advertisement

GUEST COMMENTARY: Unlicensed breeders at heart of Prop B problem

Tuesday, February 1, 2011 | 1:45 p.m. CST; updated 3:17 p.m. CST, Wednesday, February 2, 2011

For the last several weeks, Jefferson City has been the scene of heated debates about whether the legislature should amend or repeal Proposition B, the "puppy mill" initiative passed by the voters in November. Large numbers of proponents and opponents have forcefully articulated their respective positions — many of them in my office.

When working on difficult, contentious legislative issues, finding a point of common agreement is often helpful. One point on which both the proponents and the opponents of Proposition B agree is that unlicensed dog breeders are a major source of the problem.

Both sides have intellectual and practical reasons to oppose unlicensed breeders. Unlicensed breeders are clearly one source of the inhumanely treated puppies that has been responsible for our state's unfortunate "puppy mill" reputation.

Prop B, as passed by the voters, applies only to licensed breeders. Left unaddressed is how to finance the enforcement of licensing requirements. If unlicensed breeders are a major contributor to the conditions that motivated Prop B supporters, and Prop B opponents likewise see a problem with them, shouldn't we then address the issue of unlicensed breeders?

While honoring the will of the voters, I have been trying to puzzle out some reasonable and practical solution, or at least partial solution, to the puppy dilemma. Here is one idea. At this point I am not even comfortable calling it a good idea, but I would like to share it with you in order to gain the benefit of your thinking.

What if Missouri were to create a civil action for operating an unlicensed dog breeding facility? That is, a citizen who knew of an unlicensed facility could file a court action against the unlicensed "puppy mill." The law would specify a maximum number of puppies one could sell without a permit­ — for example, 15 — or perhaps two litters per year. Thus, people who breed their family pets and sell the puppies would be excluded. Those who sell more than this number would be subject to the licensing requirements.

The only criterion needed to bring suit against an unlicensed operation selling more than the legal limit would be the operator's lack of a permit. If one operated a facility and sold more than a specified number of puppies per year without a permit, the matter would be regarded as proven. Any citizen could bring the lawsuit.

If proven by the court that the individual operated an unlicensed breeding facility, the offending breeder would be ordered to pay a standard, predetermined penalty, perhaps $3,000, and the matter would be resolved. There would be no need to prove damages, thus resulting in lower legal fees and less court time.

The money would be divided equally between the person bringing suit and a fund established for the enforcement of dog-breeding regulations. The offending breeder would also be responsible for all court costs and attorney fees. Should a frivolous or malicious suit be filed, the defendant (i.e., the breeder) could recover all costs, legal fees, and a specified fine for bringing a frivolous action.

My inclination would be to "sunset" the law in five years. If this approach effectively addresses the problem, then the law could disappear. If not, the legislature could modify or renew it.

The advantage of such a plan is that the state would not have to depend solely upon already overworked and underfunded animal control officers for enforcement. The legal requirement is simple and well-defined. Does the breeder who sells puppies have a proper permit? If not, the breeder pays.

As I said above, I am not sure whether this is a good approach, but as your state legislator, I figure we're in this partnership together — I can float an idea and you can tell me what you think. Please do.

Chris Kelly is the state representative for District 24. E-mail him at chris@chriskelly24.com or chris.kelly@house.mo.gov or call him at (573) 489-0684.


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

Randy Burgs February 1, 2011 | 2:12 p.m.

Typically the unlicensed breeder would be selling to brokers. What if, a broker would have to verify that the kennel had a license. If they are shipping or delivering dogs, a vet certificate is required. Have airlines and vets also verify license. That would catch the majority of unlicensed people.

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 1, 2011 | 3:09 p.m.

I also put this as a correction but just so you all know:

There is already a way to report unlicensed breeders. It's called Operation Bark Alert. http://mda.mo.gov/animals/ACFA/barkalert...

And any breeder who has more than 10 intact females HAS to be licensed.

http://mda.mo.gov/animals/ACFA/ The links that can be found at this site tell you a little more about what goes in to the registration process.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 1, 2011 | 3:35 p.m.

And the offending breeder goes right back to breeding dogs, as
$3000 is the price they receive from less than two puppies.

Proved by this breeder in Rogersville...oft arrested in other states as an abusive puppymiller.

http://frenchiepuppies.com/category/fren...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 1, 2011 | 3:41 p.m.

Posted: 2009-10-31
Wendy Laymon has not stopped breeding (3 year ban) as ordered by the USDA. She has simply abandoned the sites for which a internet search yields multiple complaints and information on her disturbing history. In Washington she was court ordered to operate under one business name, and one only. But, yet again, she has simply switched names as each name becomes soiled by her poor practices. The woman behind frenchiebabies.com and webfrenchies is now operating under afrenchbulldog.com. At this time, in violation of the USDA order, she has 14 puppies for sale.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 1, 2011 | 3:43 p.m.

DECEMBER - 17 - 2010

Laymon sells puppies (or has done business) under many business names, none of which are registered as fictitious business names in the state of MO as of April 2010, including:

•Shadow Mountain Ranch (name used on her current MO license)

•The Bulldog Connection (www.thebulldogconnecion.com/)

•Frenchie Babies (www.frenchiebabies.com/)

•Web Frenchies (www.webfrenchies.com/)

•Love My Bullie (www.k-designco.com/lovemybullie/)

•A French Bulldog (www.afrenchbulldog.com/)

During a routine state kennel inspection on 02/10/10, the Animal Health Officer inspecting Laymon’s kennel noted that “the last inspection conducted by the attending veterinarian was January 2008,” more than two years before.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 1, 2011 | 4:48 p.m.

I am confused at this guest column.

Representative Kelly, where in the Proposition B text does it say, "This applies to licensed breeders, only". I have the thing practically memorized right now because of so many assertions made about what it does or does not have. I know for a fact that there is nothing in the text about it being for licensed breeders.

Secondly, there is already a Class A misdemeanor for commercially breeding dogs without a license. The same as there are existing regulations already that define exactly who must have a license: anyone who has more than three intact dogs who breed the dogs for the express purpose of selling the offspring as pets. Hobby and show breeders must still register, but do not have to be licensed.

Wholesale breeders and dealers, such as brokers, and breeders who sell to brokers, must also be licensed with the USDA. Puppies are given identification that follows them from breeder to broker to pet store.

These laws exist now, and Proposition B has no impact on them at all.

So, I'm confused as to what this guest column is supposed to accomplish.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand February 1, 2011 | 6:03 p.m.

We have Bark Alert to report "puppy mills" already in place. It looks as if there were only 13 animal cruelty cases in the State of Missouri and out of those 13 cases, one was considered a "puppy mill" situation. Wow! So where is the real problem that Prop B is going to fix??? Oklahoma had reported injuries from dogs burned with fire or fireworks, Mutilation/Torture, beating and stabbing and Florida was the highest out of the 50 states with 81 cases. There is currently only one court case that I am aware of, that is a result of an unhealthy puppy being sold, which of course is being brought on by the help of HSUS. So I really do not see Missouri being the big bad "puppy mill" state that HSUS has made us out to be. I see no reason to send 1,400+ to the unemployment line based on manipulative propaganda brought on by animal rights activists.

http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_d...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_79...

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 1, 2011 | 6:29 p.m.

Jessica Bryand,

The BBB wrote a report based on the numbers of complaints it had received about sick puppies originating in Missouri.

http://www.maal.org/BBB2010Study.asp

I would say this accounts for more than one puppy.

Animal cruelty cases rarely end up in court. In most of the cases of breeders in Missouri, the breeder voluntarily gave up the dogs when confronted by inspectors.

As for the breeders, I've been through hundreds of USDA inspection reports and have seen incidents of dogs in weather like we're having now with only a thin "igloo" for a shelter and a bit of straw to keep warm. And this is legal.

Can you imagine what these poor dogs are going through this week? Makes me sick thinking how miserable the dogs are right now.

(Report Comment)
Mike Frese February 1, 2011 | 7:17 p.m.

Jessica,

I was just at an animal shelter that had dogs in exactly the same conditions you deplore. Why not the concern for them?

(Report Comment)
Mike Frese February 1, 2011 | 7:19 p.m.

It seems the problem exits because people prefer pure breds vs. adopting from shelters. So that may be the place where the funding comes from to enforce any laws that are on the books.

Would $1000 tax per pure bred dog bought fund the means to enforce the laws?

You have to have the means to go after the illegal breeders.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand February 1, 2011 | 7:21 p.m.

Shelley believe it or not, but some dogs were meant to be out in this weather! I know that is a shocker for you to imagine. As I have pointed out once before, the BBB Report = 0.12%, that is the number of complaints and reports against Missouri dog breeders to the number of puppies sold in Missouri. Less than 1% and the report does not even state if those were from licensed or unlicensed facilities. Even the HSUS does not have a less than 1% complaint rating. I wonder how much the HSUS or the Humane Society of Missouri paid for that BBB report???

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 1, 2011 | 7:59 p.m.

Makes me sick thinking how miserable the [deer] are right now.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer February 1, 2011 | 8:16 p.m.

117 complaints per year from 1800 licensed breeders and/or how many unlicensed or backyard breeders? One percent of the puppies sold is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Reminds me of the amount of donated money HSUS sends to shelters each year. Pretty insignificant.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 1, 2011 | 8:22 p.m.

Jessica endlessly speculates and accuses as to who pays whom what, who is in who's pocket, who is on which secret payroll...

We wish we had a dollar for every time Jessica accused us of receiving Wayne-money and PETA-checks.
Jessica now claims to have the inside scoop on the nefarious BBB.
Jessica would perhaps be happier at the IRS.
She could then send all her enemies to prison.
And all the puppy-millers would be safe from harm.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 1, 2011 | 8:22 p.m.

Jessica, unless every breeder in this state raises north territory dog sled dogs, no dog is so adapted to minus zero degree weather as to be left out in this 24x7.

And where do you get your count of puppies? From where do you derive your figures? From the same source where you get all your other "facts"?

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer February 1, 2011 | 8:33 p.m.

Mr. Kelly, I am glad you are giving some thought to the real problem in Missouri: illegal breeders. I think everyone should have to be licensed to raise puppies. That would certainly generate more funds for enforcement. Are you suggesting that perhaps having over 3 female breeding dogs should qualify you to need to be licensed? I would certainly agree with that. Actually, if you sell even one puppy to a broker or pet store and have more than 3 breeding females, you have to be USDA and MODA licensed now. I have often wondered why you should be exempt just because you didn't sell wholesale. Is it about the dogs, or where you sell puppies?

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand February 1, 2011 | 8:35 p.m.

Shelley, my "facts" came from your link you posted for the BBB.

http://stlouis.bbb.org/Storage/142/Docum...

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 1, 2011 | 8:36 p.m.

Chris: Your solution merits discussion, but I have a fundamental question:

Why not elevate individual counties in this matter? If a county thinks there is a problem, empower them to handle it. Why does the state have to get involved? Seems we legislate to give more power "up" rather than what is more efficiently done "down" at the local levels.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 1, 2011 | 8:36 p.m.

Here are the actual Missouri pet-abuse statistics which Jessica seems to have overlooked.

http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_d...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 1, 2011 | 8:42 p.m.

Actual Missouri pet-abuse statistics which Jessica seems to have overlooked:

http://www.pet-abuse.com/pages/cruelty_d...

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 1, 2011 | 8:58 p.m.

Jessica, your facts, do not include the number of puppies sold, to derive your percentages, nor do they encompass the fact that most puppies from Missouri are sold in other states, such as New York and California.

When most people end up buying a sick puppy, they're more likely to complain about the pet store, not the breeder. And many aren't likely to complain to the BBB at all.

The point of the BBB report, is how uncooperative the commercial dog breeders are compared to other businesses. And the fact that both the USDA and the Missouri Depart of Ag have not been particularly good on acting on some of the worst breeders.

But let's look at other sources of information on sick puppies. Pet Shop Puppies is a web site that helps people track the puppies they buy from pet stores back to the breeders. The site also tracks medical problems with the puppies.

I picked a random town in what I know to be a section of Missouri that has several breeders, and then selected a town, Marshfield. The first breeder I picked was Dorothy Hansen. The PetShopPuppies report for Hansen

http://www.petshoppuppies.com/report.asp...

Over half the puppies had problems. And this is a breeder who doesn't have any USDA violations.

That's just one smaller breeder. Even one of the most open breeders involved in all of this, Hubert and Sharon Lavy, who have been willing to invite reporters to their place has several entries at PetShopPuppies.

http://www.petshoppuppies.com/report.asp...

I'm thinking of the Lavy's when I look out at the weather, because, as you can see from a previous Missourian article, most of their dogs are raised outdoors.

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

So, are yorkies a dog that loves minus zero temps?

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/multim...

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 1, 2011 | 9:02 p.m.

"Can you imagine what these poor dogs are going through this week? Makes me sick thinking how miserable the dogs are right now."

I ain't been happy this week either. Come a thaw, we'll all feel better.

Hope Rep Kelly remembers that 5 year "sunset" in his future legislative offerings. Great idea.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer February 1, 2011 | 9:09 p.m.

Jessica, you said it! The HSUS set Missouri up for Prop B, beginning with the label puppymill. The slanderous, derogative term was at first directed at substandard, unregulated breeders.

Then the BBB (prompted by HSUS) generated a negative, rather deceptive report aimed at the 'bad breeders'. HSUS paid signature gatherers, again being deceitful and not informing the signers properly about the bill, using the buzz words 'puppymill' and 'cruelty'.
HSUS and other animal rights activists then promoted Prop B with millions of dollars, lies, and non-stop totally deceptive tv commercials. Here comes the best deception: For those many voters who saw the commercials, but did not read the bill (except maybe what was on the ballot), who thought they were voting to regulate and punish puppymills......guess what? They find out that the legitimate, already regulated, good dog breeders were the ones the HSUS called puppymills and that they had voted to regulate and punish out of business! Of course, the illegal breeders are left to thrive!

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand February 1, 2011 | 9:30 p.m.

Terry, I should have posted that I looked at cases for the previous year. Hopefully those that followed the link could pick any year they would care to look at.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand February 1, 2011 | 10:37 p.m.

Shelley, maybe you should read your links you use to back up your "facts." The BBB report states how many one business sells each year, 90,000. So, really, there is more than 90,000 puppies sold out of Missouri each year, which would make the 0.12% lower.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 1, 2011 | 11:13 p.m.

Jessica, other people can read _all_ my comment, so can we drop the pretense.

As for my earlier comment on sled dogs, I made that before reading the recent news

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/sled+do...

Of course, according to some Missouri state representatives and the anti-Proposition B folk, dogs are only property.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 1, 2011 | 11:17 p.m.

PS So Jessica, are yorkies a dog that likes minus zero temperatures?

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 12:00 a.m.

sorry, this may seem a bit petty, but something can't be minus zero degrees, it's either below zero, or zero, but it's not minus zero...

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand February 2, 2011 | 2:11 a.m.

Well, now we all know as to Shelley's abilities and knowledge on animal husbandry. I hope she is not an owner of a yorkie.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 6:25 a.m.

Jessica sneers and would demean Shelley's "abilities" without any proof?
Jessica would disparage Shelley's "knowledge" in PUBLIC in order to further her own agenda?
Jessica believes that engaging in witch hunts speaks well of her cause?
Jessica thinks that attacking Shelley is an effective method of getting her point across?
We would suggest that the need to resort to such sordid behavior PROVES that Jessica's anti-Prop B agenda is nefarious and that her cause is self serving and meritless.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 9:35 a.m.

Mr. Kelly suggests that 'a citizen who knew of an unlicensed facility could file a court action against the unlicensed "puppy mill."

Mr Kelly believes that Missouri citizens should "locate and observe breeding kennels" in order to report them?

Is Mr. Kelly aware of the inevitable consequences of such a thing?

EVERY SINGLE PROP B SUPPORTER HAS BEEN ACCUSED AGAIN AND AGAIN OF BEING AN 'ANIMAL-RIGHTS TERRORIST'.

Any 'citizen' who would attempt to locate and observe a breeding facility would therefore be a target of ANYONE wishing to invoke the
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act.

From the MOFED website:
"Who is Behind Prop B?
" the extremist animal liberation/rights community, including domestic agricultural terrorist groups"

Mr; Kelly wishes to 'set up' any citizen who attempts to question the conditions in a breeding-kennel in order to subject them to possible FEDERAL criminal charges by wealthy groups such as MOFED?

WE suggest that this is an attempt to stifle any attempt to end
even the UNLICENSED breeder.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 2, 2011 | 9:39 a.m.

Caitlin, I appreciate the correction.

I should have said minus one degree or said below zero. I get caught up in the passion of the argument at times and make typos.

Jessica, are yorkies dogs that like below zero temperatures?

The reason I specifically ask about yorkies is because yorkies don't have an undercoat, and are _particularly susceptible to cold weather_.

(Report Comment)
Gary Franklin February 2, 2011 | 10:27 a.m.

I've read several comment sections in various news outlets. I have read some comments made where farmers are called "lazy." Terry and Shelley would you like to come out into rural Missouri and help us feed the livestock today?
Care to see how "lazy" rural farmers are? I just spent the last 48 hrs out in this blizzard. There beside me were my golden retriever and lab who romped in the snow.

(Report Comment)
Gary Franklin February 2, 2011 | 10:30 a.m.

This is a post being put out on the internet by rural Missourians. I don't think that people like you have a clue as to what hard work really is.

BREAKING NEWS: There will be NO farms closed due to the upcoming blizzard!!!Each and every farmer will be out in the blistery, cold, blowing wind and heavy snow tending to their livestock. They will be praying for machinery to work and non-frozen water pipes. If you know or LOVE a farmer, say a prayer for him or her and repost ......so our prayer chain can grow.

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock February 2, 2011 | 10:37 a.m.

Terry says "EVERY SINGLE PROP B SUPPORTER HAS BEEN ACCUSED AGAIN AND AGAIN OF BEING AN 'ANIMAL-RIGHTS TERRORIST'." Well every person who opposes prob B has been accused of being a animal abuser and a puppy mill supporter.

Shelly unless animals are wild they are considered property. If my dog bites another person it isn't the dog that gets sued it is me. While I am sure you want animals to have the same rights as humans I am afraid until they can pay their own way they will have to be "owned."

Everyone keeps talking about the "will of the people." The will of the people have been wrong from time to time throughout history. If the will of the people decided to drain the bank accounts of everyone who made more than 50K would that be morally right? What about if the will of the people wanted to outlaw owning cattle all together? What if the will of the people wanted to outlaw a certain type of dog like pits? Sometimes the people can be fooled with the proper marketing. Just look at some of our elected officials.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 11:16 a.m.

Mr. Franklin will no doubt agree that "Each and every farmer out in the blistery, cold, blowing wind" will be joined by cops and firefighters and truck drivers and postal employees and every other person who must work in these difficult conditions.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 11:26 a.m.

Mr. Sharrock might revisit his extensive knowledge of property law.
Animals are deemed 'property' in legal disputes.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 2, 2011 | 11:30 a.m.

Gary Franklin, I have called no farmers lazy. However, I'm not going to be polite about large scale commercial dog breeders who cut costs in order to maximize profits, either.

Allan Sharrock, and is the will of the state representatives any more accurate? This is a guest column by Representative Kelly, and by what he writes, he doesn't even seem to be familiar with existing laws.

People in St. Louis County can only own a maximum of three dogs. Other laws restrict other animal ownership, as well as provide regulations on how animals are treated.

Dogs are not hammers or pieces of plastic pipe--they have needs including the need to be warm when its cold, cool when its hot, fed, watered, allowed room to move about, and be free from fear and well cared for. If you believe it is acceptable to deny any of these, because the dogs are "property", then we can never find common agreement.

As for calling those who are against Proposition B as being for puppy mills, I would stand by this one.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 11:50 a.m.

We are the culprits Mr. Franklin is speaking of, regarding this comment:

"Missouri's New World Order of 'farmers' too lazy to actually FARM have turned to hawking puppies as their new cash crop."

We stand by our statement.

We do not consider farmers who raise and breed livestock as 'lazy'.

We DO consider those who would CALL themselves 'farmers' yet raise and breed dogs as not only lazy but also supremely insulting to REAL farmers.
And likely criminally inept at the care and management of household pets.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley February 2, 2011 | 11:50 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 12:38 p.m.

Mr. Gurley seems to fear us, otherwise why would he utilize his bully-mechanisims?
Mr. Gurley has often professed boredom with regard to Prop b.

Is he again wishing merely to insert his personal opinion of us in order to prevent any discussion other than his own?

We would think Mr. Gurley has better things to do than express his disapproval of us over and over again and forever attempt to 'run us off' the CM.
Perhaps Mr. Gurley derives some secret pleasure in this activity.

Or perhaps he really HAS nothing better to do.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley February 2, 2011 | 12:48 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Gary Franklin February 2, 2011 | 2:41 p.m.

When you use the term "farmer" you offend those who are in the farming business. It makes no difference what their specialty is. You've crossed the line.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 2, 2011 | 2:55 p.m.

What, Gary Franklin, you've trademarked the term "farmer"?

Crossed the line? Is this like when two little boys stand off, and one draws a line in the dirt and dares, no double dares, the other to step over it?

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley February 2, 2011 | 2:55 p.m.

Gary,

I am just curious, thats all. Just wondering.. Why is the word "farmer" offensive here?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Gary Franklin February 2, 2011 | 3:13 p.m.

Clarify: farmers are offended when they see "lazy farmers" in the comment sections. It makes no difference as to specialty. To them farmer is farmer. Several of the comments have made the rounds on the internet and it has fueled the grass roots fire in this state. The campaign used the same tactics. All kennel owners were deemed to be "mills." You offended the kennel industry with this. Alot of hard working honest people have been maligned. These people have nothing but contempt for you now. You sit back and whine about them fighting back? What planet do you live on?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 3:21 p.m.

Then we will call ourselves 'farmer' and be offended also!

(Report Comment)
Elizabeth Brixey February 2, 2011 | 3:22 p.m.

Hello, all. This is Liz Brixey, one of the city editors at the Missourian. Chris Kelly just called and said he'd really like to hear from you directly. (He wasn't able to jump into this comment stream, so I'm forwarding his message.) He asks that you get in touch with him at chris.kelly@house.mo.gov or (573) 489-0684. This information is also at the bottom of his column.

(Report Comment)
Amanda Collins February 2, 2011 | 3:25 p.m.

I am concerned that an outside special interest group brought millions of dollars into Missouri to wage a campaign against a Missouri industry. The truly disturbing thing is that millions of dollars have been wasted that could have done our rescues and shelters alot of good. I've noticed that they want to distance themselves from HSUS. Please do not try to hide from that issue. You could not have mounted your campaign without Wayne. The word is spreading on that bird. You are completely not subscribed to reality when it comes to controlling the pet population. People will import those puppies from out of state, illegal mills will pop up everywhere and you will also see more international imports. You make claims that there are poor puppies now? Get ready folks.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 3:28 p.m.

We have made no attempt to hide anything we have ever posted anywhere on this or any other subject for just this reason.

We have often praised highly the efforts of responsible breeders, and actually count various responsible breeders amongst our friends.

Mr. Franklin can provide links to our offensive 'all kennels are puppy-mills' comments?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 2, 2011 | 3:40 p.m.

Gary Franklin, fair enough on "lazy farmer". I get offended when I read about "misinformed" or "ignorant" voters.

Amanda Collins, why do I have a feeling your name really isn't Amanda Collins?

Unless you want to imply that HSUS bought votes and broke election law, you're complaint lacks substance--especially with the extent of outside money that was spent on the No on Proposition B site from outside interests, and still being spent, as well as the outside interest money that went into the campaigns for Roy Blunt and others.

As for the black market puppies, I think we have things being smuggled into this country of greater concern.

(Report Comment)
Matt Matt February 2, 2011 | 3:41 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Matt Matt February 2, 2011 | 3:45 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Matt Matt February 2, 2011 | 3:47 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 3:49 p.m.

"Amanda Collins" has popped in possibly from outer space?

No "Amanda Collins' seems to have posted anything anywhere on this hotly contested subject.

Yet here she is, suddenly, bemoaning her rhetorical tales of woe regarding the HSUS.

(Report Comment)
Matt Matt February 2, 2011 | 3:49 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Matt Matt February 2, 2011 | 3:53 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 3:53 p.m.

"Matt Matt" lurks behind a doppelganger!

We do not believe doppelgangers are acceptable here.

(Report Comment)
Jake Sherlock February 2, 2011 | 3:59 p.m.

@Matt Matt

You are required to post under your real name at ColumbiaMissourian.com. This is why your previous posts have been taken down. I tried to email you, but the address you listed bounced back at me. If you'd like me to restore your comments, you may email me at SherlockJ@missouri.edu and I'll be happy to post them again under your real name.

Thanks,

Jake Sherlock
Missourian opinion editor.

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 4:25 p.m.

I agree with what Amanda had to say. The HSUS came in with their money to try and change OUR laws. If I personally had the money to, I would take them to court over this because they lobbied too much here. "The law makes it very clear how much a 501(c)(3) organization can spend on lobbying - up to $1 million depending on the size of the organization."(http://www.asaecenter.org/Resources/whitepaperdetail.cfm?ItemNumber=12202)"Early reports indicate more than $2 million was expended on advertising. Shively has heard other reports that the total could have ballooned to more than $6 million." (http://www.whig.com/story/news/Wilson-Co...)

Looking at it from this viewpoint, the bill should not have even been voted on.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 5:01 p.m.

Caitlin McEwen wishes to act as arbiter regarding what voters can and cannot vote upon?
We would venture a guess that this will be a hard sell.
Especially from one who receives their legislative skills from humanewatch.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 2, 2011 | 5:21 p.m.

Caitlin McEwin,

I've had exchanges with Wilson at the Quincy Herald Whig about errors and factual representations in his story--after getting access to the USDA letters sent to the breeders. Mr. Wilson has a selective interpretation of "fact".

And you're confusing lobbying with campaign contributions. You're also making the same error others have made: there were several parties, in Missouri and out, who contributed for the Prop B campaign. HSUS was the biggest, but certainly not the only.

And let's also not forget the other out of state money that went into the campaign against Proposition B.

More on people behaving badly to dogs: a stupid woman tried to mail a puppy using regular mail

http://www.vancouversun.com/Postal+worke...

Yet another story of another person treating a dog as "property".

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley February 2, 2011 | 5:24 p.m.

Well since Mr. Kelly seems to be watching the board, I'll give my official position on this issue here..

This whole situation is much like many professional licensing situations..

It has absolutely nothing to do with the safety and welfare of these dogs that are being bred by these kennels or "puppy mills", or what have you.

This is just another way to generate revenue for the state. There is no purpose for Prop B. that can not already be served with the enforcement of the laws that we already had on the books prior to Prop B. You can "regulate" all day long, but without enforcement regulation means nothing. And if you want to enforce some type of law to protect these pets; then enforce the animal cruelty laws and stop wasting the citizen's money with this B.S. legislation!

The solution is simple in my view. Pass legislation that makes our local law enforcement agencies have to enforce the animal cruelty laws that were already on the books prior to the state trying to stick it's hands further in our pockets!

All these "Terror Activists" like Shelley and Terry do is propagate what should be a non-existent fear and intimidate reasonable people into withholding logical points of view. If the people reading these articles did not have to put up with the annoyances of Terry and Shelley, you'd probably get a wider cross-section of people here giving just about the same opinion.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner February 2, 2011 | 5:39 p.m.

I've read here comments about the cold weather well it is supposed to go to 9 below zero here tonight, I for one am sure glad the new law is not in effect yet because it reads [(6) ”Regular exercise” means constant and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area that is composed of a solid, ground level surface with adequate drainage; provides some protection against sun, wind, rain, and snow; and provides each dog at least twice the square footage of the indoor floor space provided to that dog.] I have a couple dogs that would stay out in this weather if I let it up to them to decide,and they would end up freezing to death so does that make this new law the right thing to do? also what about a female with pups being left to have access to these extreme temps. pups will get outside and freeze or in summer get outside and die of heat extremes this bill wasn't thought out properly in my opinion. There are some good things in this bill for those who do not do things properly but most of those laws already exist they just are not being enforced the way they should be

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 2, 2011 | 6:07 p.m.

Stanley Stoner?

Seriously?

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner February 2, 2011 | 6:17 p.m.

Yes seriously, I copied the part in brackets directly from the bill and yes seriously,I have a couple dogs that would stay out in this extreme cold if you let it up to them

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 6:35 p.m.

1st, I love how hard it is to see that a name is spelled correctly.

2nd, thank you to Stanley for pointing that out. Anyone from the HSUS or HSMO care to respond as to how "unfettered access to the outdoors" would be good for any animal right now?

I cannot wait for the legislators to meet again after this weather settles down so we can see if the revisions will pass. If they aren't going to completely repeal the bill, at least the revision takes care of stupid clauses like the aforementioned.

Since I have nothing better to do in this charming weather I'll outline the revisions: (mind you, there is a statement that this is not finalized, and it is even stated that "These Bills are not official copies and should not be quoted or cited. The official copy is the paper copy, which may be obtained from the Senate Bill Room." However, since I cannot get to Jefferson City, I am going to go off of this until I can get the paper copy.

"EXPLANATION--Matter enclosed in bold-faced brackets [thus] in this bill is not enacted and is intended to be omitted in the law." Anything that comes from the bill is in quotes. Also, since I cannot bold the new words, I am putting the new wording or phrases in (parentheses).

"[Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may have
20 custody of more than fifty covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals
21 and selling any offspring for use as a pet.
22 5.]"

Now, while you may disagree with this statement because "dogs are pets, not livestock" the dogs are property and in this case a product. Government cannot limit private property, nor can they limit how many products a company has or sells. While I agree that restrictions need to be in place so that live products are not injured, I do not think that limiting the product is the way to do that.

"(1) "Adequate rest between breeding cycles" means, at minimum, ensuring
25 that (female) dogs are not bred to produce more than two litters in any
26 [eighteen-month] twelve-month period; "

The female was added to clarify that it is only the female dogs on rest. The revised bill actually restricts breeding even further, so I don't see how that can be argued as being a bad thing.

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 6:36 p.m.

"(3) "Necessary veterinary care" means, at minimum, examination (or a
31 site visit to the facility) at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian, prompt
32 treatment of any illness or injury [by a licensed veterinarian], and where needed,
33 humane euthanasia [by a licensed veterinarian] using lawful techniques deemed
34 acceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association;"

The site visit was added because let's say that a breeder has 30 dogs total (males, females, pups) and the vet were to have to do an exam on each of them. If it's a 10 minute exam the vet would be there for 5 hours. That's a little extreme. The licensed veterinarian was taken out because a vet does not have to come out every time a dog is slightly ill. As for the humane euthanasia, the laws are already on the books according to the AVMA.

"(5) "Pet" means any [domesticated animal] (species of the domestic
39 dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids,) normally maintained in
40 or near the household of the owner thereof; "

Domesticated animal was taken out and replaced with the definition of a dog just to specify that this is pertaining to dogs. Again, no one should get upset because it's just additionally wording to clarify.

"(6) "Regular exercise" means [constant and unfettered access to an
42 outdoor exercise area that is composed of a solid ground-level surface with
43 adequate drainage, provides some protection against sun, wind, rain, and snow,
44 and provides each dog at least twice the square footage of the indoor floor space
45 provided to that dog] (that which is consistent with regulations
46 promulgated by the Missouri department of agriculture);"

1: the constant and unfettered access to an outdoor area would kill dogs in todays weather... To rectify the situation, the statement that which is consistent with regulations promulgated by the Missouri department of agriculture has been added, simply meaning that as long as each dog is exercised in accordance to MoDA regulations the dogs will be ok.

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 6:37 p.m.

"(8) "Sufficient food and clean water" means [access to appropriate
52 nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health, and
53 continuous access to potable water that is not frozen and is free of debris, feces,
54 algae, and other contaminants]:"

1: Why allow breeders to only feed their dogs once a day? And keeping water free of debris and feces is quite difficult when dealing with puppies. It is not possible to keep it always out, however, when you see it, remove it. Just because a piece of food has been dropped in the water bowl does not mean that a breeder is not keeping an eye on the water.

"((a) The provision, at suitable intervals of not more than twelve
56 hours, unless the dietary requirements of the species requires a longer
57 interval, of a quantity of wholesome foodstuff, suitable for the species
58 and age, enough to maintain a reasonable level of nutrition in each
59 animal. All foodstuffs shall be served in a safe receptacle, dish, or
60 container; and
61 (b) The provision of a supply of potable water in a safe
62 receptacle, dish, or container. Water shall be provided continuously or
63 at intervals suitable to the species, with no interval to exceed eight
64 hours;)"

All of this has been added to give more regulations on the food and water. Nothing wrong with this.

"(9) "Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements" means
66 [constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor, is
67 not stacked or otherwise placed on top of or below another animal's enclosure, is
68 cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure, and
69 does not fall below forty-five degrees Fahrenheit, or rise above eighty-five degrees
70 Fahrenheit] (the continuous provision of a sanitary facility, protection
71 from the extremes of weather conditions, proper ventilation, and
72 appropriate space depending on the species of animal, as required by
73 regulations of the Missouri department of agriculture;) "

Again, just follow the laws already on the books.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 6:39 p.m.

'Stanley Stoner' also lurks behind a doppelganger?

No "stanley stoner' anwhere on this much debated issue.

This seems to be the latest parlor game amongst the trollsters.

Why is it that the ONLY phony-baloneys on the CM are anti-prop B?

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 6:39 p.m.

"(10) "Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend
75 his or her limbs" means [having:
76 (a) Sufficient indoor space for each dog to turn in a complete circle
77 without any impediment (including a tether);
78 (b) Enough indoor space for each dog to lie down and fully extend his or
79 her limbs and stretch freely without touching the side of an enclosure or another
80 dog;
81 (c) At least one foot of headroom above the head of the tallest dog in the
82 enclosure; and
83 (d) At least twelve square feet of indoor floor space per each dog up to
84 twenty-five inches long, at least twenty square feet of indoor floor space per each
85 dog between twenty-five and thirty-five inches long, and at least thirty square
86 feet of indoor floor space per each dog for dogs thirty-five inches and longer (with
87 the length of the dog measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail)]
(88 appropriate space depending on the species of the animal, as specified
89 in regulations by the Missouri department of agriculture, as revised. )"

Again, look at what is already on the books. The space that the MoDA deems large enough is large enough for the dogs.

"[6.] 5. (1) A person is guilty of the crime of puppy mill cruelty when heSB 113 4
91 or she knowingly violates any provision of this section. The crime of puppy mill
92 cruelty is a class C misdemeanor, unless the defendant has previously pled guilty
93 to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case [each such
94 violation is], (the defendant may be charged with) a class A
95 misdemeanor. Each violation of this section [shall] may constitute a separate
96 offense. If any violation of this section meets the definition of animal abuse in
97 section 578.012, the defendant may be charged and penalized under that section
98 instead."

This simply says that someone can be charged, whereas the way it was originally written meant that everyone WOULD be charged.

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 6:39 p.m.

All of this has been added: "99 (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (1) of this
100 subsection to the contrary, for a person who possesses a valid license
101 to operate under sections 273.325 to 273.357 and who knowingly violates
102 any provision of this section, and if such violation is deemed by the
103 department of agriculture to be of a serious nature, such person shall
104 be given a period of time by the department of not less than thirty days
105 nor more than one hundred eighty days in which to correct the
106 violation before a criminal prosecution may be commenced. Upon the
107 end of the time period, the department of agriculture shall conduct an
108 inspection. If the violation has been corrected as of the date of the
109 inspection, then no violation of this section shall be deemed to have
110 occurred. If the violation has not been corrected as of the date of the
111 inspection, the department may refer the matter to the prosecuting
112 attorney. Regardless of whether the violation was corrected or not
113 corrected by the date of the inspection, the department shall conduct
114 another inspection after a second period of time, as determined by the
115 department, but which shall not be less than thirty days or more than
116 one hundred eighty days after the date of the first inspection. If the
117 violation had been corrected during the first period of time but the
118 person is found to have committed the same violation during the
119 second period of time, the department may refer the matter to the
120 prosecuting attorney. If the violation was not corrected during the
121 first period of time and remains uncorrected after the second period of
122 time, the department may revoke such person's license issued under
123 section 273.327. If the department determines that a violation is not of
124 a serious nature, then no criminal prosecution or inspections under
125 this subsection shall be commenced for such violation."

It gives more detail into how an abuse/neglect case will be handled.

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 6:39 p.m.

"[This section shall not apply to any retail pet
139 store, animal shelter as defined in section 273.325, hobby or show breeders who
140 have custody of no more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding
141 those dogs and selling any offspring for use as a pet, or dog trainer who does not
142 breed and sell any dogs for use as a pet.]"

I am so glad to see this taken out. If a breeder has to be held to these standards why shouldn't everyone else be held to the same standards?

Sorry this was so long and took so many posts, but it is a very long and wordy bill.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley February 2, 2011 | 6:46 p.m.

Thank you Caitlin and Stanley, I don't imagine your opinions are unique. They are common sense, and they demonstrate the idea that the state can "over-regulate" the heck out of commerce to the point where it is impossible for an industry, business, and/or profession to succeed.

And this is what we should all be concerned about here, especially given the current state of our economy.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner February 2, 2011 | 6:50 p.m.

"Terry Ward" Stanley Stoner is my real name and I am a real person concerned about my animals, why don't you just address the question relating to my comment instead of trying to avoid the issue

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 6:58 p.m.

In reference to everyone claiming that people posting now are "dopplegangers" I'm assuming that you are trying to say that anyone who hasn't previously posted on the Prop B debate is just the same people who have posted before but using a different name. I can't vouch for everyone, but as for myself, I have posted on here maybe 1 other time before yesterday, but I can guarantee that this is really someone named Caitlin McEwen. Take it or leave it.

(Report Comment)
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 7:27 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Ricky Gurley February 2, 2011 | 7:34 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 7:36 p.m.

Caitlin, who has accused you of doppelganging?

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 7:40 p.m.

No one has accused me, however, it's just a matter of time since I just recently started commenting and there is a pattern of a new commentator being accused of not being who they say they are.

(Report Comment)
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 7:43 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 7:45 p.m.

Mary: what source are you speaking of? I'm unsure as to what comment of mine you are talking about.

(Report Comment)
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 7:48 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Ricky Gurley February 2, 2011 | 7:50 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 7:51 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 7:52 p.m.

Actually, other than when Ricky comments, I've only seen supporters of Prop B been treated kindly... I guess I can say you too are kind, since you aren't condemning what I say, however, for the most part, if someone writes something that is anti-prop b or anti-HSUS they are told they are wrong or accused of being someone their not.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 2, 2011 | 7:54 p.m.

Terry, I rather expect that most of the "people" in this thread are all the same person. The Missourian's demand for real people's names isn't really enforceable, not when anyone can get a throwaway email from GMail and other sources.

The question really is if you want to respond to the text of the comments. If so, ignore the persona. If not, well, ignore the comment and the persona.

Caitlin McEwen, I'm not sure why you're duplicating in comments, what can just as easily be linked. SB 113 full text is accessible at:

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

It revokes every last aspect of Proposition B, but without having the honesty to actually repeal the law. Pretty underhanded in my opinion.

As for Stanley Stoner's comment, considering that people have had dog doors for decades, and dogs have gone in and out, yes even in cold weather--and also considering that many breeders in Missouri already provide "unfettered access" to an outdoor exercise area--your assertion that to provide this means dogs will freeze to death is unfounded, and pretty unbelievable, too.

Contrary to how people are trying to portray dogs, they really aren't a stupid animal.

And young puppies are almost always kept in a whelping box the first few weeks. In addition, dog doors are installed so the bottom of the door comes to the mother's shoulder. Puppies have to be pretty mature to get to the point of being able to go through that door. And no, mother dogs do not drag their puppies out into the cold to die. Dogs have survived thousands of years before commercial dog breeding, and they haven't been raised in a small wire cage all that time.

You all also seem to have forgotten that there are breeders who have kennels that have dog doors that allow dogs out into an exercise area.

In fact, you're in a conundrum: if you trash Proposition B, you're also trashing some of your fellow breeders. If you support your fellow breeders, you have to support the unfettered access provision in Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 7:56 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 7:57 p.m.

I put everything out there so I could explain each one how I see it. I can't just put my thoughts out there and just reference the entire bill because no one would know what part of the bill I was talking about.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 7:59 p.m.

Mary, there is truth in what you say, the world is full of terrible things.
But whatever one's particular 'issue' is, someone will come along with
another issue that they feel is more pressing, more crucial to the state of human affairs.

This discussion is about the living conditions of companion animals.
There are innumerable other places where you can discuss and debate poverty and unemployment.
Sadly, you will find much more disagreement and contention and antipathy there than in here.

But to insert those issues into this conversation accomplishes nothing.
You have every right to do so, but if you are as concerned as you say about jobs and poverty there is not much in the way of answers or solutions to be had in a discussion of dog breeders.

(Report Comment)
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 8:00 p.m.

Shelley, you have not a clue about whelping dogs and what they will do. Anyone who has ever raised dogs that is within eyeshot of your last comment would laugh and roll their eyes.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 8:20 p.m.

Caitlin, no one is 'condemming' what you say.

But if you are going to support the 'dogs are property' thing, you may score a lot of points with the anti-prop bunch, but ANYTHING you say after that will be discounted on this end, and you will simply join in with the other anti-Propers preaching to the choir.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 2, 2011 | 8:23 p.m.

mary simpson, what possibly makes you think I haven't seen a whelping box, a dog giving birth, or newborn puppies when it comes to that?

Contrary to what some people think, dogs have been having puppies outside of wire cages for some time now.

Unbelievable.

(Report Comment)
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 8:24 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 8:26 p.m.

And now Mary claims' Shelley doesn't have a clue'.
You couldn't last 15 minutes without some personal snipe?

And you complain about the things WE say?

(Report Comment)
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 8:33 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 8:36 p.m.

Because eveyone is required to pay taxes on what they sell.
For-profit adoption agencies pay federal taxes.
Does this mean that babies are property?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 8:41 p.m.

Can't 'shoot down' (?) somebody who shouldn't be.
Only the ones who should be.

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 8:41 p.m.

It's funny that you ask if babies are property. While I wouldn't call them property I see them the same way I see a dog because even though I do not condone child abuse nor animals abuse, I don't want someone else telling me what I can or cannot do with my child. If I don't want my kid outside, who is to tell me they have to go out and play? If I only want my kid inside to eat and sleep, who is to tell me I have to make her come in? As long as we are not killing or injuring our animals/children I think people should butt out and quit trying to tell other people how to raise their children or animals.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 8:45 p.m.

Caitlin, has someone here 'told' you how to raise your child?

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 8:48 p.m.

Not everything is about this forum. I'm just saying that what is mine is mine and I'm going to do with it as I want.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 2, 2011 | 8:50 p.m.

Well, you go girl.

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner February 2, 2011 | 8:52 p.m.

So Shelly in your vast research you have never heard of or seen of a case where a dog or puppy that could of gotten in out of the heat or cold did not do so and suffer either from illness or even death. I never said dogs were stupid, there are also humans that have stayed out in the extremes for to long a period of time and suffered heat stroke or frostbite or hypothermia or even death just because they didn't realize it was time to remove themselves from the elements.I also never said dogs should live their life in a small cage all the time. Just as I don't believe a dog should be kept in a house 8-10 hours a day alone while their guardian is at work. As for puppies at the age of 4 weeks old and older are pretty active little animals and they will go outside dog doors. And just like humans you have some good mothers and some well just not so good. If my child wants to go out and play and stay out when he or she has been in the extremes long enough I decide that it is time for them to come in. I make the decisions that will keep him or her safe because that child may not know any better. I surly do not let them have unfettered access to the extremes.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley February 2, 2011 | 9:23 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Shelley Powers February 2, 2011 | 10:05 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Ricky Gurley February 2, 2011 | 10:15 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 10:16 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 10:20 p.m.

Mary: thank you for pointing that out. :D

(Report Comment)
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 10:25 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 10:32 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 10:33 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 10:35 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Caitlin McEwen February 2, 2011 | 10:36 p.m.

Hmmm... this is very interesting because your comment that was just deleted had nothing defamatory in it. Can't wait to bring this topic up in my Journalism class on Tuesday, see what my professor has to say about a writer editing comments because it disagrees with what they think.

(Report Comment)
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 10:42 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Jake Sherlock February 2, 2011 | 10:42 p.m.

@Mary Simpson

Your comments have been taken down because your email address that you used to register is not valid. If you'd like to email me at SherlockJ@missouri.edu, I'd be happy to verify your identity and restore your posts. But we do require everyone here to post under a real name.

I've taken down other comments tonight for personal attacks. Name calling counts as a personal attack.

Y'all can read the full comments policy here: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/p/miss...

And Caitlin, I assure you, nobody is taking comments down because they disagree with a position. They're taken down for not posting under a real name (a frequent occurrence here), or for personal attacks. The Missourian does not endorse issues, and we welcome conversation from all sides. We just ask that you do it in a respectful, fully transparent fashion.

Thanks,

Jake Sherlock
Opinion editor.

(Report Comment)
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 10:45 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
mary simpson February 2, 2011 | 10:46 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Ricky Gurley February 2, 2011 | 10:55 p.m.

Caitlin,

I think Jake is pretty "fair-minded" when it comes to moderating... I am a pretty abrasive person.. Over the years my stupidity tolerance has taken a dive; and Jake pretty much lets me express myself as I do when I am dealing with people face-to-face.

And in my case, sometimes that is a lot to ask of a moderator....

He does not "take sides"; he just enforces the rules...

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 3, 2011 | 2:17 a.m.

I apologize,

Since I did not know that specific e-mail addresses involved were not legitimate, I did not know why the messages were being deleted.

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 3, 2011 | 2:26 a.m.

Getting back to the debate on if dogs are property...

To say that a dog is not property would take away someones right to buy/sell a dog and to expect anything from that dog. One of the biggest reasons that people are wanting Prop B to go through in its original state is so that breeders have to be held accountable for their puppies health. If we don't say that the dogs are property, they don't have to guarantee the dog.

It's a double-edged sword: either we are going to call the dogs property - which means government cannot limit how many get sold, or they are not property - which would make Prop B useless anyway.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 3, 2011 | 7:24 a.m.

I'm not sure why one of my comments was deleted, other than I did mention the name calling of another individual.

Regardless, I stated in the comment that no, I just don't believe that dogs will stay out in the cold and freeze to death when they have other options. I would need proof that their own survival instincts are that heavily damaged.

We already know human survival instincts are damaged: why else would people climb Everest, without oxygen.

But making assertions about how unfettered access is dangerous in this cold weather completely contradicts statements made about how this weather is just fine for dogs left in outdoor kennels 24x7. Evidently, the assumption is that these dogs will take shelter in their little plastic igloos to stay warm. If you make that assumption, then you have to make the assumption that the dogs with a warm bed inside an indoor kennel will also take shelter when too cold.

That's the problem with all the anti-Proposition B commentary: it either contradicts itself, or is just plain unbelievable because it doesn't make sense--not when you remember that domestic dogs have thrived for 15,000 years before commercial dog breeding.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 3, 2011 | 7:37 a.m.

Caitlin McEwen

Your logic just doesn't connect. You seem to be implying that property isn't regulated, dogs are property, therefore dogs can't be regulated.

Pets are typically considered property and governments at all levels have regulated pets, including how many can be owned.

Cars are property, and regulated; so are boats.

Governments regulate business, and businesses are owned, and many frequently have associated property. Restaurants are property and regulated. Point of fact, many are going through the pain right now of having to ban all smoking because of new regulations.

Congress just strengthened food laws to enable the FDA to invoke a recall of tainted products, and that's definitely a regulation placed on industry--and necessary, too, as the CDC estimates over 76 million people get sick, 325,000 get hospitalized, and 5000 people die every year because of food contamination.

The Missouri legislature just put massive restrictions on adult entertainment venues in this state, in what seems to be a deliberate attempt to close these industries down, but I don't see you and other Proposition B folks up in arms defending this industry's rights to stay in business in Missouri.

Yet, somehow, you seem to think that commercial dog breeding should be protected from new regulation. It's OK for other industries, but not for dog breeding.

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock February 3, 2011 | 9:29 a.m.

@Terry, I do know a little about property law and I don't think I ever said dogs were not considered property.

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 3, 2011 | 9:58 a.m.

I do believe that dogs are property, and yes dogs and cars need to be "regulated" but only to the extent that officials know who has what. I've said it before and I'll say it again: you cannot limit a company's product. The government cannot tell a car dealer he can only have 50 cars on his lot so why can the government tell a dog breeder they can only have 50 breeding dogs?

(Report Comment)
lisa martin February 3, 2011 | 10:08 a.m.

We can only hope that the anti-vaccination group doesn't follow the same ballot initiative. This movement has completely tossed aside the opinion of the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association. What will happen to all of us when another radical special interest group goes after our health care?

(Report Comment)
Jessica Bryand February 3, 2011 | 10:18 a.m.

Shelley, I am still trying to figure out what the sled dogs have to do with Prop B in Missouri, but it looks as if help was asked before the shooting of the sled dogs.

http://www.nationalpost.com/Employee+kil...

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner February 3, 2011 | 10:22 a.m.

Shelly Powers- I myself have not contradicted my statement I did not say that I believe it is ok for dogs to be left out in the cold 24/7 (although some others on this comment thread did) I also would never be thoughtless enough to "assume" what is consider to be a lower level animal than us humans would have the common sense to remove themselves from harms way. I do agree that some of the human race of animals have lost the ability of survival instinct and common sense, (maybe not lost it but rather they just don't use it)some of the comments posted here are proof of that. I guess that some of the human animal is not as far evolved as one would think. So it is still my opinion that to let a dog have 24/7 unfettered access in extreme weather conditions is totally absurd. We humans (supposedly the smarter race of animal) should have enough compassion and common sense to know that (even though there are some who don't) So yes there are parts of Prop B that were not thought out enough and are not based on intelligent decisions. I am basing what I say on the FACT that I have dogs that WOULD STAY OUT IN THIS COLD WEATHER IF I WAS STUPID ENOUGH TO ALLOW THEM TO. We should never [assume] anything, but rather base things on what has been seen or proven.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 3, 2011 | 10:35 a.m.

And Caitlin, there's nothing about limitations on number of puppies that are sold. If you're talking about the number of adult dogs, well, there are regulations in existence for other businesses that limit the amount of business they do, and their profits.

Again, you don't explain why dog breeders get an exemption from the business regulations that impact on other businesses.

So Stanley Stoner, you have nothing to substantiate that unfettered access is bad because are too stupid to come in from the cold? Just your use of caps lock?

It also sounds like you're saying that outdoor kennels should be abolished?

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner February 3, 2011 | 10:57 a.m.

Shelly Powers-I thought i substantiated it clearly when i said that I have dogs that would stay out in this extreme cold if i were to allow them to do so I'm sorry if you can't comprehend that statement. Also nowhere in that comment did I imply or state that outdoor kennels should be abolished, in fact dogs should be able to go in and out most all the time but I should not be governed by a law that tells me I should allow my dogs to have unfettered access 24/7 when to do so would put those dogs in a position where they could face harm or even death because of a ignorant law. I hope I made this statement easy and clear enough for you to understand

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 3, 2011 | 11:05 a.m.

I hate the say it this way, but if the prop-b supporters want to see the negative effects of this bill that we are trying to explain to them then the bill will just have to go through as it was written and we will see the dog breeding business in Missouri collapse. But hey, that's what they all want...

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 3, 2011 | 11:20 a.m.

Shelley,

Can you give me the proof that shows that government can limit the products that a business produces? Our government has something in play called free-market: A free-market economy is an economy where all markets within it are unregulated by any parties other than those players in the market.

(Report Comment)
lisa martin February 3, 2011 | 11:31 a.m.

“The defense of freedom begins at home, and the price of freedom is vigilance and courage.” In this country, freedom is never stolen from us by a thief in the night. It gets handed away, one piece at a time, by those of us who are weak, cowardly, uncaring, or unknowing. - Jeane Kirkpatrick, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 3, 2011 | 11:38 a.m.

Stanley Stoner, I don't know you. There have been so many fake people on the anti-Proposition B side, that I'm pretty sure the editors especially monitor any Prop B stories. You didn't even appear until recently. Who are you that I should accept what you're saying as fact, when you have nothing to substantiate what you're saying?

Do you have links to web sites talking about this problem? Anything? Or are you the only person in the world with really stupid dogs?

And you neglected to answer my question: it sounds like, then, that you're all for closing down any outdoor kennels. After all, if dogs are too dumb to get shelter when they have indoor kennels, they're certainly too dumb to get shelter in their little plastic igloos. Correct?

Caitlin McEwen, there is no limit on "products" sold, since that's how you think of puppies. You just can't sell an infinite number of puppies all at once.

There's a limit on how many customers a restaurant can have at one time. There's a limit on how many animals a CAFO can have (based on environmental factors). There's limits on how much of this chemical or that a company can use. There's limits on when a drug company can, or cannot, sell a product.

I could go on, and on and on. I answer your question, but you don't answer mine: why are dog breeders exempt from the business regulations? Why do they get a slide on regulations when other businesses in this state don't?

What makes dog breeding privileged? Why should state representatives shaft the voters in order to ensure the continued miserable life for dogs, just for one specific type of industry in this state? An industry that, frankly, does not have the best of reputations?

An industry that operates in secret. That advertises itself as a small family breeders online, at the same time they breed hundreds of dogs in factory farm settings.

An industry that puts out defective "product", so some little kid gets the joy of watching that brand new puppy sicken and die.

All of this, and you want to be exempt from business regulations, too.

This is what you're supporting, Representative Kelly. You sure picked a heck of a side.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley February 3, 2011 | 11:44 a.m.

Caitlin McEwen February 3, 2011 | 11:05 a.m. I hate the say it this way, but if the prop-b supporters want to see the negative effects of this bill that we are trying to explain to them then the bill will just have to go through as it was written and we will see the dog breeding business in Missouri collapse. But hey, that's what they all want...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No Caitlin, it is not acceptable to let stupidity occur when you can do something about it. Especially when it will have a negative impact on people.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 3, 2011 | 12:17 p.m.

Shelly:

The breeders should not be exempt, hence why they do have regulations to follow, such as the food, water, and shelter, as specified by the Missouri Department of Agriculture. The number of breeding dogs someone has should not come into play for a standard of care, as long as they are taking care of them.

Ricky:

I'm trying to do something but as you see, every time an anti-prop B person speaks up we're shot down as not knowing what we're talking about, or being pro-animal abuse or whatever other nonsense these people want to throw at us. They may not see it now, but we are right. If the original Prop-B is the final bill then it will only be a matter of time until they see that we were right. Sadly, at that time it will be too late.

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner February 3, 2011 | 12:19 p.m.

Shelly Powers- I actually appeared 56 years ago Even though it is true I just started posting on this comment thread. No I don't have links to post to prove to you what I am saying, my proof is the plain and simple fact that I have seen it with my own eyes, the fact that you are not willing to try and understand that it is possible for dogs if given the choice will make bad decisions at times just like we humans do. I don't know maybe I am the only person with stupid dogs even though that is doubtful (I'm probably the only one who brought it up on this thread) I also never said I was totally anti prop b or against the humane treatment of dogs or any other animal. There are parts of the bill that make perfect sense, but most of those parts are already addressed by laws, the sad fact is that the current laws are not being enforced as they should be. As to whether or not you believe me is of no regard to me I know for myself that it is a fact that some animals human or others make bad choices at times, any person in this world that has any kind of intellect should be able to see that. Though there are some who refuse to do so. As for the outdoor kennels are and would be totally fine as long as common sense is actually used and applied when there are extremes in weather conditions heat or cold the dog boxes or housing could be heated for winter and if at times it is necessary to pen them inside for a period to keep that animal safe from harm it shouldn't be illegal to do so as long as you let them out for exercise and there is enough room inside for that animal to be comfortable and not be harmed. The things I am talking about are all just common sense issues for the safety and well being of animals, that is what the bill is supposedly about right. Anything even if it is well intentioned can have flaws and even be abused that is why it is important to try and get it right from the start of it

(Report Comment)
paul martin February 3, 2011 | 12:43 p.m.

I think that we live in a now society. We live in a society where nothing bad is supposed to happen and if it does then somone has to pay for it. You cannot put a guarantee on life. It makes no difference if it is human or animal. There is not one thing in proposition B that makes any kennel produce a better puppy. There is not a single mandate that makes that owner vaccinate or deworm. There is not a single mandate that makes an owner do anything in regards to genetics. You state that Missouri has this horrible reputation and yet people keep wanting Missouri dogs? If this state keeps putting out such inferior product, why do people keep wanting puppies? You talk to any broker or anyone who sells privately to out of state buyers and they will tell you that the market is still there and it is still good. What if that little kid has a new baby brother that dies of crib death? Are you going to sue the doctor? What if your new baby is born with a hernia? Who is responsible for that? How many puppies go to homes that are not suitable?

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley February 3, 2011 | 1:05 p.m.

Shelley,

I'll answer your questions... Not that it will matter, because no matter how logical my answers may be you will still be a "militant activist".. Because of the way that I perceive you, I feel it is pointless to try to communicate with you in a logical manner. But, I am going to give it a try...

After having spoken to Mr. Chris Kelly; who I might add is a "straight shooter" and I am grateful for that. I think I understand the problem a bit better than I did before I spoke to him.

Shelley Powers: "Why are dog breeders exempt from the business regulations? Why do they get a slide on regulations when other businesses in this state don't?"

Me: Nobody has indicated that dog breeders should not be regulated. In all matters it is important to be reasonable. What most people that are against Prop B. are communicating is that Prop B. is unreasonable. Prop B. is just poorly written. There was too much "fighting" and not enough collaboration when it was written; I guess.

Shelley Powers: "What makes dog breeding privileged? Why should state representatives shaft the voters in order to ensure the continued miserable life for dogs, just for one specific type of industry in this state? An industry that, frankly, does not have the best of reputations?"

Me: Dog breeding is not "privileged". What privileges are you implying that dog breeders have? Look, "50 Million" people CAN be wrong.. It is pretty rare, but it can happen. The sad fact is that when those "50 Million" people are wrong, usually the "damage" is already done. In this case, the voters may have been wrong, OR perhaps the voters were just misinformed? In either case, most reasonable people agree that Prop B. was simply poorly written. That is the crux of the problem here.

Certain industries do need to be regulated, but not to the point that the regulation is an impediment to the success of the businesses in those industries.

The larger problem here is people like you Shelley. People that would rather have an unreasonable and harmful law on the books for fear of having no law at all, and would thereby choose to completely ignore and avoid the opportunity to engage in collaboration with other people to make a better law, instead of having a bad law. Hence, why I believe that you and Terry would do more harm than good if you had your way in this whole ordeal.

Ricky Gurley,

(Report Comment)
lisa martin February 3, 2011 | 1:35 p.m.

I agree Ricky and while you are addressing these topics I would like to know why they consider shelters/rescues
"priviledged" enough to be exempt? We have shelters in this state with 100s of dogs and not enough volunteers and yet they don't have to be held to the same standard?

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner February 3, 2011 | 2:22 p.m.

Lisa -Some of my thoughts on the reason they want to exempt shelters and rescues

1. This law is not really about the welfare of animals
2. This law would cost the shelters and rescue large amounts of money to retrofit to meet these standards
3. Some of these shelters and rescue's will have to provide a good reason to put down thousands of dogs a year such as Peta does http://www.petakillsanimals.com/ Most breeders I know only put a dog down if it extremely ill or has a very poor quality of life because of an illness or injury (Now don't twist my words not all rescues and shelters are like that but many are) following is what the new law says about euthanasia do see you that part "where needed" who defines what "where needed" truly means does it mean Like some shelters view it, well we can't find a new home for the animal in 7 days so lets kill it,Yes there are times an animal needs to be put down but in my opinion not for that reason
[(3) ”Necessary veterinary care” means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, [where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed “Acceptable” by the American Veterinary Medical Association.]
These are just some of my thoughts on that issue

(Report Comment)
lisa martin February 3, 2011 | 2:48 p.m.

There was a major issue in Jefferson County where volunteers had access to controlled substances and were themselves euthanizing without a veterinarian.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking February 3, 2011 | 3:12 p.m.

One does not need to be a veterinarian to perform humane euthanasia - it's really fairly simple compared to some of the things vets are trained to do. In research facilities, all sorts of non-vet people perform them. Yes, we're trained (either by formal classes or on the job by vets), but there's no reason a trained volunteer (or breeder in his own facility) can't reduce the workload of the vet by performing euthanasia.

DK

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers February 3, 2011 | 3:44 p.m.
(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 3, 2011 | 4:22 p.m.

We would be very glad to have the shelter 'exemption' removed when breeders take in and care for stray animals in numbers equal to those
in shelters.
And allow the public access to their facilities.

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 3, 2011 | 5:18 p.m.

Terry:

A breeder is not a shelter so why would they take in and care for stray dogs? And the few breeders that I know will let the public into their facilities. I do not think that anyone should be exempt from the laws that the revised Prop B will put into place because isn't what the HSUS/HSMO/other "animal rights groups" wanting is for the dogs to be treated correctly? Seems a little biased to say that the dogs have to be treated this way for a breeder, but go ahead and mis-treat them in a kennel because you have so many and so little space for them all.

(Report Comment)
paul martin February 3, 2011 | 5:38 p.m.

They cannot defend their position. Mark, the agents used in humane euthanasia are controlled DEA substances and can only be purchased by someone who has a license and DEA number. Those in Jefferson County who performed the act botched it and there were people in the public who had to witness it. These solutions are intravenous injection and it does require skill. Terry avoids valid questions regarding shelters and rescues. We have to wonder what kind of care these dogs receive in the small runs of no-kill shelters. How is this any different than a licensed kennel? It isn't. These statements once again show that these individuals have placed themselves above those who actually are professional. They have zero regard for the veterinary community or the agriculture community.

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner February 3, 2011 | 5:47 p.m.

Terry-As Caitlin pointed out breeders are not shelters for strays. They are people either trying to improve the breed or trying to make a living, or preferably both. Many do however find homes for there animals once they retire them so at least they are not just killing them and some even keep their retired dogs until they die a natural death, as they are part of the family.
Why would allowing the public to have access have anything to do with changing that exemption? Enforcement Personnel have the legal right to come and inspect breeders now. Asking a breeder to allow the public to come into their facility to see if they live up to their standards is like me asking you to come into your home and see if you live to my standards, that would be kind of ridiculous. That would be setting yourself or themselves up for theft,vandalism,contamination,deliberate attack of all types. That is why we have enforcement personnel for different things, not just any Joe Q to check things out but people who actually know what is supposed to be.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley February 3, 2011 | 5:54 p.m.

Good point, Stanley! Good point.

I don't know what makes Shelley or Terry believe they should have the right to just walk right onto a breeder's property and inspect to see if the breeder is living up to THEIR standards...

I think the only ones that want "privilege" around here is Shelley and Terry.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 3, 2011 | 6:27 p.m.

Oh we knew no one would answer the question.
We were proving a point for someone

(Report Comment)
Caitlin McEwen February 3, 2011 | 6:39 p.m.

Terry:

What question are you saying no one answered? In your last comment you did not pose a question.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 3, 2011 | 11:17 p.m.

Fallen Marine's parents adopt son's property.
2/3/2011 - LACKLAND AIR FORCE BASE, Texas

After 20-year-old Private Rusk was killed Dec. 5 in Helmand province, Afghanistan, by Taliban sniper fire, Marines officials told Darrell and Kathy Rusk, his parents, that Eli, his infantry explosives detector dog, crawled on top of their son to protect him after he was shot."

"It gets our mind off the sadness" Mrs. Rusk said, "just knowing we're going to have a little piece of Colton's property."

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward February 3, 2011 | 11:41 p.m.

U.S. Marine animal-rights terrorist to deliver talk at Drury University
Thursday, February 3, 2011

Lt. Col. Robert Lucius, a committed animal rights wacko, was commissioned as a Second Lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps in 1989 and has since served 22 years on active duty in a wide variety of command, staff and diplomatic assignments.

http://www.drurymirror.com/news/u-s-mari...

(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