advertisement

Missouri Senate panel approves changes to dog breeding law

Thursday, January 27, 2011 | 5:12 p.m. CST

JEFFERSON CITY — A Missouri Senate panel gave its approval to a bill changing the state law for dog breeders.

The Senate agriculture committee endorsed legislation Thursday that would modify a ballot measure approved by voters in November.

The bill would delete the limit of 50 dogs per breeder and give licensed breeders up to 180 days to correct serious violations before they face criminal charges.

The measure would still require veterinarians to do an on-site examination of the dogs at least once per year. Veterinarians would also care for seriously injured dogs and euthanizing them, if necessary.

The legislation next goes to the full Senate.

In the House, a committee considering similar bills finished hearing testimony Thursday and will debate amendments to them next week.

 


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 27, 2011 | 6:39 p.m.

And here we were thinking 'Deliverance' was just a movie.
L'il Abner done spoke.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 27, 2011 | 6:46 p.m.

I though that Marina said that the legislators were sprouting wings and flying to their desks to protest this? When she wrote her post, I thought the entire population of the United States showed up to protest this? Well, I feel MUCH better now because for a while there I thought I was left out of something......

WHEW! What a relief..

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward January 27, 2011 | 8:22 p.m.

L'il Abner done spoke.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley January 27, 2011 | 8:27 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Marina Shane January 27, 2011 | 9:41 p.m.

The "Senate Panel" is the Senate Agriculture Committee. Thankfully, this is only one step in the legislative process. The senate Ag Committee is extremely biased. There are many more steps that have to be taken before repeals or admendments to the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act actually happen.
.
Here's some stats about the Senate Agriculture Committee that you may not know:
.
- 3 of the 7 Committee members are the sponsors of the repeal/admendment bills: Sen Stouffer SB4, Sen Munzlinger SB95, Sen Parson SB113 (Conflict of interest?)
.
-5 of the 7 Committee Members have 800 of the 1568 of the 2010 Missouri Dept of Ag Licensed breeders in their Districts thereby representing the interests of more than half of Missouri's Dog Breeding industry making the committee 71% biased to the favor of the opposition to Prop B.
.
-Senator Brian Munzlinger, Chairman of this committee recieved 8.2% of his 2010 Campaign Contirbutions from Agricultural interests. He is a current member of Missouri Cattlemen's Association, Missouri Corn Growers Association, Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Grain Processors Co-operative, Missouri Soybean Association,
and serves on the Board of Directors for Northeast Missouri Grain Processors Co-op ethanol plan. (Conflict of Interest?)
.
-Senator Mike Parsons, Vice-Chairman of this committee, is an Owner/Manager of a Cow and Calf Operation and is a present Member of Missouri Cattlemen's Association and Missouri Farm Bureau. Of the $352,436 he recieved in Campaign Contributions, $71,814 is "Uncoded", $28,000 is "Ideology/Single Issue" & Agriculture is $2,175. So 1/3 of the money recieved is difficult to trace the origins. Sounds pretty fishy to me.
.
-Committee member, Senator Dan Brown, received donations from Agriculture interests in the amount of $3850 for 6.75% of his 2010 financing. He is a present member American Veterinary Medical Association, Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Farmers Association, Missouri Veterinary Medical Association & former Member of the Missouri Veterinary Licensing Board (Conflict of Interest?)
.
-Committee member,Senator Chuck Purgason, is Owner/Founder of Ozark Wings Hatchery/Hunting Preserve, Calf/Cow Farm. He is currently a member of Missouri Cattlemen's Association.
.
-Committee member, Senator Bill Stouffer's 2010 Donations from Agriculture was $1500 6.79% of the years fundraising. He is a current member of Missouri Cattlemen's Association, Missouri Corn Growers, Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Soybean Association, and on the Board of Directors/Past Chair, Missouri Farmers Association.
.
.
.
I would say this committee is more than a little biased toward the interest of BIG AGRICULTURE than toward the welfare of dogs living in substandard conditions.
Fortunately, there are more steps that need to be followed before the admendments made by this extremely biased committee can be made into law.
.
DEFEND PROP B. UPHOLD THE VOTE.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane January 27, 2011 | 9:52 p.m.

For those who support Prop B:
.
Please call, write, & email your legislators. Here are some helpful links for reference in your efforts with your legislators:
.
http://www.maal.org/Puppy-Mills.asp
.
http://www.maal.org/PM_QA.asp
.
http://www.maal.org/PM_QA.asp
.
And if you are not sure who your legislators are, you can look up that information at: http://www.maal.org/findMyLegislators.as...
.
DEFEND PROP B. UPHOLD THE VOTE.
.
Marina Shane-Lewis

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking January 28, 2011 | 4:29 a.m.

Marina Shane wrote:

"I would say this committee is more than a little biased toward the interest of BIG AGRICULTURE than toward the welfare of dogs living in substandard conditions."

Except dog breeding is not BIG AGRICULTURE. These are small operations relative to the massive feedlots and "square mile" farms that make up corporate ag in this state. There is not a lot of money to be made doing this. Breeding is very expensive, especially to do it right, and this is a large part of the reason that an effective opposition was not mounted.

However, they make an important contribution to the economies of these rural counties. Many times, there's little else to do to make a living (usually a very modest one). To portray dog breeding as a huge, corporate enterprise is deliberately misleading, and plays to people's emotional responses to that.

HSUS spent millions of dollars on a media blitz, often using footage from breeding operations that were already illegal, to pull at people heartstrings. The breeders were the underdogs here, and it's telling they did as well as they did in the election.

DK

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 28, 2011 | 7:27 a.m.

The reporting on the bill passed is incomplete. The statements made by the senators did not encompass all of the changes made with this bill. You have to view the entire text of the bill to see all the changes.

This bill completely removes every single Proposition B provision.

More at

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

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 28, 2011 | 7:39 a.m.

Mark Foeking

Forrest Lucas, of Lucas Oil and Cattle, paid $350,000 for a series of ads against Proposition B in the few weeks before the election. At a meeting with Senator Parson in Bolivar about two months ago, he said he considered this a fight against HSUS, which he, and others in the cattlemen's association and other well funded agricultural organizations, will fight in any state, in relation to any bill.

That the bill is popular among the people in this state is irrelevant. That the bill is about dogs, not cattle, is irrelevant. That the bill would correct egregious mistreatment of dogs at commercial breeders, is irrelevant.

These are not small Mom and Pop people--these are people with a lot of money, and a lot of influence in the Missouri legislature.

They really don't care one way or another about dog breeders. What they don't like is any bill related to rural animal legislation being placed before the voters on this state. They can influence the state representatives, but can't as easily influence the voters of the state.

Right now, in addition to the eight bills against Proposition B, there are two other bills under discussion in this legislative session that would amend the state Constitution to prohibit any future citizen initiatives that relate to farming and animals, period.

There is no other limitation to the citizen initiative process based on industry type.

This kind of influence in state government does not arise from those who save their pennies and clip coupons.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 28, 2011 | 7:49 a.m.

And Mark Foeking, I find it ironic that you talk about HSUS "tugging at heartstrings" with video of bad breeders, in the same comment where you reference the poor, small, not to mention underdog, farmer, seemingly trying to eke out a living in the barren, hardscrabble back country of Missouri.

(Report Comment)
Laura L January 28, 2011 | 10:21 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Shelley Powers January 29, 2011 | 8:45 a.m.

OMG!

Proposition B leads to shortage in puppy flour!

http://www.thechicagodope.com/2011/01/28...

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking January 29, 2011 | 9:36 a.m.

Shelley Powers wrote:

"Forrest Lucas, of Lucas Oil and Cattle, paid $350,000 for a series of ads against Proposition B in the few weeks before the election."

I'm glad he did, but that doesn't change the fact that HSUS spent a lot more money than any of the opposition. I sympathize with him - my experience with what animal rights activists have done to animal research doesn't make me think that HSUS won't come back and support even more restricive laws in the future.

I don't really understand your second comment. Most legal breeders DON'T get rich doing it. Animal husbandry of any type is one of the lowest paying occupations in this country.

No one has ever shown thst the breeders shown in those deceptive commercials were in any way typical of the industry. The fact there are bad breeders (which are already against the law) does not mean all, or even a few, of them are that way. I think our legislators understand that.

DK

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers January 30, 2011 | 3:41 p.m.

Mark Foeking, so it's OK for other outside interests to spend money, but not HSUS? Or is the degree of money? Or is it just that the money is from evil outside interests when you don't agree, good use of funds when you do?

I'm finding that the line you draw between sides becomes quite mutable. It's OK for Forrest Lucas to spend a great deal of money, but not HSUS.

Same with my second comment: it's wrong of HSUS and other Proposition B to evoke emotions, but it's OK for you and others on the anti-Proposition B to evoke emotion.

So, pictures of sick, miserable dogs are out; pictures of the poor, hardworking farmer, are in.

You have a negative view of animal rights/welfare organizations because of your experiences as a researcher. That's your right.

But these organizations only have power because ultimately they reflect people's changing attitudes about how we use animals in this country.

So you might as well be against the majority of people in this state, and country, too.

(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