J. KARL MILLER: Legislature should tackle flawed Proposition B

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 | 12:01 a.m. CST; updated 8:37 p.m. CST, Wednesday, March 2, 2011

In the months following the November elections, potential legislative plans to modify or repeal the "puppy mill initiative," or Proposition B, have triggered a wide range of editorial comment and letters to editors statewide. The gist of this opinion deluge demands the legislature respect the will of the people, who voted in favor of the proposition 51.6 to 48.4 percent — 997,870 to 936,190.

The frustration of supporters of a ballot initiative is understood. When their hard-fought victory for a deeply held belief is threatened, the vote count should identify the winner. Nevertheless, one must wonder why there has not been a similar outcry over denial of the will of the people in their August rejection of the health care mandate by a ratio of nearly 3- to-1.

If the "will of the people" in voter-organized petition initiatives is to be sacrosanct, it would appear that those who protest desecration of Proposition B should also voice a demand that Gov. Jay Nixon and Attorney General Chris Koster join 28 other states in the lawsuit against "Obamacare." Health care for humans is surely not less vital than that for dogs.

On a practical note, citizen petitions to place ballot initiatives before the public are a valuable and legitimate pursuit of issues deemed important by special interests as well as by individual citizens. Of the five measures appearing on the November ballot, three were the result of petitions, one of which was Proposition B. Voters passed all three.

While the will of the people must be respected, we enjoy a representative form of government, one in which a legislature is elected by the very people who delegate the authority for decision making. There are occasions when majority rule must be tempered with honest debate and good judgment, lest the unintended consequences of otherwise good intentions become untenable.

This is the case in the hotly debated puppy mill initiative. The bill, albeit narrowly, did pass and became state law. However, it is seriously flawed. As passed by the voters, Proposition B applies only to licensed breeders, ignoring the unlicensed, fly-by-nighters, who are the primary factors motivating the legislation's supporters. This added regulation on the legitimate breeder increases opportunities for the unlicensed. Thus, the solution has aggravated the problem.

The puppy mill initiative was orchestrated largely by the Humane Society of the United States, a Washington, D.C.-based animal rights organization that provided some $2.18 million of the $3.2 million raised by the campaign. A study of campaign financial records revealed that 82 percent of the monetary and in-kind contributions came from outside of Missouri, thus indicating a lack of local spontaneity.

Further, of the 114 counties in Missouri, 103 voted no on Proposition B, as did St. Louis City. Interestingly, of the 997,870 yes votes cast, 525,720 came from St. Louis City, St. Louis County, St. Charles County, Jackson County and Clay County, all of which are generally urban in nature and hardly bastions of dog breeding or agricultural pursuits.

Obviously, the deluge of out-of-state-funded television ads portraying dogs, cats and other animals in varying degrees of illness, starvation, mistreatment and woeful misery was a major influence on voters — particularly targeting the urbanites. Every normal human is against animal cruelty. The TV-depicted plight of starving, unloved puppies was a well-orchestrated sympathy magnet.

However, there was never any evidence the pictures were filmed in breeding establishments. They could have been shot in alleys, streets or spaces anywhere in the U.S. Consequently, a largely out-of-state orchestrated and funded proposition was able to play on a combination of people's emotion, lack of knowledge and a wealth of misinformation to pass a bill that affects the operations and livelihood of licensed dog breeders but does nothing to regulate, inspect or close down the outlaw puppy farms.

For this and other similar reasons, the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, the American Kennel Club, the Missouri Farm Family Agriculture Alliance, the Missouri Farm Bureau and other agricultural organizations opposed Proposition B. The consensus: Rather than improve the well-being of the animals, it would add inordinate expense to the industry. Also, arbitrarily limiting the number of dogs a breeder may possess would do nothing to ease negligence nor mistreatment.

Legislators on both sides of the political aisle realize the law is flawed. Accordingly, the remedy is for the duly elected legislature to do the job we pay them to perform — either through modification or repeal. A bad law, largely funded by out-of-state special interests that substituted emotion for reason to pass it, is not made palatable by the good intentions.

The ball is where it belongs — in the legislature's court. Remember your civics lessons.

J. Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via e-mail at

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.


Terry Ward March 2, 2011 | 6:34 a.m.

Let's play the Ask-A-Farmer game.

Why, farmer, does 'agriculture' care so much about puppies?

For their hides?

For their meat?

For their milk?

For their fur?

For their bone meal?

For their rendered fat?

For their offal?

For their puppy- bellies'?

For their export value?

For their adrenal glands?

For their chops and steaks in the supermarket?

For their value on the Kansas City Livestock Exchange?

(Report Comment)
Kevin Gamble March 2, 2011 | 7:52 a.m.

Citing the margin of victory at the ballot: irrelevant, poor thinking.

Citing an unrelated example which lacks comparable outrage: irrelevant, poor thinking.

"Health care for humans is surely not less vital than that for dogs": a personal-agenda-driven canard which makes false implications about support of Prop. B.

Citing locations where the vote was heavily favored: irrelevant to the purpose of the bill.

Citing TV advertising as evidence (or lack thereof) for the need for the bill: childish and silly.

Only listing organizations opposed to the bill: demonstrates bias and the desire to add credibility to one side while undermining the other.

In short, another flawed, biased piece by Miller wrapped in the language of objectivity, which can be seen through by the most cursory analysis of his language and the structure of the piece.

By Miller's own argument about how another bill is more deserving of mass outcry, why is he writing about this bill - already being looked at by the legislature - and not the health-care vote? The answer is that he prefers to spend his time putting down people with a different ideology to actually championing something of his own. Par for the course in Miller's columns, making them an unproductive part of an otherwise fine newspaper.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 2, 2011 | 8:18 a.m.

"animals in varying degrees of illness, starvation, mistreatment and woeful misery" was evidently NOT a major influence on Mr. Miller.

And no "plight of starving, unloved puppies" 'sympathy magnet"
is gonna pull the wool over Karl Miller's eyes.

No foolin Karl Miller with those nasty 'out of state interests', either.

Other than his Indiana buddies at Lucas oil.
And his DC corporate lobby bobble-head pals.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer March 2, 2011 | 8:43 a.m.

Excellent article that dissects the reality of the Prop B situation and speaks the ugly truth about the largely ignored way Prop B was promoted (force-fed) to the voters. This is by far, the most well-written and complete article on the subject, bar none.
Hopefully, our legislators will not be intimidated by HSUS' millions of dollars and the raucous voices of the radical animal rights-Prop B supporters whose agenda is eradication of all dogs breeders, good or bad.
We all know that the citizens of Missouri just want reasonable care for our canine companions.

(Report Comment)
Robin Nuttall March 2, 2011 | 8:51 a.m.

Karl Miller brings up the truth of the weakness of Proposition B. Prop B will do nothing to alleviate conditions of dogs in Missouri or poor breeding practices nationwide. It will do nothing to alleviate the number of dogs in shelters (75-80% of which are not even purebred, a clear truth that purebred breeders do NOT contribute the huge majority of dogs to shelters). In fact, through forcing large scale breeders to close, Proposition B will flood shelters with dogs.

The Humane Society of the United States is a multi-million dollar lobbying organization that operates NO animal shelters. Less than 1% of their funds actually go to help dogs and cats at all. Given these facts, why would they be so in favor of this bill? Could it be that it furthers their animal rights agenda to eliminate ALL breeding of ALL companion animals and livestock, moving us toward a goal of a vegan nation?

No one, especially not dog breeders, wants to see dogs treated inhumanely. Certainly the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association should be seen as a voice of reason on this issue. And in addition to the American Kennel Club, both the Columbia MO Kennel Club and the Show Me Agility Club of Central Missouri strongly opposed Proposition B. As a former member of the former and a current member (and President) of the latter, I can assure everyone reading this that dogs, and the welfare of dogs, are central to our lives. Dogs are my passion, my avocation, my hobby. Over 25 years of being involved in the dog world has given me a pretty decent understanding of what will, and will not, work. Proposition B will not work. If it would I would be passionately in support.

The HSUS employees and animal rights activists will flood this comment section with dramatic and horrific stories of the suffering of dogs. And those stories do exist. But we can not be sucked into the drama. We must think about this logically and with truth and honesty. Proposition B is not our answer because it will do nothing to help the dogs who are featured in those passionate stories.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking March 2, 2011 | 9:02 a.m.

Terry Ward wrote:

"Why, farmer, does 'agriculture' care so much about puppies?"

Well, partially because dog breeding *is* agriculture.

They are regulated by the Missouri Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of Agriculture. Most of these businesses operate in rural areas. They contribute to the agricultural economy of an area by purchasing feed, caging, fencing, and using veterinary services. The fact that dog breeders do not produce animals for meat or hide does not mean they're not agricultural operations.


(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 2, 2011 | 9:30 a.m.

The generic term is "animal husbandry." I've always found the term humorous (there are probably more than a few human wives who think their husbands are or at least act like animals).

We tend to associate the term with cows, swine, sheep, etc. but it can apply to other domestic animals as well.

Not familiar with MU, but at Iowa State University you can get a specific degree in Animal Husbandry.

(Report Comment)
Randy Burgs March 2, 2011 | 9:31 a.m.

The R.A.R.E. have forced their agenda on MO and dictated how animals are to be raised. Yet they have no clue about any animal husbandry issues and have done zero research as to what is recommended and already legislated in MO on that subject.
Thankfully, our legislature has the wisdom and foresight not to fall prey to this onslaught.

Even in PA, that in 2008 passed sweeping regulations on kennels forced by the RARE people is now having second thoughts. Even there, legislators toned down some of the regulations, to the chagrin of the RARE's and have now found the economic impact to the state, one county in particular, is devastating. Now with a lot of BOOHOOs, they are taking steps to repeal that law.

Of course, one would only have heeded a lesson history has already taught us, the one of prohibition in the 1930s. That law didn't stop alcohol consumption as will any law against licensed breeders stop puppy mills. Get aquainted with the word bootlegging.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 2, 2011 | 9:43 a.m.

From the Britannica encyclopedia :

Definition of AGRICULTURE:

" the science, art, or practice of cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation and marketing of the resulting products"

Definition of LIVESTOCK:
"Farm animals, with the exception of poultry.
In Western countries the category encompasses primarily cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, horses, donkeys, and mules.


Joseph Smith rewrote the Bible.

Jehovah Witnesses rewrite anthropology.

David Kubiak rewrote 9/11.

Missouri rewrites the Encyclopedia Britannica.

What a country.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer March 2, 2011 | 10:34 a.m.

Terry Ward, as long as you are providing definitions, please define 'domestic animal'. The proponents of Prop B couldn't or wouldn't define 'domestic animal' for the senators. They said they had no definition for it. Hmmmmm. How about you doing it for them?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 2, 2011 | 10:45 a.m.

Before we go off on tangents about definitions, let's refocus back on the original writing.

I don't have much to add to what Mr. Gamble stated, except I want to address one statement Mr. Miller made.

I've heard, time and again, references to the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act being "bad", but the only problem specifically pointed out in the text of the bill is that the breeding cycle restriction isn't limited to just females. A modification to the law to adjust the wording so that it's relevant only to female dogs would, in my opinion, be acceptable to the Proposition B folks.

However, what's happened is that the representatives completely gutted Proposition B, but did so deceptively. Rather than come out with a upfront repeal, they tore all of the new requirements out, and then called the tattered remains a "modification".

So, I have a question back for the author of this piece: does he support such deceptiveness on the part of the representatives?

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 2, 2011 | 10:52 a.m.

@ Terri Ward- Would you please state to everyone what State you acually live in?

(Report Comment)
Leslie Kaylor March 2, 2011 | 11:38 a.m.

For the record, I live in Missouri and it doesn't matter what counties the votes came from, as long as the vote was in Missouri. Even if there are no breeders in one of the larger counties, I'm sure there are customers of breeders there who love their dogs and want to assure that if they purchase a dog it was not born in deplorable conditions or to a tortured mother.
The only reason the proposition was voted on was because legislators failed to do anything for years. Now our legislators are going to reverse the will of voters, while they enjoy the benefits of being voted into office, by the very people they are now dismissing. I think this is becoming less of a debate and more of a justification of what they are going to do. Oh, the voters were misled.... Well, voters are misled all the time. Mostly by political candidates, but also on a host of other issues, including health care. That doesn't mean that once a politician is sworn into office, they can be taken out because "we just don't think they're going to do what they said they were going to, their votes are going to cost us money, and besides much of their funding came from organizations outside the state of Missouri". Using the arguments presented to gut proposition B against legislators who were narrowly elected, I wonder how many of them would pass the test.
In this case, the proposition was passed and shouldn't be undone just because of the fear of change. Stripping the proposition of all of its powers will do nothing for the puppy mill problem in Missouri and it will only reinforce what many Missouri voters already suspect, our legislative body cares only for the almighty dollar and special interest groups with loud voices and does not respect the will of the people.
There are problems with the Proposition, but it should at least be given a trial period to see if it will work. Once it's put into action, we can tweak it to make it better. Many of the provisions, I agree with. Who could disagree with clean water and facilities, veterinary care, and no stacked wire cages for these dogs? It might cost more money to breed, but dog breeding on the cheap is something that should not be allowed anyway. If you can't afford to breed dogs, don't do it. There are hundreds of abandoned dogs at shelters all over the state who would love to have a home. Dogs are being bred to be our companions, our friends, our housemates, and our family members. I think they deserve better.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 2, 2011 | 11:41 a.m.

Sure, Angie, when you give me your social security number.

(Report Comment)
robin barrows March 2, 2011 | 11:45 a.m.

I disagree with those that think Prop B is bad legislation. A college professor of mine once said that a company whose workers unionize probably disserves a union. The same applies here. If Missouri didn’t have a puppy mill problem there would not have been a puppy mill bill. The Col. mentioned that a majority of support for Prop B came from urbane counties. I suggest that the more populated parts of the state are where the results of puppy mills are witnessed by overcrowded animal shelters and numerous rescue and foster groups trying to save the overflow of cast off animals. As for most of the monetary support coming from the Humane Society and other outside sources: so what! How much money spent opposing Prop B came from outside Missouri? Prop B is a good law – just ask an individual vet – not the veterinarians association with an outside agenda.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 2, 2011 | 11:51 a.m.

Ruth Keezer , where we live they do not keep sheep inside the house.

Or pigs, or cows or chickens.

Possibly in Missouri they do.

This could be the reason for the confusion.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer March 2, 2011 | 2:19 p.m.

And what is the description, Terry? 'Domestic animal'.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer March 2, 2011 | 2:32 p.m.

Robin Barrows: Yes, ask a veterinarian. An honest veterinarian, not one associated with humane societies or rescues or other shelters. Shelter vets are the ones who signed on with Prop B and know nothing about the actual dog breeding industry. They have exempted themselves from the rules. I guess they could not comply with the regulations either. Maybe they could not afford expensive renovations just to supposedly "treat their dogs better". They are keeping their stacked wire cages. They are keeping confined dogs without unfettered access to outside. They are keeping their current cage size that MAAL says is just enough for the dogs to survive.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer March 2, 2011 | 2:46 p.m.

Still no definition of 'domestic animal'? Hmmmm. Wonder why that is? What makes that phrase so important to Prop B and the HSUS agenda?
It is not a tangent, Shelley. It is evidently very important to Prop B and HSUS and you. I read your reaction to them changing the definition of 'pet', identifying pet as a canine. Why such a big deal about the definition? Why do those words need to be left in? Why are the farmers worried about that phrase? Why not identify a pet as a dog if the bill is only about dogs?
Shelley, how about defining 'domestic animal' for us?

(Report Comment)
Robin Nuttall March 2, 2011 | 3:22 p.m.

@Robin Barrows, no one is saying that Missouri does not have a problem with some unethical, scumbag breeders. We do. And we definitely need to address that problem. Unfortunately Proposition B does NOT address the problem. It will not do a thing to control or eliminate the few breeders (and it really is just a few) who raise dogs in deplorable conditions in this state. It will, however, punish the breeders who are already abiding by our very stringent existing standards.

At its heart, Proposition B's real purpose is to put ALL large scale breeders, regardless of the way they care for their animals, out of business. Just so we are clear on the organization that pushed this legislation:

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
— Animal People News, May 1993

“My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture.”
— HSUS grassroots coordinator John “J.P.” Goodwin

“I’m not an admirer of HSUS. They’ve always been primarily a direct-mail operation, and what’s known in animal rights circles as a credit-grabber.”
— HSUS co-founder Cleveland Amory

“The Humane Society should be worried about protecting animals from cruelty. It’s not doing that. The place is all about power and money.”
— HSUS consultant and former HSUS Chief Investigator Robert Baker, in U.S. News & World Report

“The life of an ant and that of my child should be granted equal consideration.”
— HSUS senior scholar Michael W. Fox

(Report Comment)
Amanda Stogsdill March 2, 2011 | 4:22 p.m.

I am so tired of hearing that Prop B applies to unlicensed breeders only. NOT TRUE. Generally, the Department of Agriculture REGULATIONS apply only to licensed breeders. Prop B is a STATUTE that does not distinguish between unlicensed or licensed breeders. Instead it applies to anyone who has the requisite number of dogs intended for breeding, licensed or not.

This is not the first time I have read such a statement in the Missourian, and I am disappointed that the paper is not requiring factual accuracy, even if this is an editorial.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer March 2, 2011 | 4:53 p.m.

Amanda says: "I am so tired of hearing that Prop B applies to unlicensed breeders only. NOT TRUE."
I agree!! It applies only to LICENSED breeders, as it is a modification of MODA regulations, not a stand-alone law.
The rest of your post is just a confused mess.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams March 2, 2011 | 5:10 p.m.


While I do not agree with you on this topic, and while I do think your defense of the issue gets a bit tedious and repetitious.....I'm glad you came back and were not run off by thinly-veiled intrusions into your computer disguised as benign "publicly available software."

As if that made it all ok.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 2, 2011 | 5:17 p.m.

What does a definition for "domestic animal" have to do with Proposition B? The phrase "domestic animal" does not appear in the Proposition B--anywhere.

So tell me, what does "circular argument" mean? Because asking what this phrase means, is just as relevant to Proposition B as your question.

And I do take exception to the slamming of veterinarians associated with shelters and rescues. These folks have to work with a lot of sick and injured animals--many of them covered in filth and fur so matted, their skin underneath the fur is rotting.

They have to deal with this heart break day in and day out, so so "breeder", whether licensed or not, can get bucks without having to put too much into their operations.

As for the dogs in the shelter: you're comparing dogs in a shelter that hopefully will be there a short time, with dogs kept in cages for all of their lives, by breeders.

And Amanda Stogsdill is correct: Proposition B applies to both licensed and unlicensed breeders. There is an additional enforcement law related to unlicensed breeders.

But Proposition B is less about licenses and more about the care of the dogs.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 2, 2011 | 5:25 p.m.

Michael Williams, thank you.

I know I'm not particularly welcome at the Missourian. And you're right: most likely everything that can be said has been said by all sides on this issue.

I hope, though, I've stayed on topic, and kept my commentary focused on what's relevant.

But yours is a good reminder: not sure there's anything new to add to the discussion.

(Report Comment)
Nancy Womack March 2, 2011 | 5:35 p.m.

Hey Terry,
Why don't you try getting out of your Mama's basement and get a job or something.
You have way too much free time.

(Report Comment)
Amanda Stogsdill March 2, 2011 | 5:36 p.m.

Ruth says: It applies only to LICENSED breeders, as it is a modification of MODA regulations, not a stand-alone law.

It is a STATUTORY amendment to Chapter 273 of the Missouri Revised Statutes - which can be found here: (I'm not sure what "stand-alone law" is, but the text of Prob B is now a statute and is therefore a law.)

The Department of Ag regulations, which are separate from the Missouri Revised Statutes and promulgated by the Department of Agriculture (NOT by our state legislature) can be found here:

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer March 2, 2011 | 5:44 p.m.

What does a definition for "domestic animal" have to do with Proposition B? The phrase "domestic animal" does not appear in the Proposition B--anywhere.
Just to refresh your memory, from the Prop B bill definitions:
”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.
If you don't know what a domestic animal is, how about a domesticated animal, then? Care to define it?

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer March 2, 2011 | 5:57 p.m.

LOL @ Amanda. Just go out and find one of those illegal breeders and you ask them how much they care about Prop B, and ask if it will affect them.
Operation Bark Alert was already in place to shut down illegal breeders who refuse to comply with current licensing. Prop B means nothing to them, but more sales opportunities when Prop B bankrupts all the good breeders.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer March 2, 2011 | 6:00 p.m.

Also still waiting to hear exactly what the 'gaps' are in the current regulations that Prop B fills, Shelley.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 2, 2011 | 6:30 p.m.

Just a quick follow up:

Ruth, you're right, the definition for pet contains the phrase, "domesticated animal".

According to the dictionary, domesticated animal is defined as a plant or animal that has been adapted to live in a human environment. Sounds like a good enough definition for me.

And to continue the "what does ____ mean", the definition for Pet in Proposition B contains the following:

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

The word animal is defined as:

A multicellular organism of the kingdom Animalia, differing from plants in certain typical characteristics such as capacity for locomotion, nonphotosynthetic metabolism, pronounced response to stimuli, restricted growth, and fixed bodily structure.

The word household is defined as:

A domestic unit consisting of the members of a family who live together along with nonrelatives such as servants.

And owner is defined as:

a person who owns; legal possessor

I think you can manage the conjunctives and assorted sundry other syntactic elements, but if not, I would recommend Google. Or Bing, if you prefer.

I hope you find this helpful.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer March 2, 2011 | 6:42 p.m.

Thank you, Shelley. So what is problematic about changing the definition of 'pet' to 'canine', since this bill is only about dogs? Seems to be a major problem to HSUS, HSMO, MAAL, etc.

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock March 2, 2011 | 8:04 p.m.

Shelly says ""Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof."

So if you own over 50 chickens and they are in a cage "near" a house would HSUS sue the owner for not giving them access to the outdoors?

How do you define "near?"

Please spare me with how HSUS would never try and do something like that.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 2, 2011 | 8:15 p.m.

Allan Sharrock,

Only if the chickens birth puppies.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams March 2, 2011 | 8:15 p.m.

Shelley: "...not sure there's anything new to add to the discussion."

I think that's correct. I also think not one single mind posting on this topic since November has been changed.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 2, 2011 | 10:31 p.m.

But Michael Williams, you're making an assumption that we're commenting to convince each other to the other side. Of course that's absurd.

But the commentary can serve many purposes: allow us to vent, because we're frustrated by our votes being crushed under the manure-clad boots of some state reps; inform the poor, luckless soul who stumbles onto the discussion (henceforth to be known as 'fresh meat'); spar with an intelligent writer (or throw darts are the logically challenged); send a message to the state representatives that if they thought they could quietly make a change and rip Prop B apart--perhaps counting on the short attention span most people seem to have nowadays--fat chance.

And then there's that itch that hits you, when you see something you know is not true...

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams March 2, 2011 | 11:18 p.m.

Shelley says, "'re making an assumption that we're commenting to convince each other to the other side. Of course that's absurd."

I don't think it's absurd at all. I see absolutely no reasons whatsoever to post in this place unless there is an underlying motive to convince. Everything else is just wasted physical and mental effort to no significant or lasting purpose, even for mental health benefits which are really faux illusions.

After all, chronic anger is unhealthy.

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 2, 2011 | 11:58 p.m.

@ Terry Ward- I do believe you need to LIVE in this STATE MISSOURI to decide what MISSOURIANS DO. Also your posting above about farm animals living in our homes- YES if we have lambs, calves, baby goats (kids), or any other type of FARM ANIMAL that needs a WARM place to sleep then YES US MISSOURIANS DO THAT. That is just part of LIFE WHEN YOU LIVE ON A FARM!! If the aniamls need EXTRA CARE in OUR HOMES we PROVIDE IT !!

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 3, 2011 | 8:09 a.m.

Well, Michael, to each their own.

Angie, you make Missourians sound like rural hicks, living in log cabins with pigs and chickens underfoot. That, following all the people yammering about how Missourians are too stupid to vote...good job. Way to go.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 3, 2011 | 8:29 a.m.

We just read that the vet Jim Foster is contemplating euthanizing an entire kennel.

Jim Foster
February 23 at 1:41pm

I have a kennel client who is contemplating euthanizing their entire kennel. They have lost their trust in rescues and do not want to become a target of the activists".
Possibly Stouffer has uncovered a local HSUS/ al-Qaida cell.

Fear of being an 'activist target' is certainly a creative excuse to for the breeders to rid themselves of dogs.

Whomever has breed rescue contacts in that area (Shelbina), please pass this info on to them..
We will pass this info on to the Humane Society of Missouri and to the pro-prop B FB sites in case they have breed-rescue contacts..

Please call Jim Foster and POLITELY and RESPECTFULLY ask him to PLEASE wait until the breed rescues can at least be notified before he euthanizes the dogs.

Foster, Jim DVM - Red Barn Veterinary Service

(573) 588-4472

528 E Maple St, Shelbina,

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 3, 2011 | 9:07 a.m.

Terry, I wouldn't trust what you read at that particular Facebook site.

I find it unlikely that there's any truth to this story.

(Report Comment)
Robin Nuttall March 3, 2011 | 10:22 a.m.

Hi Amanda! Good to hear from you. I think the point some are making about Proposition B is that unlicensed breeders will be no more likely to follow Proposition B than they were likely to follow existing statutes and laws. Since the huge majority of dogs in deplorable conditions in MO are already unlicensed breeders who are willfully ignoring the law, what difference will yet another piece of paper make to them? Especially since there is no funding in place in Proposition B to actually support people to go out and find those folks?

Unfortunately Proposition B punishes breeders who are duly licensed and complying with existing law, while making no real provision to deal with the scumbags who are giving the state the middle finger while abusing dogs to make a profit.

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson March 3, 2011 | 11:15 a.m.

HSUS does a bit of "push-polling" in the Husker state:

From dogs to hogs...

Can't happen in MO, though. HSUS only cares about saving the puppies...right?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 3, 2011 | 1:02 p.m.

Tony Robertson, your logic is grossly flawed.

Proposition B is about dogs in this state, not hogs in another. Because HSUS is interested in all animals, does not make Proposition B about all animals.

That's the same as saying it's below freezing in the Antarctic so it must be snowing here.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 3, 2011 | 1:04 p.m.

Robin Nuttall, one thing that Proposition B does is give law enforcement a way to crack down on any breeder, regardless of license. Right now, too much is dependent on the Department of Agriculture.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 3, 2011 | 1:53 p.m.

I have three points to make....
First...I'm so tired of hearing people talk about how the PMCPA does not apply to unlicensed breeders. We have a law for them already.... wait for it... here it is... it is called DOING BUSINESS WITHOUT A LICENSE! Every business must be licensed. Without a license, you get SHUT DOWN. That's why the PMCPA and the ACFA apply standards to LICENSED BREEDERS.
Here's an example..... A few weeks ago, there was a jerk selling puppies from his trunk at the gas station. (In unbearably cold weather on top of it) I called the police. The police came by & shut him down because he did not have a LICENSE to sell there.
So now, if this guy wants to sell puppies.... he needs to get a LICENSE. When he gets a license, then laws such as the PMCPA & ACFA can apply to him.
Secondly.... dogs cages in shelters are TEMPORARY cages until they are adopted into homes, sent to a foster home or euthanized. They do not live for YEARS NEVERENDING in shelters.
Dogs in breeding facilitites spend their ENTIRE LIVES in PERMANENT CAGES. That's why the PMCPA applies to breeding facilities and not to shelters.
Third, more than 50% of the vote supported the PMCPA. Yes, most of the support came from urban areas. This should be sending a message to the rural "farmers raising puppies"... that message is : YOUR CONSUMERS ARE SICK & TIRED OF YOUR METHODS OF FARMING PUPPIES. YOUR CONSUMERS WANT YOU TO CLEAN UP YOUR ACT!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 3, 2011 | 2:01 p.m.

Thank you to Shelly Powers & Terry Ward for continuously keeping a voice of reason in regards to the PMCPA here in the commentary at the Columbia Missourian this last year. I for one appreciate all your efforts to peacefully dissemenate accurate information thru the muck of outright falsehoods that have run amok here. Keep up the great work!

(Report Comment)
John Schultz March 3, 2011 | 3:09 p.m.

Marina, I highly doubt that a business license will help the matter much. Business licenses are granted by cities or counties, not the state of Missouri. In your example, the police probably told the guy to move along since he didn't own the gas station.

Also, your excessive capitalization usage is cruel and unusual.

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson March 3, 2011 | 6:56 p.m.

@Shelley Powers - my logic does not seem to be as flawed as your geography. Or, your analogies.

When I lived in Rock Port, MO, I could see Nebraska from my house.

I know, I know - HSUS is just a benevolent, animal welfare outfit.

(Report Comment)
Yves Montclear March 3, 2011 | 7:21 p.m.

I knew Shelley couldn't stay away.

She is like, if you'll pardon my angry pitbull, in a bad puppy mill.

She has chomped down on this issue, and I don't think she is going to let it go.

You go get them, Shelley!

(Report Comment)
dan doherty March 3, 2011 | 7:49 p.m.

Salus populi suprema lex esto.
This is the Missouri state motto, adopted in 1822.

It means,"The welfare of the PEOPLE shall be the supreme law."


whatever the majority decides is the supreme law,


The welfare of non-human animals is the supreme law.

Bills are passed and then amended later by legislation all the time.
That's how this country has worked for hundreds of years!

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire March 3, 2011 | 8:04 p.m.

"Amended" You do have a gift. (of sorts)

And yes, the welfare of the people is dependent on the lack of their pets welfare. And only the legislators can decide this.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 3, 2011 | 8:14 p.m.

Angie Noland, card-carrying member of the Ag Hags.
We thought the name was familiar.

The AgHags are out for Kevin Fulton's blood...A FELLOW FARMER no less, because he actually manages to operate a successful humane transparent sustainable farm.

Our biggest surprise in all this is how the so-called 'ag community' thinks NOTHING of nuking ANY farmer who does not shuffle to the anti-HSUS mein kampf two-step.

And no. this is not off topic...

For more proof of the anti-Prop parallel universe via Angie Noland via humanewatch, read this link...

It's a thing of wonder...

Thank you Angie....

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 3, 2011 | 8:22 p.m.

So dan doherty..... part-time constitutional scholar,

What is 'people' ?

What is 'welfare'?

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson March 3, 2011 | 8:49 p.m.

Just wondering: When (or if, if you prefer, in case I am being too paranoid here) HSUS comes back into MO with a fistful of dollars and a new animal rights issue du jour (be it gestation crates, poultry cages, confinement, castration, dehorning, etc.), do they plan to enlist the scientific bona fides of Betty White, to counter veterinarians and producers?

Actuarily speaking, if they are gonna get Betty again, they probably ought to get their undocked tails in gear. Lest she join her fellow Golden Girls in that Great Beyond, before once again lending her animal husbandry expertise to help a humane organization save more defenseless animals from our rapacious ag community.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking March 4, 2011 | 5:15 a.m.

Terry Ward wrote:

"successful humane transparent sustainable farm."

But conventional farmers do not fear these types of farms, for the same reason oil and coal companies do not fear solar and wind technologies. They're boutique operations, and are successful because a small number of consumers (including me sometimes) are willing to pay very high prices for their products. They do not supply a significant part of the general market.

Similarly, the types of breeders that remain in PA, and those that would be left in MO, are very small scale "boutique" breeders. This leaves a big gap in the supply of animals, which means the demand will be filled some other way. The "some other way" can be far uglier than what we currently have in MO. I can guarantee that more dogs will suffer in Mexican and Asian breeding operations than have ever suffered anywhere in the US.

Be careful what you wish for.


(Report Comment)
Staci Hobby March 4, 2011 | 10:39 a.m.

The passing of Prop B by such a small margin clearly states that the Proposition was unclear and vague. Of course good hearted Missourian's want animals taken care of properly. The breeders who are unlicensed are the problem here and that is clear. The breeders who are licensed and inspected all follow the rules and regulations set forth by USDA and the State of Mo. that already exist. This Prop B is damageing to the descent breeder and facilities that are already complying with the laws. I feel the people were mislead by false statements, false ads by the HSUS and animal activists. It is just not true that all breeders are the problem here. The new Prop B needs amended so that the good breeders can continue to raise and breed dogs according to the current laws without being forced to spend thousands of hard earned dollars on new buildings and equipment.

(Report Comment)
Jay Kitchener March 4, 2011 | 11:01 a.m.

Thank you, Mr. Miller, for this intelligent and well-written piece.

Terry Ward lives in Pennsylvania. Both Ms. Ward and Ms. Powers live in a Walt Disney fantasy world where all animals live like the animated characters in "Bambi." Neither Ms. Ward nor Ms. Powers have any animal husbandry experience to the best of my knowledge. Both Ms. Ward and Ms. Powers are shills, if not paid employees, of the controversial Humane Society of the United States.

I live in Maine. I am deeply concerned about Prop B in Missouri. We have a ballot initiative process in Maine. Our process was abused in 2008 by out-of-state organizations on a human rights issue. Mr. Miller is correct in describing the necessary process for the Missouri legislature to review and ammend this flawed legislation.

We also have a very strong presence from the controversial Humane Society of the United States here in Maine. HSUS has pushed for similar legislation, albeit on a smaller scale and without using the ballot initiative. HSUS pushed legislation in Maine that sought to outlaw "puppy mills" and limit breeding operations to 50 dogs. The Maine legislature rightfully listened to concerns that there is no legal definition of the term "puppy mill" in any law anywhere in the world, and that cruelty, neglect, and abuse can, and does, occur regardless of the number of animals owned.

Many folks across the country are closley watching what is happening with this issue in Missouri. I applaud the efforts of the Missouri legislature to separate emotion from fact.

(Report Comment)
Cheri Cason March 4, 2011 | 11:27 a.m.

Time for the out of state lobbyists to LEAVE Missouri. Prop B is gonna be GUTTED, so put that in your pipe and smoke it. :)

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 11:42 a.m.

There were several lies told in this campaign and I was a victim of two of them. I have to wonder if our "yes" voters would have voted yes if they knew ahead of time the real results. Prop B has yet to take effect and already dogs are being euthanized. This is a fact. I know because I've been asked many times to do it. Why? Because of the toxic environment that has been left in the wake of proposition B.
Many of our breeders now fear rescues. Gone is the good will that once existed between them and the people who attempted to find homes for retirement dogs. This is reality folks and the reality is that dogs are now being euthanized at an alarming rate. I have to wonder if this wasn't the intent all along.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 4, 2011 | 12:07 p.m.

Yo Jim Foster , you gonna do the dogs yourself?

How many is it...20, 40...100 ?

How many can you knock off at a time?

Puppies too, or just the old worn-out breeders?

We would love to see the list of breed rescues that this breeder 'no longer trusts'..

Of course you will never produce this list, so there is no way to corroborate your little fairy tale.

You blame a 'toxic environment' for the deaths of these animals.

Toxic environments don't kill dogs.
People do.

Just ask your NRA comrades.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 4, 2011 | 12:11 p.m.

Mr Shultz.... I disagree with you. As a business owner myself, I am licensed by the city & the county. In order to be licensed, I have to have been inspected for my type of business and pay the fees associated. Our company must be registered with the state of Missouri & pay sales tax to the state of Missouri. If I did business without a license, I would be shut down.
In my example, I'm sure the police told the guy he could not sell his puppies without a license to do so. So now, this man needs to either buck up go legit by getting licensed or quit selling. If not, he is knowingly breaking the law.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 4, 2011 | 12:24 p.m.

We will bet a bag of organic piggie ears that ' Jay Kitchener '
does not have an IP in Maine...

Or that Maine has no 'Jay Kitchener' either.

Naughty naughty.....

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 12:28 p.m.

Terry if you would like to friend me on facebook then you can look down my list of friends and find Jay Kitchener. Yep he is real. We could use that bag of ears here at our shelter.

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 4, 2011 | 12:37 p.m.

@ Terry Ward- how nice of you to keep track of me. I DO LIVE IN MISSOURI!! You sure have NEVER stated where you LIVE expectially what State you live in. You out of Staters need to STAY OUT OF MISSOURI'S BUISNESS!! I did not offend Kevin Fulton. We raise different types of Animals we all have a right to HUMANELY RAISE ANIMALS! We both take care of our animals!! So I believe you need to find a new career and get off your lazy *** and work on something in your own State!! You may also want to get up and let all those dogs that you have in your house outside. Skipperkees you have a house full of them REMEMBER!!

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 4, 2011 | 12:54 p.m.

If you click on TERRY WARDS name above were she has commented you can read all her postings she has posted about A HUGE PAGE FULL OF THEM calling people all kinds of names and rants and raves about Prop B.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire March 4, 2011 | 12:55 p.m.

"You out of Staters need to STAY OUT OF MISSOURI'S BUISNESS!!"

If I was trying to mock somebody I couldn't have written a better sentence. If the legislature votes over the people because the people are too stupid to know what is best for themselves are they going to agree with the author of the above sentence?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 4, 2011 | 12:59 p.m.

Angie Noland wishes to erect a Great Wall of Missouri?

Or perhaps secede from the Union?

She might start her own ballot initiative for that.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire March 4, 2011 | 1:05 p.m.

Send the out of staters to IRAQ!!!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 4, 2011 | 1:05 p.m.

If all you rabid anti-Proppers began to love animals more than you hate us, this war would be over.

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 4, 2011 | 1:10 p.m.

@ Terry Ward- You need to remember this is about PROP B. NOT about who hates who we are not in third grade. I believe when you grow up you will eventially realize when you TAKE CARE of your animals they TAKE CARE OF YOU!!

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire March 4, 2011 | 1:12 p.m.

Terry, you should be careful. It looks like Angie N is quite influential with the legislature. She just decided to go against you "out of staters" and look what happened...

Remember, you read it here first. They want to punish anyone who brings you through here. Be very careful.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 4, 2011 | 1:19 p.m.

And yet there is so much third grade grammar in evidence.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 4, 2011 | 1:30 p.m.

Missouri partition proposals:

!. McDonald County declared itself a territory (the McDonald Territory) for a brief period of time in July 1961.

2. Southern and central Missouri was often in the proposed state of Ozarkia to include northern and western Arkansas.

3. Both northern and eastern Missouri including St. Louis attempted state secession drives in the early 20th century.

A new project for Angie?

'Doggonistan' has a nice ring to it.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 4, 2011 | 1:38 p.m.

Paul Allaire makes us laugh often.
May we assume he alone recognized our small homage to Golda Meir?

(Report Comment)
Jay Kitchener March 4, 2011 | 1:49 p.m.

Well, Ms. Ward, I hope you’ll donate that bag of dog chews to your local shelter in Pennsylvania in my name.

You know very well that I live in Maine because you and your friends have sent me numerous threatening e-mails. I’ve shared those e-mails with the local police in your town.

It’s a shame that you can’t debate the issue on its merits, but that you have to stoop to personal attacks. It’s a clear indication of the desperation from your extremism.

Robert F. Kennedy said, "What is objectionable, what is dangerous about extremists is not that they are extreme but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 4, 2011 | 2:08 p.m.

We would be most amused to see evidence of our threatening emails to Jay Kitchener or anyone else.

We find it much more fun to play with bobbleheads than to threaten them.

We also wrack our brains to find anything in Jay Kitchener that demands such importance as to attract threats.

We fear Mr. Kitchener had been a victim of alien abduction.
Returned, yes, to earth by the aliens, but not before they had extracted some essential bits.

Nothing else could explain such paranoid delusions.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 4, 2011 | 2:35 p.m.

Tony Robertson

"When I lived in Rock Port, MO, I could see Nebraska from my house."

Is that, perchance, a Sarah Palin joke?

Paul Allaire is the type of person every intense thread needs to have--he brings both humor and needed perspective.

A last: can we all PLEASE agree to lay off the Caps lock? No matter what side we're on?

Pretty please? With King cake sugar on it?

Ah...King of the gods.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 4, 2011 | 2:55 p.m.

don dougherty, and to many people in this state, our welfare is impacted when we know dogs are living in miserable conditions.

Jim Foster, bunk. I'm sorry, but bunk.

Unless you're willing to put down facts to support any of your vague claims ('contemplating euthanizing...'), all your statements are, are hearsay, rumor, and to be blunt, whatever you feel might work.

But let's take your statement at face value...

We've heard from breeder after breeder talking about how much their love their little poochies...and here you are, talking about breeders who coldly and without compassion, kill the dogs because they're having a hissy fit about losing Proposition B.

If what you're saying is true, then above all we should put these awful, cold, miserable people out of business. Anyone who would be willing to kill dogs in a fit of pique doesn't deserve to have any--not as pets, certainly not for profit.

Yves, actually pit bulls are one of my favorite dogs. Incredibly loving, gentle, wonderful companions, smart as all get out--wanting nothing more than to love and be loved. Unfortunately, the town I live in has breed restrictions. Stupid, but there it is.

So, thank you for the compliment..except let's drop the angry and just say, I'm as tenacious as a pitbull in wanting to save the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act from being gutted by state representatives, who don't care about cruelty to dogs, but do care about them lovely agribusiness campaign dollars.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 3:31 p.m.

No bunk, just the sad aftermath of your cause.
I find it unique that the activists hold themselves higher than our veterinary profession. The humane kennel owners of this state are choosing humane euthanasia rather than sending their dogs to unknown destinations where they may end up in a wretched situation. Case in point:

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 4, 2011 | 4:05 p.m.

Jim Foster exibits the fractured logic of a 4th grader.:

The Puppy-Playground was a bad rescue.
We have a rescue.
Therefore we are a bad rescue.

Here's more Foster 'logic'.

We had a bad vet.
Jim Foster is a vet.
Therefore Jim Foster is a bad vet.


(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 4, 2011 | 4:31 p.m.

As a lifetime Missouri resident, I personally have no problem with "out of staters" as you call them, posting comments here about the PMCPA. (It's no longer a proposition, it's law that goes into effect Nov 1, 2011, so refering to it as Prop B no longer really makes sense, thus PMCPA is short for Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act)
Something that Missourians should realize is that "out of staters" are most often the purchasers of dogs bred in Missouri's Puppy Farms. Shouldn't the purchasers have rights to express their opinions also? Missouri's Substandard Dog Breeding Facilities are not just a Missouri problem and hasn't been for decades. By raising almost 40% of dogs bred for sale in the United States, our poor breeding practices are now the problem of the country.
DEFEND the PMCPA. NO Repeals, NO Admendments!

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 4, 2011 | 4:31 p.m.

You know you might think that is funny Terry Ward but the rescues around here all love to get so called dogs from breeders because then they have a story they call it the puppy mill story. That's what sells them they always say they came out of HORRIBLE PUPPY MILLS when most kennels are cleaner than peoples houses! Rescues make alot of money off so called puppy mill dogs research it for yourself..I sat and watched so called rescue groups give hundreds ( from $200-$1200 a dog) at Schindlers dog auction for bred dogs, adults and puppies. I also heard one rescue lady sitting in front of me say she had to have one mixed puppy that was up for bid and she gave $525 for it.. That is NOT a good rescue.. Their are lots of dog breeders that would like to find homes for some of their dogs or puppies that they would give to rescues but they don't because the rescues say that it come out of a horrible filthy puppy mill. They just want to find the dog a good caring home. So maybe that could take up your free time open a rescue where breeders could send their dogs and then tell the new owners they come out of a very clean well kept and managed licensensed kennel facitity that truely cares for their dogs that they just wanted to find it a loving and caring home. Getting free dogs from breeders and not charging much for an adoption fee would surely work wouldn't it..

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 4, 2011 | 4:55 p.m.

I've heard several stories from HSMO adopters where the dogs were refered to as "Breeder Release" because the breeder was going out of business or was getting in over their head with too many dogs. Those rescues were not described as coming from a "Horrible Puppy mills". On the other hand, HSMO has had dogs seized that did come from "Horrible puppy Mills" and those adopters were informed about the dog's enviornment & medical conditions. If a breeder truly cares about the dogs they need to "release", then they should release them to a rescue they trust. If they are not willing to do the legwork to check on the rescue or where the dogs are placed, then you can not tell me that they really "Cared" about the dogs in the first place if they feel the only option is to euthanize them.
Defend the PMCPA. NO Repeal. NO Admendments!

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 4, 2011 | 5:02 p.m.

Then maybe those rescues really need to step up and show theirselves because there are NONE around this area like that!!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 4, 2011 | 5:06 p.m.

Also, regarding the Schindlers Auction & someone paying $525 for a dog.... could it possibly be that the woman who paid that extraordinary amount wanted the dog for herself, or to make sure that the dog did not end up in another breeding facility? I'm sure the Schindlers could care less who got the dogs as long as the dog brought in as much money as possible for them.
Just for disclosure.... I volunteer for MAAL, Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation which does not work with animals, but works with legislators, law enforcement & the public concerning animal welfare law in Missouri. I am not involved with rescues, but our family has adopted from HSMO in the past. We've also taken in senior strays that ended up on our property with no tags, no chips & after months of trying to find their owners, made them part of our family. Our family does not have a rescued dog from a puppy mill, we prefer mutts (Less genetic problems & usually better temperments:)!
Defend the PMCPA. NO Repeals. NO Admendments!

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 5:25 p.m.

Thank you Marina for at least having the ability to come forward and identify yourself and what you officially represent.
As for Ms. Ward, I worked hard and made it past the 4th grade and obtained a veterinary degree. I am on the front lines 24/7 working to ensure that our animals receive the best of treatment. Alot of my work occurs in the middle of the night while you are snug in your bed. It also occurs during the holidays while you may or may not be celebrating. I have approximately 27 yrs of my life devoted here and am not some fly by nighter looking to ease my social conscience. This is very real for those of us in our profession and yes this does include our professional pet breeders.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle March 4, 2011 | 5:44 p.m.

Wait... There's a difference?!?

@Marina: "...does not work with animals, but works with legislators..."

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 4, 2011 | 6:18 p.m.

Angie, rescue organizations and other animal welfare groups warned those going to the auction NOT to bid high on dogs, but to be there to rescue the older dogs, the sick ones no one wanted. If anyone bid high, they're not an experienced rescue person.

Rescue people don't like to add to bad breeder's profits, though it is hard not to rescue all of the dogs.

However, the Schindler auction attracted a lot of newbies, and they're pretty vulnerable.

As for the comments, have you ever noticed that none of rescues, or orgs like HSMO, release the names of the breeders who voluntarily give up dogs? The only times the breeders are named is when the police get involved. With the Knee Deep in Collies rescue, it was the Stone County sheriff who released the name of the kennel.

No one is going to get bad mouthed if they voluntarily give up dogs--either because the dogs are "retiring", the breeder is downsizing, or going out of business.

And Mr Foster once again, rather than provide anything to substantiate anything that he says, uses Google to find something, anything that, though doesn't prove anything, creates a lot of noise.

Speaking of 4th grade, Mr. Foster, do you have a reading disability? If not, why do you deliberately choose to misrepresent what Marina said?

She is a volunteer with MAAL (thank you Marina). She did not say she "officially" represented MAAL. The only one who does that, as far as I know, is Bob Baker.

And if I remember correctly, your "kennel care program" is based on the concept of large scale commercial dog breeders--the larger the better.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 6:31 p.m.


(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 6:35 p.m.

Funny how the two individuals that I debated on radio also refused to address me in a professional manner. I was always referred to as "Mr." Several people listening picked up on that and called me or emailed me. It is one thing to be uninformed but to be overtly rude? Then again we are talking about someone who was caught red handed in not one but two major lies. Still waitin on those kennel inspection reports.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire March 4, 2011 | 7:16 p.m.

Say Jim...
If you're such a pompous ass that you want people to call you "doctor" then maybe you should have set the example when you logged on and made your screen name. You know what you can do with your title and your certificate.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire March 4, 2011 | 7:31 p.m.

"This is reality folks and the reality is that dogs are now being euthanized at an alarming rate. I have to wonder if this wasn't the intent all along."

Of course it was. The humane society wants to destroy your puppies because they hate your freedom.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 7:35 p.m.

Thank you Mr. Allaire for your comment.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 4, 2011 | 7:50 p.m.

Perhaps the financially astute Angie might consider contributing to some of our mill- rescue expenses what with the advanced heartworm and the eye & skin infections and the broken jaws and the mast-cell and mammary tumors and the patellar luxations and the mouth cancers and the diagnostic tests & x-rays & long term hospitalization& IV therapy& endoscopys.
We as yet haven't figured out how to make a profit on our rescue 'business'.
Maybe Angie has some suggestions?

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 7:51 p.m.

"Defend the PMCPA. NO Repeals. NO Admendments!" Volunteer statement? or representing a cause?

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 7:59 p.m.

Terry you just described what we see in practice with dogs that come from individual owners. Are you setting up a fund to help them? How many individual owners leave their dogs crated in apartments all day long and shovel clomicalm into them for anxiety disorders? We do routine dentals on kennel dogs. Wish we could talk individual owners into doing it on a routine basis. How many individual dog owners allow their dogs to have mammary carcinomas without treatment? Our licensed kennel people cannot make money with sick and dying dogs. They do use veterinarians. I see them more than individual dog owners.

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 4, 2011 | 8:07 p.m.

To Terry Ward, perhaps you could solicit some funds from HSUS or PETA or ASPCA for some funds to help with the problems those animals have, but they probably would just send them to kill shelters and have them put down since it is the cheaper route to go with

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 4, 2011 | 8:08 p.m.

@ Terry Ward- that's funny LOL because how many pets have health problems and defects that need fixed from the regular everday person's dogs. Not all problems are from Licensed Breeders.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 8:10 p.m.

You talk about all these expensive treatments and I have to wonder about the outcome. Are you spending hundreds of dollars to rehabilitate an animal only to turn around and euthanize because you have no place to go with it? I've heard that this has been an issue in shelters.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 8:13 p.m.

Please note that in 20 years of practice I have yet to see a dog come from a licensed kennel exhibiting any signs of heartworms.

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 4, 2011 | 8:33 p.m.

Dr Foster,
You must be reading my mind :-)

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 4, 2011 | 8:34 p.m.

Wowser, things are getting really illucid in here.
Too much even for us..

We are still reeling from our attempts to decipher Angie's grammar.

We think we will leave the nuts to the peanut gallery.

Disconnected thought is a psychological disorder, by the way.
We were unaware that it is also viral.

Now you all play together nice.

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 4, 2011 | 9:02 p.m.

@ Terry Ward- remember it is about the DOGS. I do believe you need to get off the computer and clear your ****** head...

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 9:14 p.m.

The lucid logical folks in this commentary aren't making reference to "aliens." Hope their skips don't get into the magic brownies.

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 4, 2011 | 9:19 p.m.

--Shelly Powers--We've heard from breeder after breeder talking about how much their love their little poochies...and here you are, talking about breeders who coldly and without compassion, kill the dogs because they're having a hissy fit about losing Proposition B.

If what you're saying is true, then above all we should put these awful, cold, miserable people out of business. Anyone who would be willing to kill dogs in a fit of pique doesn't deserve to have any--not as pets, certainly not for profit.

Yves, actually pit bulls are one of my favorite dogs. Incredibly loving, gentle, wonderful companions, smart as all get out--wanting nothing more than to love and be loved. Unfortunately, the town I live in has breed restrictions. Stupid, but there it is.

Do you remember this incident ( if so then by your above statement "then above all we should put these awful, cold, miserable people out of business" shouldn't HSUS and PETA be put out of business? Since they wanted these dogs put down before they even knew if they could be rehabilitated?

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 4, 2011 | 9:41 p.m.

There was a happier ending than what HSUS and Peta advocated for but not because of either one of those organizations.

Despite the recommendations of HSUS and PETA that they be killed, prosecutors allowed the dogs to go to No Kill adoption groups all over the country.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 9:42 p.m.

I wish they could be the ones that have to deal with this. Our clients do love their dogs and having to deal with a sobbing kennel client does make you lay awake at night. I've learned alot about dogs from my clients. They have taught me several things that were not taught in vet school.

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 4, 2011 | 10:05 p.m.

I would have to concede to the fact that there are probably bad kennels out there, and even bad private owners that have no right to own animals, but to say every kennel that does not provide what Prop. B wants does not make them bad kennels or puppy mills, some of Prop. b makes perfect sense other parts don't, if it is truly about the welfare of the dogs lets get it right from the start instead of having the animals suffer further from such things as 24/7 unfettered access to the outside and for Gods sake lets stop killing dogs just because it is cheaper and easier than finding them homes

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 10:22 p.m.

Stanley, there are bad kennels and bad individual owners. I've had to turn both sides in and have had to even shut both sides down. I've worked with Missouri HSUS and our state to take dogs out of bad situations on both sides of the aisle. My problem is the lies that were told in this campaign and during the debates in which I debated. The public was led to believe that all kennels are bad and that they do not use veterinarians. This was false information. They tried to make out that all kennels keep their dogs on wire and these to is untrue. They said that all dogs defecate and urinate on top of each other and that the wastes pile up on them and this is also untrue. So many lies told in this campaign against alot of truly honest hard working people. They say Missouri produces %40 of all dogs and that they are all ill and genetic failures. My problem with their statement is that we still have an out of state market and people keep wanting our dogs. Now if we produce such an inferior product, why are the phones still ringing? If all the states have an overpop. of dogs, why are other state rescues coming to Missouri to take dogs? If St. Louis and K.C. shelters are full of dogs, why are rescues coming out and buying dogs/puppies at the dog auctions? Something stinks in Denmark and it isn't a kennel dog or its owner.

(Report Comment)
danny kates March 4, 2011 | 10:25 p.m.

i personally think every one in the u.s of a that thinks like a person i read about in the coloum of a paper the other day,that said he was going to find out if the people of the u.s. could get signatuers for a petition to get it on the ballot to get the peoples vote to decide if the hsus could be shut down for not doing whats they r supposed to be doing,careing for animals period,that would be a interesting vote,i bet the people would vote to have HSUS put out of buisness,i mean really,any one with any sence at all that has done some research on all the activist,isnt really about the care of animals,its about them and their pockets,and causing all the trouble they can,do some research and youll see where all their money goes,for lobbying and their pockets,they dont even give 1 percent of their intake of donations to animal care,they have been screwing the government on taxes for years and r now being,sought by the I>R>S,for tax evasion,been rumored to have threatened to burn people out to get their way,pacelle said himself that his intentions r to put an end to all animal agriculture,they arent for the animals,they r for them selves and nothing else,i say give to youre local shelter and know youre money is all used to help the animals at hand,and not going into the pockets of the activist to get rich on,ill bet if you had a list of the kennel owners and started at a and went down the list,you wouldnt find 1 out of 100 kennels that werent up to standards,and if that one wasnt up to standards then shut them down,i wish that all these people that was for prop b that owns a dog or cat,would get fined in the event that a neighbor abused theire dog or cat,even though it was their neighbor and not them,allso its even in the mo. laws now that kennel owners have a exercise lot to let theire dogs run so many hours apiece a day,if they dont they need fined,but its all just like every one else says,the state of mo. cant enforce the laws it has,what the devil good is it to think more laws r going to do.i just think that its all one big hippocritical mess that should have been left alone or if any thing most of the laws they wanted were allready there,so the people should have voted to give the state more tax money to enforce the current laws,and there wouldnt be a problem in the first plc.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 10:33 p.m.

Danny we do need more inspectors. This is the key problem.
No doubt you will soon be ripped to shreds for your multiple use of commas. Fair warning!

(Report Comment)
danny kates March 4, 2011 | 10:42 p.m.

i just reread some of the comments,about the stacked cages,if the kennels r made like they r supposed to and ive not seen one that was made to where the manure fell on the dogs below,ive got 3 kennel owners that r friends of mine and they keep theirs on stacked cages and i dont even see a drop of water fall below to the lower cages when they wash it down,little alone manure,and as far as wire versus hard floor,unless you stand there 24 7 with a hose or shovel,from what ive seen the wire is a lot cleaner for the dogs than a hard surface,they poop on wire and have it tromped through in a couple of minutes ,and no more poop,the ones ive seen on concrete doesnt go no where till its cleaned up by the kennel owner so they tromp in it all day,run and play and slip and slide in it and fall down and get poop in their hair then have to be washed,so from the friends ihave that has both set ups,the wire by far is a lot cleaner and sanitary than a hard floor,my friends have carpets in side for them to get off the wire when they want so they arent on the wire 24 7,and every time im at i know 2 of thems house they have 3 concrete pads and are allways rotating dogs all day out side on the pads,so whats all the reteric about if they treated as the laws now state,its as humane as the owners that put them in a little bitty crate while they r at work all day,with no room to go nowhere and get out of theire,poop,and yes you can say that not all owners do that,youre right,but in regards,not all kennels are bad either,

(Report Comment)
danny kates March 4, 2011 | 10:45 p.m.

hello jim,sorry for the commas,im no speller or typest,but i can at least write enough to say my peace,ha ha ,take care buddy

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 4, 2011 | 10:53 p.m.

Dr. Foster, I agree the way Prop. B was presented led to believe that so much was wrong with kennels in this state, the ads pulled at heart strings, when i read the ballot I would of voted for it but I did my research and found that the laws already on the books did not allow for some of the things they said was the case. Yes dogs are allowed to be on wire but not 24/7 as they led people to believe, and not without impervious moister barriers between lower cages. The dogs were required to have daily exercise and human contact for socialization. Not just stuffed away and given food and water once in awhile. The main problem with the current laws was not enough enforcement, and the illegal breeders.

(Report Comment)
danny kates March 4, 2011 | 10:57 p.m.

you hit the nail on the head stanley

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 4, 2011 | 11:04 p.m.

I believe we currently have 12 inspectors for all of Missouri. There has been consolidation of areas due to retiring inspectors and lack of funds. Tenderfoot flooring is superior to vinyl coated wire and cement. We use it in our shelter/boarding facility. I mentioned this in the debates and they refused to even discuss it. Why? Anyone ever try to raise dogs on wet cement? They mandate only once a day cleaning. How stupid was this? Do you only change a diaper on a baby once daily? The language of this proposition is vague and poorly written. 4th graders could have come up with a better solution than prop B and probably could have written it better.

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 4, 2011 | 11:22 p.m.

Licensed breeders are inspected by the State and USDA (if they are USDA licensed) also by AKC (if they have enough AKC registered dogs) and they all have their own way of wanting things to be, I would imagine that gets very confusing sometimes for breeders. Also don't forget some of those inspectors don't only inspect breeders they also have to inspect dealers,zoo's,rodeos,shelters,pet stores,animal refuges and others that I can't think of at the moment but I'm sure it keeps them very busy with so few of them. The State and USDA do need more inspectors for sure.

(Report Comment)
danny kates March 4, 2011 | 11:29 p.m.

yeah thats the problem in a nut shell for the licenced breeders,as far as the unlicenced breeders,the inspectors arent going to do them no good any way unless some one knows they arent licenced and turn them in,99 percent of any problems is the unlicenced breeders any way

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 5, 2011 | 9:27 a.m.

Stanley Stoner, the organizations expressed their opinions, and did so based on one thing: it is hard to find homes for pit bulls now, much less ones that have been owned by dog fighters.

This is a problem across the country: because of the hysteria about pit bulls, and the breed restrictive laws, it is hard to find homes for homeless pit bulls.

The thought is, if we spend so much time and money saving these dogs, how many other dogs are lost? There are only so many resources to take care of these dogs rescued from fighting rings and bad breeders. It is a sad, and tragic fact.

But most of the dogs were saved, as well as most of the "Missouri 500" from the multi-state dog fighting ring bust several months ago. HSMO was heavily involved in that one.

Still doesn't change the fact: it is hard to find homes for all of the homeless pit bulls in this country.

What you neglected to mention in your comment is that the Best Friend's Society, which took the dogs, is a heavy supporter of Proposition B. In fact, donated "out of state" money for the campaign for Proposition B.

And what you also neglected to mention is that no one even considered euthanizing these dogs because they were having a hissy fit over losing a vote.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 5, 2011 | 9:35 a.m.

What Stanley Stoner and _Dr_ Foster neglect to mention in their little back and forth is that the current laws sound good except for one thing...

There are a lot of really crappy breeders in Missouri. They will get away with whatever they can get away with.

Oh, sure: they'll say they have an exercise plan, but how does an inspector verify that they actually follow it? Now you tell me, when a breeder has several hundred dogs, do you really, seriously think they all get time out of their cages for exercise, daily?

This is what's known as a "gap" or "loophole" in the law: it is impossible for an inspector to verify compliance.

Proposition B closed the gap. It provided for a) roomier cages, b) access to an exercise area, and c) solid floors.

Speaking of solid floors: What _Dr_ Foster also neglected to mention is that is Tenderfoot was specifically rejected as a suitable flooring for kennels in Pennsylvania, primarily because tenderfoot was designed for hogs, not dogs.

And he talks about wire cages in his clinic, but also fails to remind the people that the dogs in his clinic _don't live there all of their lives_.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 5, 2011 | 9:42 a.m.

I have no idea what snide innuendo _Dr_ Foster is trying to imply with his statement about the rescues helping us with our massive breeder problem in this state.

I do know that shelters and rescues in other states are adversely impacted by the sheer number of dogs being bred in this state. I have a friend in Vermont that has a rescue dog from a pet store. The dog was going to be euthanized, because it didn't sell by its "sell by" cuteness date, and the pet store didn't want to have to pay for its keep.

And she traced it back to, you got it, a breeder in Missouri.

What we do in this state impacts on other states.

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson March 5, 2011 | 10:17 a.m.

@Dr. Jim Foster: are you the vet who schooled the old gal from HSUS on a radio interview out of STL?

If so, good show, sir. Hard to counter the sound, experienced animal husbandry expertise and knowledge of MLB managers and octagenarian TV stars, though.

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 5, 2011 | 1:14 p.m.

@ Shelley Powers- Then why are the RESCUES EXCLUDED in Prop B. If Licensed Kennels have to apply with the laws then why were Rescues and Shelters left out???? Oh that's right I forgot it is because if you have a rescue you are intitled to keep a dog in a crate 24/7 that is also suppose to be exercised once daily?? How do you know that ever gets done??

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 5, 2011 | 1:30 p.m.

QUOTE: jim foster March 4, 2011 | 7:51 p.m.
"Defend the PMCPA. NO Repeals. NO Admendments!" Volunteer statement? or representing a cause?
Volunteer. I am not paid.
I believe we should be humane whenever possible.... both to humans & animals. One of the main reasons I volunteer so much time & effort to Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation (MAAL) is because they are the only non-profit lobby group for animal welfare (not animal rights) in Missouri. They have no vested interest in anything but compassionate standards of care for Missouri animals. MAAL will never say that you cannot breed dogs, but they will say that if you are going to, you should be doing so responsibly. They are not against breeding, only against inhumane breeding.
BTW, I volunteer my time & efforts for many organizations, not just the Alliance. However, there is a lot of crossover when it comes to children & animals. Most often animal cruelty escalates to human cruelty. If you can teach a person to be humane to animals, that crosses over to being humane to humanity.
For those who would like to know more about MAAL, the website is The mission of Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation is to protect animals from abuse, neglect and exploitation by monitoring and facilitating the passage of animal welfare laws, thereby enhancing the quality of life for people and animals in Missouri.
Defend the PMCPA. NO Repeals. NO Admendments!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 5, 2011 | 1:38 p.m.

More about Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation:
Position Statement
The Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation believes that society has a responsibility to protect animals from cruelty, abuse and neglect. The welfare of animals should include: responsible care; proper housing; nutrition; disease prevention and treatment; humane handling; and when necessary, humane euthanasia. Additionally, the Alliance expects the authorities to enforce animal protection laws, maintain oversight and public scrutiny of the use of animals.
Specifically, the Alliance:
-Believes companion animals (dogs and cats) should be kept by responsible persons; should be spayed or neutered when not being bred; should be bred by responsible breeders only; should not be released or purchased from animal shelters or pounds to be used for animal experimentation or testing.
-Recognizes traditional hunting and fishing activities as regulated by the Missouri Department of Conservation and expects the rules and regulations to be strictly enforced.
-Believes farm animals should be bred, raised, transported and slaughtered humanely and that the rules and regulations governing these activities should ensure humane treatment.
-Opposes all blood sports, i.e. dog fighting and cockfighting.
-Believes stricter regulations are needed for exotic animals as pets (lions, tigers, and bears, etc.) including, but not limited to, a ban on breeding, liability insurance requirements and limits on the number of pets.
-Recognizes that Missouri has the largest concentration of commercial dog breeding facilities (a.k.a. puppy mills) in the country and expects that the Missouri Department of Agriculture and the United States Department of Agriculture will strictly enforce the rules and regulations that govern this industry, and enact any necessary changes to the standards to ensure the health and welfare of the dogs.
For those who would like to join the Alliance, please do! there is no membership fee & they will keep you up to date with information regarding animal welfare law in Missouri.
Dr Jim Foster (And any others with questions), I would encourage you to contact the executive director of MAAL, Bob Baker at
I'm sure he can answer your concerns regading the PMCPA far better than any of us here. He is always open for disscussion & extremely knowledgable about animal welfare law in Missouri.
Defend the PMCPA. NO Repeals. NO Admendments!

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 5, 2011 | 1:53 p.m.

Angie, you've asked this before. Next time, why don't you actually read the response rather than pretend to be outraged all over again.

Seriously -- the faux umbrage is getting tiring.

Puppy mill. We have a serious problem with puppy mills in this state. We don't have a problem with shelters in this state. We don't have a problem with bad pet boarding kennels in this state. We don't have a problem with pet groomers in this state.

But we do have a problem with puppy mills in this state.

Proposition B is specific to puppy mills. Notice the term use in the Act's text? Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act?

As the Department of Agriculture wrote in response to one of the Missouri audits: we don't have a problem with bad shelters/rescues in this state. They do, however, have problems with breeders.

For instance, of the 1390 commercial breeders in the state, the department found 879 violations of existing laws.

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 5, 2011 | 8:15 p.m.

@ Shelley Powers-Exactly you didn't answer my question the first time and I see your not going to the second time either. That's funny than why do alot of the rescues breed dogs and raise puppies?

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 5, 2011 | 8:19 p.m.

@ Shelley Powers- so your saying it's ok for the rescues to put them in a pet taxi (or crate) 24/7 then to have the space requirements already in place for Licensed kennels.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 5, 2011 | 11:20 p.m.

Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it in the enjoyment of his life, liberty, and property, according to standing laws. He is obliged, consequently, to contribute his share to the expense of this protection; and to give his personal service, or an equivalent, when necessary. But no part of the property of any individual can, with justice, be taken from him, or applied to public uses, without his own consent, or that of the representative body of the people. In fine, the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent.

John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 5, 2011 | 11:32 p.m.

Shelly your numbers are somewhat misleading don't you think?
How many actual kennels were responsible for the so-called violations? Apply the amount of violations per kennel and get back to us. When I debated we were told on air around 20 to 30 kennels had violations on various levels. Do the percentages here. You are attempting once again to make the entire industry look quilty when in fact they are not. What we also need to look at are the number of outside rescues coming in here and leaving with dogs that have not been inspected or issued health certificates. How many have been vaccinated for rabies prior to leaving Missouri?

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 6, 2011 | 12:13 a.m.

Please note that a cobweb is considered a violation as is an empty feedsack. Under prop b a piece of dog food in a water bowl is a violation. Mineral stain is now being called rust and is a violation when it appears on vinyl that is part of a manure catch sytem and has zero contact with a dog.

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson March 6, 2011 | 12:19 a.m.

Barbara Schmitz. That was the woman Dr. Jim Foster took to ye olde debate woodshed on KMOX last fall. Her noteworthy retort, when proven so wrong on the facts - "Regardless..."

A phrase similar to "forget who pays the bills". She also didn't seem to know Montgomery City from Shelbina. Similar to Nebraska from Antarctica. Must have had both debate and geography classes with Shelley Powers.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 6, 2011 | 5:15 a.m.

Jim Foster..

Regarding the dogs you will be destroying...

I have been crossposting with other national breed rescues,

If you can give me specific breeds if will be easier all around.

The groups dealing with the more 'popular' breeds are pretty much swamped will take some work to get a railroad going...

NONE of us have any interest whatsoever in the name or location of the breeder.

We are only interested in getting as many dogs as humanly possible
to safety.


(Report Comment)
Cheri Cason March 6, 2011 | 5:52 a.m.

Ye olde debate woodshed! LOL! LOL!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 6, 2011 | 7:14 a.m.

Cheri Cason's finds humor in the destruction of dogs?
Cheri Cason also finds humor in the destruction of wild animals.

We find it curious that someone who kills beavers for fun is so pertwitzed about Proposition B.

Is Ms. Carson afraid that Proposition B will disallow her to continue her pleasure in the destruction of wild animals?

We do not find caribou or bear or lion or giant beaver mentioned ANYWHERE in Proposition B.

Does Ms. Carson believe that the protection of puppies is a slippery slope toward preventing her fun in the destruction of wild animals?

We do not think Ms. Carson will be prevented from shooting lions and beavers as there are MANY out-of-state interest groups who will
forever support her constitutional right to eviscerate wild animals willy nilly.

We are certain that Ms. Carson's trophy rooms will remain inviolate and her pursuit of happiness will remain unchallenged regardless of Proposition B.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 6, 2011 | 7:58 a.m.

Angie, I gave you an answer, but you're not interested in answers, only fake outrage.

Dogs don't live in shelters all their lives. The purpose of the shelter is to rescue dogs from bad situations and find them homes. End of story.

Stop breeding too many dogs, problem is solved.

Jim Foster, and if the puppy mill people feel their rights have been abrogated, they can challenge Prop B in court. It is a better thing to do then allow agribusiness money to influence state representatives into overriding the vote of the people.

Your cobweb thing? Bunk. Your numbers? In the USDA inspections, I'm seeing about half with violations.

What's more important, though, is that the existing standards are inadequate. Dogs can be kept in thin, plastic "dogloos", 24x7, with only straw as bedding. Dogs can be kept in wire cages 6 inches longer than they are, with wire floors. Dogs can be sick or injured and not treated by a vet.

And none of these are violations. When you have a low bar like this, any violation has to be treated as an actual endangerment to the dogs.

I can't believe any veterinarian would support this.

(Report Comment)
Cheri Cason March 6, 2011 | 7:58 a.m.

@ Ward- try to at least spell the name correctly, OK?

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 6, 2011 | 8:06 a.m.

And your crack about the rescues? Those people dogs to a better life, which seems to really irritate you, Jim Foster?

During the Schindler auction, the rescue folks contracted with a vet to review medical records, the general health of the dogs rescued, and their shots, before transporting them. This meets state and federal guidelines, and also the requirements the auction house put on all buyers (mandated by law). If people don't provide their own vet, they have to use the auction house's vet.

Yet at the auction, they "changed their mind" for the rescue people--rather than allow their contracted, qualified vet to do all the services (already paid for), they forced the people to use the auction vet. In effect, they forced the rescues into paying twice.

Not the breeders from other states...just the rescue folks.

It was a petty, punitive measure--evidently taken because there's nothing a breeder seems to hate more than dogs being rescued.

Yeah, you tell me about the "goodness" of the people in the large scale commercial breeding operation in this state. You keep telling us, Jim Foster.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 6, 2011 | 8:19 a.m.

The following is the Best Friends note on that auction

And, oh yeah, that auction house? Owned by a man named Hughes...who happens to be related to the Hughes associated with one of the worst puppy mills in this state, Do-Bo-Tri. That's the one that had a load of puppies in a truck that broke down. The truck left the truck at a mechanics and went off to find himself a nice, air conditioned drink somewhere, without telling the mechanic that live animals were packed like sardines in the truck's hold.

It was only the whimpering of the puppies that alerted the mechanics, who called for help, and tried to rescue the puppies themselves.

They did a good job, but four still died, and another died because it had parvo.

And these people had a Missouri and USDA license. Well, until the papers got wind of this incident, and the the powers-that-be had to finally crack down, and pull their license.

Rumor has it that one of the members is now working for the Hunte Corporation. That's the place that came under fire recently because it exceeded the, what it it, a thousand pounds of dead puppies on its properties? I can't remember the amount. The one that ships 90,000 puppies in trucks like this.

Cobwebs in feed sacks, indeed.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 6, 2011 | 8:34 a.m.

And to take this back to the writer of this article, Miller, I would suggest that he spend some time looking at USDA inspection reports for Missouri breeders:

Speaking of Hughes, he can start with this as a last name among active breeders in Missouri.

Yeah, cobwebs in feed sacks. Right, Jim Foster.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 6, 2011 | 8:36 a.m.

Sincere apology to the Courageous Hunter Of Beavers Ms. Cason for the unintended name miss-spell.

We must admit some obviously off-topic curiosity though.
We have little knowledge of such things.

Was the beaver included in your dinner menu?

(Report Comment)
Cheri Cason March 6, 2011 | 9:16 a.m.

Some left-winger is googling my name. lol Perhaps the left failed to notice the "LEEF LIKKER" warning on the front page. Yes indeed! I have unrestrained enthusiasm for the words "gut" and/or "gutting" especially when applied to Prop. B :) :) Pennsylvania.. ?? So you're an outsider/lefter? I take measures to protect my lake against beavers & muskrats. I erected signs asking them to move on; when they failed to comply they were BLASTED TO SMITHEREENS. That answer your question? Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a rule against holding conversations with The Left, even though (much to our chagrin) our agriculture continues to feed them & their ilk. Good Day, Sir.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 6, 2011 | 9:35 a.m.

National rescues? Your little cause jumps from state to state and claims that dogs are over flowing in the shelters and then you turn around and want to come to Missouri and take our dogs back to your states because you have people who want them. You yell from your lungs about the Schindlers yet many of those people who went to that kennel were dumbfounded at how terrific a facility the Schindlers had and at how wonderful the dogs were. I guess that might account for the high prices that they fetched. Yes kids we had our people there when the rescuers approached Mrs.Schindler and apologized to her. Those same folks had to sign documents that they would not bring cameras into that sale. Guess what! They were caught with their little hat cams! Ooops! Shelly in all those USDA reports do you find my 500 dog kennel that my wife "Mary" and I own? The one that Barbara Schmitz said I had on KMOX radio.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 6, 2011 | 9:43 a.m.

Jim, please respond to my request for possible help with the dogs you are going to destroy.

Again, no one is concerned where they come from.

We just want to try and help.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 6, 2011 | 10:21 a.m.

jim foster, there you go: can't answer the horrors of the puppy mills, so attack the shelters and rescues that are helping Missouri out.

They not only couldn't bring cameras in, that idiot Hughes tried to pretend they would be criminally prosecuted if they took photos. I had an email exchange with him before the election--what a piece of ... "work" that guy is.

Yet, if the dogs and the place were as good as you say, you would think they would welcome the photos. Why don't they, Jim foster? Why don't the breeders put photos of their operations on their web sites? Or invite the press to see their wonderful places?

They're sure willing to show photos of puppies in pink and blue blankets and cuddling with little kiddies--but they never show the cages, you seem to think are acceptable to dogs.

Rescues who apologized, yeah, right jim foster

The corgi in the last story died, after a lot of effort to try and save him.

But you can see the Schindler report yourself, at APHIS using customer number 4320. Unless you want to tell me that the USDA inspectors also apologized to the Schindlers, too, jim foster?

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 6, 2011 | 11:06 a.m.

I think we are all starting to wake up to the harsh reality of rescue. You want to point the finger and place our licensed kennels in a one size fits all category. Here is a commentary on what does go on with people who have the need to be the hero. Is this where our dogs will end up?

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 6, 2011 | 11:09 a.m.

Why aren't you saving all those dogs that are being put down by the parent non-profit company? I just read about their euthanasia rate. All those millions and they put down that many dogs/cats in one year. Something doesn't add up here.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 6, 2011 | 11:14 a.m.

Prop B is becoming the Auschwitz of the canine world. Perhaps this was the true intent of its supreme leader.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 6, 2011 | 11:23 a.m.

We applaud the effort of local shelters and ask that people stop giving to the television ads. We've encouraged people to donate supplies, food and volunteer time. We are developing our own network of potential homes for pets that does not exclude cats as did prop B. I find it odd that you claim this huge consumer problem with dogs yet in the attorney generals top ten list of consumer complaints I find no mention of dogs.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 6, 2011 | 11:46 a.m.

The one size fits all description of our kennels has also had an adverse effect. There has been all this talk that our kennel dogs all have horrible health problems. Your cause ranted and raved to the point that people are asking themselves: "why would I want to adopt a sick dog from a kennel?" You shot yourselves in the foot on that one. Alot of lovely dogs are being put down because the activist cause went whackadoo here. It created a cloud of doubt among people who might have adopted. We had some really nice partnerships with rescues and now the air of contempt has entered our state. Our kennels feel that they are now targets. You cannot repair that kind of damage.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 6, 2011 | 11:50 a.m.

The Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act (PMCPA) was passed into law last November and is actually no longer a proposition. Referring to it as Prop B is no longer accurate.
The PMCPA was written to only include dogs. That is why it does not cover cats. (It also does NOT cover chickens, pigs, horses or any other animals besides dogs).
Defend the PMCPA. NO repeal. NO Admendments!

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 6, 2011 | 12:01 p.m.

I can find hundreds of bad inspection reports of breeders in Missouri alone, but you have to dig to find a handful of bad rescue and shelters throughout the country (and Canada).

Typical, but what is not is using something Auschwitz. You went so far over the line on that one, that continuing this discussion with you would be absurd. I would have expected this type of comment from ill-educated KKK member in the depths of the Ozarks, but not a supposed educated vet.

Marina, you have a good point: it is the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 6, 2011 | 12:06 p.m.

There are many issues not only in Missouri but across the United States that contribute to the mass euthanasia numbers. There are horrors on many levels.
But I would disagree with the theory that because there are other problems in the world we should not work to correct them without working to correct all of them simultaniously. The correction of all problems that lead to 4 million plus dogs being out down nationwide per year unfortunately will not happen overnight or even in my lifetime. Does that mean that we should turn our back to the problems completely? No. It means that we make progress in feasible steps. And work toward a day when rescue is no longer neccessary.
Puppy Mills are not the only contributing factor to euthanasia rates, but it is one contributing factor. And it is an issue that is currently in the public eye where progress can be made now. As consumers, we expect the best from our dog breeders and that includes compassionate care for the breeding dogs.
Will the PMCPA eliminate all the problems that contribute to the euthanasia rates? NO. But even if it makes a small difference in the longterm euthanasia rates, then IMO it is worth it.
Defend the PMCPA. NO Repeals. NO Admendments!

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 6, 2011 | 12:31 p.m.

Shelly, keep digging into those inspection reports on behalf of Barbara. She has yet to provide those reports on that 500 dog kennel of mine. If things are so wise and wonderful with shelters and rescues, let us apply the rules to them also and make it fair for all. We know what is coming down the road after this. Next up will be the livestock.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 6, 2011 | 12:43 p.m.

My final comment is for Marina. You've been very nice in your comments and have not lowered yourself to name calling or have tried to discredit professional individuals. Yes there are bad eggs and we have worked hard to eliminate them. People want puppies and they will get them either from licensed or illegal breeders. This is a fact that will not change. I see far more problems with animal health issues in individually owned dogs than I do with our licensed kennels. I see our licensed kennels owners on a daily basis. The basic problem is the number of inspectors.
Your new law does nothing to address that issue. In fact, it will cost the state alot of money when you put on that 50 dog cap. Fees are paid into the state on a per puppy sold number. There is zero trust in this state. Why? Because we know that they will lie through their teeth. What was done to me on KMOX radio is proof of that. We will continue to work hard with our kennels to ensure the best possible care and treatment. We will also do our best to repair the damage done by this effort.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 6, 2011 | 12:46 p.m.

Jim, please respond to my request for possible help with the dogs you are going to destroy.

Again, no one is concerned where they come from.

We just want to try and help.

(Report Comment)
Erma Zimmerman March 6, 2011 | 2:32 p.m.

Dr Jim I agree wholeheartedly that the AR people are trying to create a Auschwitz for the dogs here in America. However I would extend that further to also include any dog lovers, breeders, and etc. In this latter part I am mainly referring to the natural rights that all citizens have to own, and enjoy a wonderful canine friend in their lives if they choose to do so. If the legislature doesn't step in, and do something to stop this AR movement we will truly be left without any rights of our own!!

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 6, 2011 | 3:14 p.m.


Did the 'Erma Zimmerman' recently move to Missouri from a perhaps an isolated cave on a distant planet?

This would be the ONLY explanation for such a gross and unspeakably
illucid misunderstanding of the meaning of 'Auschwitz'.

And would also explain the absence of ANY comment on this long debated subject.

Or perhaps this is the Erma Zimmerman' whose kennel license was recently revoked?

(Report Comment)
Erma Zimmerman March 6, 2011 | 3:30 p.m.

Terry Ward ABSOLUTELY NONE of the things you mentioned about Erma Zimmerman apply to me, so I'm extremely sorry to burst your fat bubbly little bubble! For once dear Terry Ward you are wrong in your dictator like assumptions! I have been reading all the comments for awhile already, but declined to leave one of my own, because I knew as soon as I do the AR people will come a'bashing. Funny how right I was, isn't it??? :)

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 6, 2011 | 3:34 p.m.

The Arkansas people?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 6, 2011 | 3:41 p.m.

Erma Zimmerman sayes

"I am ABSOLUTELY NOT an alien!"

Good to know, Erma.

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson March 6, 2011 | 4:08 p.m.

If I were referee of this discussion, I think I would have to throw two penalty flags:

One on Dr. Foster, for the Auschwitz analogy. I come down on your side of this issue, but I dislike comparisons of this nature. I did not like it when PETA, HSUS' bosom buddy, put photos of chickens in cages alongside photos of concentration camp inmates, in one of their ad campaigns. I don't care for your use of the analogy, either.

The second, on Shelley Powers, for the "ill-educated KKK member in the depths of the Ozarks" crack. I'm a seventh-generation Ozarker (and I even have all my teeth, and a decent education). While hardly a bastion of racial or ethnic diversity and tolerance, the only time in the last 42 years I am aware of KKK activity was when locals ran the mostly non-local group out of town after town. I don't care for your analogy, either.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 6, 2011 | 5:02 p.m.

Although we believe Tony Robertson to be our SWORN ENEMY regarding Proposition B, we humbly bow to his great wisdom regarding the despicable Auschwitz analogy.

When we become Queen we will force EVERYONE who abuses the Auschwitz analogy to spend a year emptying bedpans in military hospitals.

Possibly by obsserving the horrors of true human suffering, they might be more careful with their words and better, learn to find compassion for something other than their own political agendas.

And stop being clowns.

Alas, even as Queen we will not be able to stop that.

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson March 6, 2011 | 6:51 p.m.

@Terry Ward: I don't know that I have any SWORN ENEMIES. Just people with whom I disagree.

I, too, think I exhibit great wisdom, though. So, we have that commonality.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 6, 2011 | 7:01 p.m.

Thank you Dr Foster. I agree there are bad eggs in both the breeding industry & rescues and people who want puppies will either buy them from a breeder (licensed or illegal) or adopt from a shelter. Dogs are a huge part of the American Family. And I agree we need additional inspectors. I think all animal welfare activists would agree to that point also! But I disagree with you that the PMCPA does nothing toward helping prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty. The PMCPA does not replace current the ACFA, but it adds to & clarifies it and in doing so will make it easier for the current inspectors to do their jobs.
I listened to the KMOX interview between you & Barbara. I personally thought the interviewer himself did a lousy job of moderating the debate. I also believe that the Yes on B Campaign would have been better off with a better spokesperson, such as Bob Baker, who has a much better ability to communicate the issue in a more professional way. Personally, I wish you had had the opportunity to debate the issue with Mr Baker instead. (IMO, Barbara was way too soft spoken & though I know she is dedicated to the cause, is not the best to represent the campaign, but that is just my opinion).
I agree with you that there is nothing to be gained from name calling. The first rule I was taught in debate class was to refrain from name calling. It only belittles your own arguements.
Defend the PMCPA. NO repeal. NO Admentments!

(Report Comment)
dan doherty March 6, 2011 | 8:51 p.m.

Marina Shane March 6, 2011 | 7:01 p.m.
"I agree there are bad eggs in both the breeding industry & rescues and people who want puppies will either buy them from a breeder (licensed or illegal) or adopt from a shelter."
So, you acknowledge substandard facilities,neglect and even abuse can be a problem in shelters and with rescues.
You logically and out of compassion for animals must concure with the revision introduced and passed by committee regarding shelters and rescue's:
"expands the act to include anyone with more than 10 female dogs over the age of six months that operates an animal shelter, pound, boarding kennel, commercial kennel, contract kennel, pet shop, or exhibition facility, other than a limited show or exhibit, or act as a dealer or commercial breeder." (State Rep. Joe Aull reports on activities in the House Agriculture Committee.)

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 6, 2011 | 10:40 p.m.

For those of you who might wonder why our kennels feel that they are being targeted, I suggest you read the comments in this article. You will see that my name, address and phone have been listed by the anonymous "littleblackdogs." Is this name familiar to you Terry?
Thank you for proving to all of Missouri what is behind this movement.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 6, 2011 | 10:46 p.m.

Marina, I debated Bob Baker in a group debate at Truman State University. Very nice man. There are so many problems with this proposition that they didn't have a chance. The students and faculty were rolling their eyes and laughing afterwards. I actually felt sorry for them. Everyone tried to distance themselves from HSUS yet they sent HSUS to debate me on radio. Wouldn't you think out of all those thousands of signatures that they could have found someone? At least find someone that was actually good at telling a lie. That debate was the shot heard around the world. Talk about shooting one's self in the foot.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 6, 2011 | 10:52 p.m.

Note: I received a call from Mark Reardon, KMOX radio after the debate with Pacelle. He was very apologetic for me not getting much time in to speak. Please understand that I was horribly ill with pneumonia and sinusitis and that they were having trouble picking up my voice as I was speaking via phone. I thought Mark was terrific in the second debate with Schmitz. That was pure magic.

(Report Comment)
jim foster March 6, 2011 | 10:58 p.m.

Note:Dr. Gina Loudon was the Pacelle debate and she was wonderful. So many debates in such a short period of time.
She has a true gift.

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 6, 2011 | 11:16 p.m.

@ Shelly Powers- About the Corgi at Schindler's Auction. I sat and played with ALL the Corgi's at Schindler's Sale they were very beautifull dogs and the video I seen of the corgi afterwards looks like they got him all dirty and wet. The Corgi's were very clean and healthy I seen that with my own eyes. They also brought TOP dollar if they were in bad shape they sure wouldn't have brought the price they did.

When breeders bought dogs like myself we had to pay the vet fees like everyone else and yes my puppy from their had a Rabies shot too.

The USDA makes it public knowledge to publish kennel records.

On the other hand when you have a rescue in the State of Missouri you just have to be State Licensed. Those records are NOT public knowledge. Why Shelley do you think that is don't you think they would show write ups about stuff ??

I have a license and my last inspection has one write up on it and you know what it was-- I AM going to tell you exactly what it was.. I have some treated lumber outside my whelping building and I got wrote up for my TREATED lumber not being water sealed. Yes you heard it because my treated lumber was not water sealed. Go figure out of all things to get wrote up for..So I drove to Walmart and bought some water sealer for my treated lumber and painted away. My front porch isn't even water sealed.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 6, 2011 | 11:33 p.m.

We are now certain that jim Foster's restraints are degenerating,

He prefers to KILL an entire kennel of dogs instead of responding to our repeated offers in THIS discussion to find help.

He raves that we are 'anonymous' when we have never been so.

We ARE complimented, thought, as Jim Foster believes we are the ONLY person on the planet intelligent enough to locate his address.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 7, 2011 | 12:56 a.m.


That was not Terry or Shelley that posted your details on that article.

Whoever it was writes far too intelligently for it to be either one of them....... LOL.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 7, 2011 | 6:22 a.m.

Tony Robertson seems to suffer from irony deficiency.

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson March 7, 2011 | 6:54 a.m.

But fortunately, not a wisdom deficiency.

If only I were as wise as Terry Ward. That, would be something.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 7, 2011 | 7:20 a.m.

Tony Robertson took his irony deficiency pill this morning!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 7, 2011 | 11:30 a.m.

In response to Mr Doherty
I do acknowledge there are problems in both breeding facilities & rescues/shelters, but to take that acknowledgement & then leap to the conclusion that I would support the current Senate Bill #95 is ridiculous.
The PMCPA was written specifically to address the issues with breeding facilities where dogs are housed in the same cages there entire lives. As I've state here countless times before, shelters are meant to be short term, temporary housing (as are pet shops, show facilities, etc). The PMCPA applies only to dogs in commercial Breeding Facilities & was written to combat specific problems in that industry to clarify the current law & make it easier for the inspectors & law enforcement to enforce the law.
What I stated is that the PMCPA is specific to battling ONE problem in the industry. When it comes to shelters, rescues, I believe those are distinctly separate issues/problems as the intent of the facilities are different. Shelter/Rescue problems IMO need to be addressed in a different legislation.
DEFEND the PMCPA. NO Repeals. NO Admendments!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 7, 2011 | 11:53 a.m.

In Response To Dr.Foster :
Yes, Bob Baker is a very nice man. I was not in attendence at the Truman debate so I cannot attest to it one way or the other, however, the KMOX debate was poorly formatted. Except for one question, the interviewer, had Barbara Schmitz answer first & Dr Foster respond without opportunity for rebuttal from either side. Also neither side really had the opportunity to fully answer the questions. IMO debates like those do more disservice to the public than good as fully accurate information is not dissemenated from either side.
I have no issues with you personally, Dr Foster. I do believe you honestly believe you are doing the right thing, just as I believe I am doing the right thing. While I'm sure there are many other issues we probably would fully agree upon, I fully disagree with you in regards to the PMCPA, but we both have the right to express our opinions on the matter. Will I change your mind on the issue? Probably not. Just as you will not change my mind. However, the voters of Missouri have voted on this issue last November & as it stands the PMCPA is law. Just as you and others will continue to work against it, so will I & many others work to uphold it.
DEFEND the PMCPA. NO Repeals. NO Admendments!

(Report Comment)
dan doherty March 7, 2011 | 2:20 p.m.

what you have presented for me as an argument is what is known as a false dilemma fallacy.
In fact the entire premise of your no repeals no amendments argument is based on that fallacy, which is also known as a false dichotomy, i.e. claiming your conclusion is the only option!
This may work in some other form of government, such as a dictatorship, but we are in America, specifically the great state of Missouri, where we enjoy a representative democracy.
You say you really care about the welfare of dogs. You admit there are problems in shelters and rescue's.
Therefore we should be seeing evidence of a rational approach from you by recognizing this as an opportunity to improve the bill and enhance the welfare of a group of dogs that were left out of the bill, especially since this part of the amendment does not exclude or reduce the original intent of the bill.
Instead you play the cheerleader for a my way or else attitude at the expense of an entire group of dogs left out of the bill.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 7, 2011 | 2:43 p.m.

Mr doherty, Apparently you didn't read my response... I stated that I believed that Shelter/Rescue problems IMO need to be addressed in a different legislation.
DEFEND the PMCPA. NO Repeals. NO Admendments!

(Report Comment)
dan doherty March 7, 2011 | 8:52 p.m.

I read your response.
Perhaps you did not read my response completely.
I stated there is no need for this to be addressed in "different legislation" when it can be done thru the legislative process of amendments much more quickly and efficiently.
Like I said, if you really care about the welfare of dogs you(indeed any rational person) would want to expedite this process of getting more regulation of shelters and rescues, and look at this as an opportunity.
Sadly,I also know a cop out when I see one.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 7, 2011 | 10:38 p.m.

In one of the audits, the auditor noted that the Department of Agriculture did not inspect shelters/rescues annually. Because, the response was, they don't have problems with shelters.

Discussions about shelters are nothing more than sleigh of hand -- don't look at the real problem, look at this shiny thing, instead.

We have the largest number of puppy mills in the country in this state. Too many people in the thread seem content with this status.

There is no additional legislation needed for shelters. There is, though, for commercial dog breeders because too many take advantage of gaps and loopholes to provide substandard cared for the dogs.

Of the 1390 commercial breeders, the Department of Agriculture has found over 700 violations. In the USDA inspection reports, over half the breeders had violations.

Dogs crammed into wire cages, or stuck in plastic dogloos in freezing weather, never getting professional help if sick or injured...that's what too many people in this thread, and in the agricultural committees in Jefferson City, are fighting for.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 7, 2011 | 11:25 p.m.

Sorry, sleight of hand.

(Report Comment)
Angie Noland March 7, 2011 | 11:40 p.m.

@ Shelley Powers-I guess you never bothered to read or answer back to my above comment to you or is it just because it is the truth and you don't know what to say about the truth?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 8, 2011 | 4:03 a.m.

Angie, it is very difficult to decipher what you are asking.

Actually it's impossible.

If you want an answer you need to make yourself understood.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 8, 2011 | 6:38 a.m.

Ellis Smith is misinterpreting Shelley's comment.

The CM is a beacon of intelligence and balance (and grammar, thanks God) flickering over a mostly inexplicable parallel universe.

Shelley is fully appreciative of this, as is anyone else whose brains have not fallen out.

Shelley was referring to the abysmal state of some of the CM comments, not the CM.

We are fully aware that the CM has no great love for us, but as to Shelley, NO ONE has any reason to criticize.

Disagree, fine.
Criticize, not.

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer March 8, 2011 | 8:56 a.m.

Shelley: "There is, though, for commercial dog breeders because too many take advantage of gaps and loopholes to provide substandard cared for the dogs."
What on earth are all those gaps and loopholes you keep talking about? And what specific substandard "cared" (care) do you refer to?
You are being purposefully misleading with your figures on violations. Numerous petty violations not affecting direct animal care are routinely written (such as not having a fire extinguisher, food spilled on kennel floor, or cobwebs on the ceiling).
Your figures are, no doubt, for ALL licensed and inspected facilities, including shelters, pet stores, and rescues. Some may have multiple violations; most have none. Is that number for last year? Stating that over half of breeders have violations is just not true. If you are going to quote facts and figures, please do some research. Perhaps call the director of MODA and ask for more accurate figures pertaining only to breeders. Of course, that would skew your arguments.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 8, 2011 | 9:49 a.m.

I wanted to give folks a heads up:

The House is debating HB 131 on the House floor this morning, sometime after 10.

The senate is convening a special session to debate SB 113 this afternoon at 3.

You can listen to the audio for both by accessing the General Assembly web site at

Look for the audio icons for the House and Senate debates.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 8, 2011 | 9:52 a.m.

Ruth, you can access the PDF for one currently licensed breeder at

Though one of the worst, there are others who have many of the same types of violations. These are not trivial, and unfortunately, not that uncommon either.

But even places that don't have violations. What they do have is dogs stuck in wire cages 6 inches longer than they are; dogs left in outdoor kennels with only a bit of straw for warming in their thin plastic "dogloos" or plastic barrels; dogs left with nothing but frozen water for hours at a time; dogs that are sick and injured without vet care.

That's what you can get away with, with the existing laws.

That's not a good life for a dog. That's not.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 8, 2011 | 11:00 a.m.

In response to Mr Doherty:
I disagree with you. That is not a cop out, but a statement. IYO you believe that shelters & breeding facilities are the same business. I fully disagree. IMO, they are completely different types of entities and therfor should be addressed in different pieces of legislation.
I did not attack you personally. We stand on different sides of the issue. I don't think I implied you don't care about animal welfare, but apparently, because I disagree with you, you leap to the conclusion that I do not care about animal welfare & that I am not a rational person. I'm offended by that and I politely ask that if we have future debate, you refrain from those tactics.
DEFEND the PMCPA. NO Repeals. NO Admendments!

(Report Comment)
Ruth Keezer March 8, 2011 | 12:27 p.m.

Shelley, you keep repeating the HSUS BS lies like: "But even places that don't have violations. What they do have is dogs stuck in wire cages 6 inches longer than they are; dogs left in outdoor kennels with only a bit of straw for warming in their thin plastic "dogloos" or plastic barrels; dogs left with nothing but frozen water for hours at a time; dogs that are sick and injured without vet care."
I understand that you cannot possibly know what a licensed kennel really looks like, having never seen one. BUT I can tell you, I have NEVER seen a kennel like you describe, and I have seen MANY kennels. Licensed breeders always exceed the minimum cage space.
IF dogs are kept in that small space, they MUST have regular exercise or at least twice that size of cage. ALREADY LAW. (Fact is, they can fully recline and stretch their limbs even in your tiny cage-size scenario.)
The rest of your statement of HSUS' 'facts' is either illegal or just plain stupid. Dogs are not allowed to live in igloos with just a 'bit' of straw. You know that is a violation. You quote those as violations yourself from FOIA reports. The same is true for sick or injured dogs. They MUST see a vet with current MODA law. It is a violation under current law.

(Report Comment)
dan doherty March 8, 2011 | 6:02 p.m.

This one's for you.

The my way only mantra
is my shepard.
It's false dichotomy leadeth me to
narrowminded waters
and uncompromising paths.
Even though I want to be involved
in the legislative process, I will
fear no compromise or amendment;
Not even for the potential welfare
of dogs in shelters
or rescues.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 8, 2011 | 8:22 p.m.

In response to Mr Doherty:
Since you cannot debate respectfully, I will just ignore any future comments from you. I asked politely that our palaver be civil & you apparently feel you must belittle your opponent to make your point. How very proud you must be of yourself.
DEFEND the PMCPA. NO Repeals. NO Amendments!

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 8, 2011 | 8:31 p.m.

How much respect do you think you deserve, Marina?

I mean, I think Mr. Doherty was pretty respectful. He even dedicated a mantra to you.. Doesn't get much better than that...

We'll call it the "Marina Mantra". There, now it's official....

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 8, 2011 | 9:08 p.m.

In response to Mr. Gurley:
Personally, I think everyone deserves at least a modicum of respect when posting regarding issues. Since you don't seem to want to debate this issue respectfully, should I also ignore any future comments from you? Or can I ask that our future discourse here be civil?
DEFEND the PMCPA. NO Repeals. NO Amendments!

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 8, 2011 | 10:06 p.m.

I see nothing that was less than civil in my comment, Marina? Perhaps humorous. but certainly not uncivil..

But I don't care if you ignore me. Do you think that I'll magically stop posting because you may choose to ignore me, Marina?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 8, 2011 | 10:51 p.m.

In response to Mr Gurley:
I don't find it funny, but you obviously do. I could care less how much you post, but I won't bother wasting my time in debating issues with you when you obviously just want to joke around.
DEFEND the PMCPA. NO Repeals. NO Amendments!

(Report Comment)
dan doherty March 8, 2011 | 11:32 p.m.

I think the new strategy is to play the victim, and divert attention away from the real issue which is her refusal to compromise on a valid issue concerning the welfare of dogs,i.e. an amendment to include shelters,rescues,etc of the new dog law.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 8, 2011 | 11:54 p.m.

I think you are right Mr. Doherty. I do think her deliberate and intentional ignorance is funny though; so I guess she is right. All I can see to do is joke around about it...

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Cheri Cason March 9, 2011 | 2:58 a.m.

Shellacked :)

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 9, 2011 | 6:16 a.m.

Perhaps dan doherty can understand an analogy.

'Kennel' is to psychiatric hospital as 'shelter' is to half-way house.

'Kennel' and 'shelter' have 'dog maintenance' in common.

'Psychiatric Hospital' and 'half way house' have 'people maintenance' in common.

There are basic rules which apply to the maintenance of dogs, and there are basic rules which apply to the maintenance of humans.

Dan would suggest the EXACT same rules for half-way houses be applied to psychiatric hospitals?

(comments made by those who did not finish 7th grade or those who cannot manage to grasp the meaning of analogy will be discounted)

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 9, 2011 | 7:25 a.m.

Marina, remember what they say about short men..........

(Report Comment)
Cheri Cason March 9, 2011 | 7:30 a.m.

Unsure why you cannot keep your buttinsky nose in your OWN state's business and stay OUT of ours. @ Ward.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 9, 2011 | 7:48 a.m.

We are not aware of any Great Wall of Missouri.

Perhaps Ms. Cason wishes Missouri to secede from the Union?

(Report Comment)
Robin Nuttall March 9, 2011 | 8:12 a.m.

I think that commenters from other states have the right to voice their opinions. However, I also feel that those of us who actually do live here as well as those who have direct experience with dogs that goes beyond having a pet or two might have some insight.

Like anything else, I think it is prudent to understand the source and background of the people you are speaking with. If you are speaking with an employee of the HSUS or someone who is a strong proponent of animal rights, that means one thing. If you are speaking to someone who actually breeds dogs on a large scale basis in Missouri, that means something else. If you are speaking to someone who rarely breeds but whose life revolves around showing and training dogs, that means a third thing.

I am in the third category. Shelly and Terry's words place them in the first. Take it as you will, and frame your opinions accordingly.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 9, 2011 | 8:13 a.m.

From those radical animal rights activists at Bloomberg News:

"Dog Torture Gets Second Chance as Missouri Mulls Puppy-Mill Law"

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 9, 2011 | 9:02 a.m.

We are a proud proponent of animal rights.

Perhaps Ms. Nuttall can provide her version of animal rights?

We often read that "Giving animals rights means animals will have the same rights as humans"

Does Ms. Nuttall fear a chihuahua will be given precedence over Ms. Nutall in a job interview?

Does Ms. Nuttall fear that turkeys will demand equal education?

Perhaps Ms. Nuttall foresees female orangoutangs demanding the right to hold office.

Or that disabled deer will demand appropriate seating on public transportation?

Or that Black bears will be demanding equal access to housing loans?

Does Ms. Nuttall dread the day when a female black labrador could become President?

(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.