 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Anne Hogan January 27, 2011 | 11:59 a.m.

Jarrott, I did not personally put that list together and so I cannot speak to the methodology used. However, no offense, but your heresy hardly constitutes a valid assertion. Do you have any proof of these allegations?

(Report Comment)
Anne Hogan January 27, 2011 | 12:00 p.m.

Jarrott, you still have not responded to my requests for documentation of your claims. Continuing to make outlandish statements with nothing to back them up does not make for a very effective argument.

(Report Comment)
jarrott connor January 27, 2011 | 12:31 p.m.

Anne
Due to the legal nature of this information, I have been advised not to bring about names in an open forum. I can tell you that several of these clergy are being interviewed by our legislators and yes there is documented proof.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 12:35 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
radar svenson January 27, 2011 | 12:37 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 12:47 p.m.

And here we were all thinking Radar Svenson was a Norwegian used car salesman.

(Report Comment)
maria schmidt January 27, 2011 | 12:54 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Anne Hogan January 27, 2011 | 12:55 p.m.

You understand then, Jarrott, why we cannot simply take your word for granted. You also have not provided any information to substantiate your claims that the majority of shelters in Missouri opposed Prop B or that "donations have dwindled" (donations to who or what?).

(Report Comment)
Anne Hogan January 27, 2011 | 12:58 p.m.

Maria - first of all, I can verify that I am an independent person, and have never had the pleasure of meeting Shelley or Terry.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "licking our wounds" since Prop B passed in the election. It seems that the opposition is having difficulty coming to terms with that simple fact. As to funding, if you read the complete statute, you would see that Prop B is, essentially, self-funded. It does not call for an increase in funds to the MDA, and your claim about it taking money away from schools is simply outlandish and without merit.

(Report Comment)
maria schmidt January 27, 2011 | 1:02 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 1:07 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Shelley Powers January 27, 2011 | 1:21 p.m.

maria schmidt, I'm sure a lot of things were said in the meetings. I've heard that Proposition B was really about forcing Missourians into being vegetarian. You'll have to excuse us if we don't except everything that was said in Jefferson City yesterday as fact, until we have something factual to verify.

You're talking about the wild claims of how much it would "save" the state based on what a couple of reps stated, but they didn't provide any documentation to corroborate their claims. Are we supposed to accept, on faith, everything said in these meetings if statements are made by representatives.

Well, it was also a representative who made the claim that Proposition B is about forcing Missourians into being vegetarians.

Most of the original cost estimated for Proposition B was for additional inspectors. However, the additional inspectors are needed regardless of Proposition B. In fact, the No on Proposition B side said that what they would advocate instead is for the addition of more inspectors.

So not Proposition B won't cost any more or less than having Proposition B.

One of the bills discussed yesterday actually required double the amount of inspector time than Prop B would require. I don't know what kind of training some of the reps have had in math, but double the burden on inspectors does not seem to equate to cost savings.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 27, 2011 | 1:23 p.m.

Children's school?

Wow, I can't believe any representative would make this type of claim. They know this to be untrue.

(Report Comment)
Jake Sherlock January 27, 2011 | 1:27 p.m.

Folks,

I have removed the comments from Jarrot Connor pending verification of his real name. Same with Radar Svenson.

Toward Terry's last comment about equal insults -- how about we try not insulting each other at all? Remember, personal attacks are against the commenting rules, and I will remove them.

Thanks,

Jake Sherlock
Opinion editor

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 1:39 p.m.

We will GLADLY apologize if Jarrott Connor is actually a kennel owner with 100 dogs and three employes or if Radar Svenson is NOT a Norwegian used car salesman.

And anyone who attempts to insult or demean the consistently respectful Shelley and Anne will force us to catapult plague victims into the offending camp..

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 27, 2011 | 1:42 p.m.

First, thanks Jake.

Second,

folks, the Senate has come out with a bill to the floor

http://puppies.burningbird.net/article/s...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 1:56 p.m.

maria schmidt, you demean Shelley and Anne by accusing them of 'being the same person'?
No one has EVER accused YOU of being separated at birth from Joe Overlease and Anita Bryant., or anyone else.
Yet you cry doppelganger at the respectful Shelley and Anne, simply because they disagree with your position on Prop B?

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane January 27, 2011 | 2:10 p.m.

For those still with questions regarding the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act (Prop B), there is some useful new Q&A information on Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation's website:
http://www.maal.org/PM_QA.asp
.
DEFEND PROP B, UPHOLD THE VOTE
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
maria schmidt January 27, 2011 | 2:50 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Shelley Powers January 27, 2011 | 3:01 p.m.

maria schmidt, the people that Jake pulled were anti-Proposition B.

Or were you talking about the anti-dog activists?

(Report Comment)
maria schmidt January 27, 2011 | 3:06 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
maria schmidt January 27, 2011 | 3:13 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Jake Sherlock January 27, 2011 | 3:19 p.m.

Maria,

The Missourian does not write a traditional staff editorial, and hasn't for many years. We're not endorsing or supporting anything -- except, of course, for good conversation.

To that end, the comments that were taken down will gladly be restored once the person leaving the comments (Radar, Jarrott) confirm their real identities (they've been emailed to do just that). The couple of comments taken down for personal attacks will not be restored.

Jake Sherlock
Opinion editor

(Report Comment)
Juan Mendez January 27, 2011 | 3:32 p.m.

Dear Editor;

Must the readership be subjected to all of this once again.

Juan Mendez.

(Report Comment)
maria schmidt January 27, 2011 | 3:35 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Shelley Powers January 27, 2011 | 3:55 p.m.

Juan

I have a huge recommendation for you: just don't participate. Don't read the stories, don't respond, just leave it be.

This is an important piece of controversial legislation of interest to at least some people. The Missourian felt it deserved additional coverage.

Perhaps the Missourian can remove the recent comments list from the front page if this causes you pain.

But if you're not interested, why on earth do feel compelled to come in just to comment that you're not interested?

maria schmidt, I haven't a clue who you're addressing with your one longish comment, or why. Perhaps you could address it to an individual, and include a preface, or question.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 4:41 p.m.

Maria complains of 'accusations' yet she says
" Anne Hogan, Shelley Powers Aren't these actually all the same person?"
You don't see this as an accusation?
Shelly and Anne are lying about their actual Identities?
What proof of this do you have?
Have they accused you of lying?
What is so disturbing about many who hold your opinion on Prop B is that because Anne and Shelley and Marina are consistently respectful, you folks jump to any chance to accuse them of lying, taking money, having agendas, wanting to see dogs killed..
It never stops.,...
This is a form of bullying.
They don't 'fight back' in the way that you do, therefore they seem to be fair game.
'Not fighting back' is not 'weakness.'
It is a strength.

(Report Comment)
Juan Mendez January 27, 2011 | 4:55 p.m.

Ms Powers that is a very rude answer and it is obvious this response and all of your previous postings towards on this same issue that you care nothing of others here but only your own agenda at the cost of other's views.

Juan Mendez.

(Report Comment)
samantha caldwell January 27, 2011 | 5:01 p.m.

I don't want to be bullied anymore either. I follow the rules and do a terrific job but according to you I don't. This is the most common comment out their amongst kennel owners. These are the folks that are the victims of bullying. You people act all offended because they have fought back against you. You take offense at calling Anne, Shelley and Marina the "same" person yet you have no problem doing this to each licensed kennel in this state. You've lumped them all into one category and labeled each one of them as "mill." You've called them the ugliest of terms and this is why this state is on fire.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 5:12 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
samantha caldwell January 27, 2011 | 5:13 p.m.

Juan,
You just got a taste of what they are all about.
This is the true activist at work.
There is no reasoning with them and the word is spreading fast.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 27, 2011 | 5:30 p.m.

Mr Mendez,

Just ignore Terry Ward and Shelley Powers. They are even worse than "activists", they are like the "Manson Clan of Prop B". They give activists a bad name...

And I am not so sure that they don't have something "going on", the way Terry is always coming to Shelley's rescue..

But ya gotta hand it to Terry "it" is honest; "it" did say "it" is rude..........

Ignore'em and POST AWAY UNTIL YOUR HEART IS CONTENT!

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 5:39 p.m.

Samantha, the tos applies to people, not kennels.
And as no one has ever heard of you personally, no one has critisized you personally.
We find it curious that after months and months of this issue being discussed, YOU do not have one single post on this or any other subject.
As there are NO Missouri 'Caldwells' listed on Aphis, where exactly is your 'kennel'?
You seem to be repeating the rhetoric of the poster formerly known as 'jorrett',.
Are you possibly playing the hide-the-identity game?
We do not believe Jake Sherlock finds such games amusing.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 27, 2011 | 5:47 p.m.

Samantha,

Don't give Terry a single piece of information about yourself or your business. Just ignore "it"....

Jake Sherlock is supposed to be, and I believe is impartial and unbiased on this issue as a Reporter for this Newspaper. I don't think he will take exception to anyone expressing their opinion on this matter as long as they do it under their real name.

I don;t think that Jake Sherlock is "unintelligent" enough to let Terry entangle him in "it's" little "web". Although Terry "Patricia Krenwinkel" Ward does seem to be trying to entice him into taking her and Shelley's side on this issue......

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 27, 2011 | 5:59 p.m.

samantha caldwell, are you maria schmidt, and did you forget and log back in using the wrong persona?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 6:02 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Ricky Gurley January 27, 2011 | 6:02 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Ricky Gurley January 27, 2011 | 6:08 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Juan Mendez January 27, 2011 | 6:45 p.m.

Mr Gurley I will go back to digging through each section to ignore these types due to the left hot topic column is going to be useless.

Juan Mendez.

(Report Comment)
connie crewse January 27, 2011 | 7:10 p.m.

I went to the hearings on Wednesday, the 26th in Jeff City. I got to witness first hand, along with MANY other folks, the deceptive lies falling apart at the seams from their own mouths!

Everytime the committee asked each of them (HSMO, H$U$ Vet, and H$U$-Baker)what the definition of 'domesticated animal' was, their answers were vague to say the least. HSMO, that claims to have put the bill together, but yet couldn't even give an answer! As a matter of fact, one of the Representatives made this comment to her: "So you don't even know what the definition is, but yet you put it in the bill?" Oh my goodness, the look on her face when she got up was priceless! She was mad and I would venture to guess more mad at herself for looking so STUPID!

They were ALL given SEVERAL opportunities to redeem themselves, but instead made themselves look less and less credible! They hurt themselves by giving their own testimonies!
At one point, they even admitted that Prop B had FAULTS!!!

The POPULAR, and FREQUENT question from yesterday:

"What is your definintion of 'domesticated animal'?"

The DUMBEST, and FREQUENT answer from the humaniacs:
"D.A."........as in, DUH?!

Wayne Pacelle himself states that a 'domesticated animal' is any animal that is fenced in! They don't do well without their 'HITLER' babysitting them.

Argue the point until your blue in the face, but it's VERY obvious in Jeff City, that these special interest groups don't have a CLUE as to write animal husbandry into law......which is what we've said all along......don't try and write something into law when you don't know the first thing about animal husbandry or agriculture!

The committee punched holes in it really bad yesterday, and the H$U$ & H$MO left with their tail between their legs!

THE JIG IS UP!

Prop B is never going to work and they proved it yesterday with their comments and answers! Heck, even some of their own supporters were looking at each other in disbelief! It was a RIOT!

Heck, we don't have to say anything! They're doing a fabulous job by giving their own testimonies! It's like I said during Prop B, 'Give 'em enough rope, and they'll hang themselves!'

TRUTH WILL PREVAIL!

Bye Bye Prop B!!!!!!

Thank you Senators and Representatives for seeing through the lies and deception! Excellent questions too! Keep up the good work, and ALL of your RURAL Missourians are behind you ALL the WAY!

(Report Comment)
samantha caldwell January 27, 2011 | 7:19 p.m.

I was also there. We also found it to be amusing. I do believe our rural children could give more credible testimony than these "enlightened" folk. Daddy always said to tell the truth as there is alot less to remember. At one point I do believe that I giggled. One of my friends elbowed me in the ribs and said stop or you'll cause everyone in the room to giggle. I am still amazed at it all. This is what happens when you bully a group of people.
Bullying is a major topic these days. Not good.

(Report Comment)
samantha caldwell January 27, 2011 | 7:28 p.m.

I find the topic interesting from a totally different angle than agriculture.

(Report Comment)
connie crewse January 27, 2011 | 7:37 p.m.

Samantha,

Glad to hear you attended yesterday's events at the Capital. I think ALL the city folk should attend and see first hand what they voted for.......or see first hand the deceptive liars that they trusted!

I've talked to SEVERAL people that have commented that they feel like they were duped......hey, we tried to warn them, but you just cant' rationalize with irrational.

I truly believe that Prop B has been a blessing. I hated everything about it up until Nov 2nd, but now am realizing that because of it's NARROW pass, it's caused an uproar in not only our state, but several others, which is opening the eyes of MANY!

God works in mysterious ways, and sometimes we don't always like the outcome of things, but in this particular instance, it's working to expose these AR groups for what they truly are......LIARS!

I plan on attending more of these hearings, as I want to know first hand what is said, because the people that post on here (supporters) and everywhere else are doing nothing more than putting out H$U$ fires, and I'm pretty sure they smell of smoke badly by now! ;0)

I LOVE IT!

(Report Comment)
samantha caldwell January 27, 2011 | 7:45 p.m.

I attended both sessions and have been watching all of these comments over the past few months. I have no personal interest in this other than research. This deserves a book treatment. I've been observing the animal rights movement for quite some time and it seems that Missouri has given me the best material to work with. Several nice characters to flesh out.

(Report Comment)
connie crewse January 27, 2011 | 7:55 p.m.

If all your interest is in research, then you are right, Missouri's head on battle with these groups, is all you'll need.

You may want to check out Ohio too. I've heard that they are now proclaiming that they are the P.M. capital. I guess we've lost our title? They're actually using the same video clips with the matted Yorkies (from a hoarder)proclaiming that it's a Ohio breeder, just like they did here.

They bit off more than they can chew with Missouri farmers. They underestimated the hard working rural folks, and I'm sure they didn't anticipate this kind of a fight. You don't mess with farmers and their livelihoods.....especially here in Missouri!

(Report Comment)
samantha caldwell January 27, 2011 | 8:02 p.m.

Yes we are aware of Ohio. I have family there who have been a major help. I've been to Nebraska and have been monitoring the situation there with Gov. Heineman. I do know that other states are watching very closely.

(Report Comment)
connie crewse January 27, 2011 | 8:23 p.m.

Samantha, thank you for doing your part.

I believe if a lot more people become more involved, we can cripple them pretty bad.

The way the economy is now, and then to throw their nonsense into that equation......doesn't add up to anything good! We need to build up industries, not destroy them!

I don't know about you, but I want my 'domesticated animals' to ALL come from the U.S. and not China! Like I said before, if China can't even make baby/toddler toys without having a recall from lead, then what makes anyone think their food is going to be safe?

(Report Comment)
samantha caldwell January 27, 2011 | 8:38 p.m.

I believe that in the next few years that you will see a downward spiral. The economy is far from recovery and as we all know expenses keep going up. I think that you will see more of a call to human causes especially education. The high costs of college is a major issue and I believe that more will establish scholarships.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 27, 2011 | 8:52 p.m.

Out of sheer morbid curiosity, what College did you attend?

(Report Comment)
samantha caldwell January 27, 2011 | 9:02 p.m.

Rutgers

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire January 28, 2011 | 11:14 a.m.

Well then you should apply for a refund.

(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