advertisement

Missouri Senate votes to repeal some dog-breeding rules

Thursday, March 10, 2011 | 3:40 p.m. CST

JEFFERSON CITY — The Missouri Senate has voted 20-14 to repeal several mandates in a dog-breeding law approved by voters in November.

Thursday's vote sends the bill to the House. Most of the support came from Republicans in districts outside the Kansas City and St. Louis areas.

The law was approved by 52 percent of voters in last year's election.

The Senate bill removes the cap of 50 breeding dogs per breeder and rolls back requirements for the dogs' living conditions. It also removes the possibility of criminal penalties except for repeat violators.

The legislation would allow officials to seek a court order against violators and a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation.

Proponents said the voter-passed law could wipe out Missouri's dog-breeding industry. Critics say voters' decision should be respected.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Marina Shane March 10, 2011 | 4:14 p.m.

Welcome to Missouri.... The "Show Me Cruelty" state.
.
There are many other ways this proposed legislation attacks the PMCPA:
.
-The name is different. SB 113 pointedly refuses to call the state's dog breeding businesses "puppy mills," a term they find pejorative. (Last year, the breeders even filed a lawsuit trying to kick Prop B off the ballot, saying the bill's title, "The Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act," was prejudicial.) The new legislation is called The Canine Cruelty Prevention Act; in the text of the bill, the pups are referred to as "dogs bred in large operations" as opposed to "dog in puppy mills."
.
-SB 113 would remove Prop B's 50-dog limit. The initiative approved by voters strictly limited dog breeders to 50 dogs or fewer. The Senate bill places no limit on how many dogs a breeder can possess.
.
-SB 113 would remove restrictions on how often a dog could breed. Prop B limited dogs to breeding no more than twice in an 18-month period. SB 113 removes all restrictions on breeding frequency. It is now up to "what is recommended by a licensed veterinarian as appropriate for the species, age, and health of the dog."
.
-SB 113 would increase the fees paid by breeders. Instead of a max $500 a year, breeders would pay a max $2,500 per year, plus $25 to fund Operation Bark Alert, the program that cracks down on their unlicensed counterparts.
.
-SB 113 would take away the requirement that each dog be examined by a veterinarian annually. Instead, it mandates that dogs get a "visual inspection" twice per year -- which means that a vet could visit and quickly survey a breeder's dogs instead of examining each one.
.
-SB 113 would remove the requirement that dogs get "unfettered access" an exercise area outdoors. Instead, the dog would get "the type and amount of exercise sufficient to comply with an exercise plan that has been approved by a licensed veterinarian...and where such plan affords the dog maximum opportunity for outdoor exercise as weather permits."
.
-SB 113 would strip the requirement that dogs get continual water. Instead, breeders would be required to give the dog water every eight hours. Also, while Prop B mandated that the water be "free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants," the Senate bill removes that provision entirely. (Bring on the feces!)
.
(To Be continued)

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 10, 2011 | 4:15 p.m.

(continued)

-SB 113 removes the requirement that the dog's living space be cleaned of waste at least once a day. (Again, bring on the feces.)
.
-SB 113 removes the requirement that dogs have enough space to lie down and fully extend their limbs, plus a foot of headroom on top. The Senate bill also removes the requirement that each dog be given at least twelve square feet of space. It stipulates only that dogs must be given "appropriate space depending on the species of the animal, as specified in regulations by the Missouri department of agriculture, as revised." (So we are back to 6" of space again)
.
-SB 113 removes the threat of a class C misdemeanor for any breeder in violation of the requirements. Instead, breeders would face criminal charges only if they're found in repeated violation -- or in violation of an "agreed-to" remedial order. It would also add fines of up to $1,000.
.
-SB 113 adds a provision requiring "an impervious barrier" between stacked cages. (By requiring that dogs be given twelve square feet, however, with a solid floor, Prop B would have essentially outlawed stacked cages entirely.)
.
.
.
.
.
Our legislators have managed to make the law worse than it was before the voters passed the PMCPA. Welcome to Missouri.... The "Show Me Cruelty" state.
.
.
DEFEND THE PMCPA. NO REPEALS. NE ADMENDMENTS.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 10, 2011 | 4:21 p.m.

Welcome to Missouri.... The "Show Me Cruelty" state.
FYI: The following Senators voted AGAINST their district’s favorable vote for the Puppy Mill Cruelty prevention Act.
-Callahan, Victor (D-11)
-Dixon, Bob (R-30)
-Rupp, Scott (R-2)
-Schaaf, Rob (R-34)
.
Welcome to Missouri.... The "Show Me Cruelty" state.
DEFEND THE PMCPA. NO REPEALS. NE ADMENDMENTS.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Cheri Cason March 10, 2011 | 4:51 p.m.

WAY TO GO SENATORS!!! On to the House! :) :) Everyone email your representative, senators, and Gov. Nixon IN SUPPORT!!!

(Report Comment)
Cheri Cason March 10, 2011 | 4:53 p.m.

Why not publish a list of the senators that voted FOR Prop B? We'll work on them :) :) Nevermind, we'll find them.

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 10, 2011 | 9:17 p.m.

First just as Prop. B ,SB113 is in addition to current laws--sb113 states "The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any
other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare. This section shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulation protecting the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this section prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations in addition to this section."-- So these 23 pages of regulations are still in effect http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/curren...
.

(-SB 113 would remove restrictions on how often a dog could breed. Prop B limited dogs to breeding no more than twice in an 18-month period. SB 113 removes all restrictions on breeding frequency. It is now up to "what is recommended by a licensed veterinarian as appropriate for the species, age, and health of the dog.")
.
It doesn't totally remove restrictions, the way I read it the female would have to be healthy enough as determined by a licensed veterinarian to be bred, which implies that the dog would require an examination.
.

(-SB 113 would increase the fees paid by breeders. Instead of a max $500 a year, breeders would pay a max $2,500 per year, plus $25 to fund Operation Bark Alert, the program that cracks down on their unlicensed counterparts.)
.
A possible 2000.00 dollars per breeder per year' to go towards enforcement of laws could help a lot.
.
(-SB 113 would take away the requirement that each dog be examined by a veterinarian annually. Instead, it mandates that dogs get a "visual inspection" twice per year -- which means that a vet could visit and quickly survey a breeder's dogs instead of examining each one.)
.
This is the whole of what sb113 says about exams "(3) "Necessary veterinary care" means at least two personal visual inspections annually by a licensed veterinarian, guidance from a licensed veterinarian on preventative care,an exercise plan that has been approved by a licensed veterinarian,normal and prudent attention to skin, coat, and nails, prompt treatment of any illness or injury, and where needed, humane
euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed acceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association. If, during the course of a routine personal visual inspection, the licensed veterinarian detects signs of disease or injury, then a physical examination of any such
afflicted dog shall be conducted by a licensed veterinarian;"

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 10, 2011 | 9:24 p.m.

Here is a link to SB 113 to see it in it's entirety http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/pdf-bill...

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 10, 2011 | 9:50 p.m.

Here is a link to the vote count for SB113 go to page 431 http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/Journals...

(Report Comment)
Cheri Cason March 11, 2011 | 3:42 a.m.

Our Senator suggests contacting ALL the State Reps TODAY, just to be sure they're good to go.
Take note activists/lobbyists- you are NOT wanted in OUR state. (Watch that Nebraska Governor take care of BUSINESS!) :) :) Run 'em OUT OUT OUT.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 11, 2011 | 11:29 a.m.

That upper limit also applies to shelters and rescues, though municipal pounds are exempt. This is purely punitive in nature, because shelters supported Proposition B.

The St. Charles shelter almost had to shut its doors a couple of weeks ago because of lack of funds. Thankfully the Blues stepped up help. So the Missouri reps decide to make it even harder for them to help 800-1000 dogs find a home a year by increasing the amount of fees they pay.

A shelter isn't like a commercial breeder--the more dogs a shelter processes, the less money they have. You'd think even state senators would have the intelligence to figure this one out.

Read the fiscal note attached to the bill. The money raised by the fees won't be enough to fund enough inspectors caused by the extra work for SB 113. Oh, yes, SB 113 does add to the inspection loads. Unlike Prop B, it requires more inspections. As well as effort for the Director to take cases to the Attorney General for prosecution. That $1,000 fine? That will never happen, because SB 113 actually makes it harder to prosecute breeders than the laws we have now.

I'm sure that was deliberate from Michael "I'm a former sheriff" Parson.

As for the other provisions, so what if the dogs only have frozen water? So what if the dogs only have a plastic igloo for protection in freezing weather? So what if the dogs are stuck inside buildings with temps of 109 degrees? So what if the dogs don't get the medical treatment they need, because a vet only has to "advise" the breeder--not actually treat the dog.

This bill is a repeal of Proposition B, but without the honesty of stating that's what it is.

The four senators that voted against their districts--Rupp, Schaaf, Callahan, and Dixon--should be especially ashamed of themselves.

(Report Comment)
Cheri Cason March 11, 2011 | 5:24 p.m.

Irresponsible behavior would be allowing Prop B to be enacted as it is. Ask the voters the following:
Did YOU vote to put THOUSANDS of Missourians out of work?
Did YOU vote to destroy 1390 small businesses?
Did YOU vote to kill thousands of dogs?
Did YOU vote to create increases in veterinarian fees and put several out of business?
Did YOU vote to help the illegal breeders by eliminating their competition?
Did YOU vote to reduce tax revenues in the state?
Did YOU vote to increase expenditures by 3/4 million dollars within the first year?
Did YOU vote to increase expenditures every year by 1/2 million dollars?
Did YOU vote to give the HSUS free rein to further destroy all of our animal agriculture?
Did YOU vote to end the legal production of puppies?
IF YOU VOTED YES ON PROP B, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU VOTED FOR!!
Should we really have to live with all these consequences just because some voters are too stubborn to admit that they were deceived by the 4-million-dollar emotional, deceptive campaign of the radical Humane Society of the United States?
Ask your senator and representative to FIX the mess you mistakenly voted for.
(cc)

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 11, 2011 | 11:17 p.m.

Currently 273.327 says only pounds and dog pounds are exempt from fees but the code of state regulations says differently, which exempts animal shelters from the fees so since only the upper limit was changed I believe they would continue to be exempt under sb113 it is something that should be found out for sure though- http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/curren...
.

2 CSR 30-9.020 Animal Care Facility
Rules Governing Licensing, Fees, Reports,
Record Keeping, Veterinary Care, Identification
and Holding Period
PURPOSE: This rule sets forth the standards
and requirements for the licensing and operation
of animal care facilities.
.
section (E) The following facilities are exempt
from the licensing fees but must meet all
other standards in 2 CSR 30-9, and will be
inspected at least annually:
1. Animal shelters; and
2. Pounds or dog pounds.
.
section (2) License Fees.
(A) In addition to the application for a
license or license renewal, each person shall
submit to the director the annual license fee
and provisional license fee (if required) prescribed
in this section, which shows the
method used to calculate the appropriate fee.
The license fee shall be computed in accordance
with the following and based upon the
previous year’s business:
1. Animal shelter—No fee, but must
meet the standards in 2 CSR 30-9;
2. Pound/dog pound—No fee, but must
meet the standards in 2 CSR 30-9;
3. Commercial kennel—One hundred
dollars ($100), plus the annual commercial
kennel per capita fee for each board day, up
to a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500);
4. Boarding kennel—One hundred dollars
($100), plus the annual boarding kennel
per capita fee for each board day, up to a
maximum of five hundred dollars ($500);
5. Commercial breeder—One hundred
dollars ($100), plus the annual commercial
breeder per capita fee for every animal sold,
traded, bartered, brokered or given away, up
to a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500);

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 11, 2011 | 11:47 p.m.

Shelly said- "As for the other provisions, so what if the dogs only have frozen water? So what if the dogs only have a plastic igloo for protection in freezing weather? So what if the dogs are stuck inside buildings with temps of 109 degrees? So what if the dogs don't get the medical treatment they need, because a vet only has to "advise" the breeder--not actually treat the dog."
.
http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/curren... B) Indoor Housing Facilities.
1. Heating, cooling and temperature.
Indoor housing facilities for animals must be
sufficiently heated and cooled when necessary
to protect the animals from temperature
extremes and to provide for their health and
well-being. When animals are present, the
ambient temperature in the facility must not
fall below fifty degrees Fahrenheit (50°F) or
ten degrees Celsius (10°C) for animals not
acclimated to lower temperatures, for those
breeds that cannot tolerate lower temperatures
without stress or discomfort (such as
short-haired breeds) and for sick, aged,
young or infirm animals, except as approved
by the attending veterinarian. [This is just some of what it says about the requirements,there is more go to the links and check it for your self]
.
Or if the breeder is licensed by USDA these requirements apply - http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare...
.
Sec. 3.1 Housing facilities, general
Sec. 3.2 Indoor housing facilities
Sec. 3.3 Sheltered housing facilities
Sec. 3.4 Outdoor housing facilities
Sec. 3.5 Mobile or traveling housing facilities
Sec. 3.6 Primary enclosures
Animal Health and Husbandry Standards
Sec. 3.7 Compatible grouping
Sec. 3.8 Exercise for dogs
Sec. 3.9 Feeding
Sec. 3.10 Watering
Sec. 3.11 Cleaning, sanitization, housekeeping, and pest control
Sec. 3.12 Employees
Transportation Standards
Sec. 3.13 Consignments to carriers and intermediate handlers
Sec. 3.14 Primary enclosures used to transport live dogs and cats
Sec. 3.15 Primary conveyances (motor vehicle, rail, air, and marine)
Sec. 3.16 Food and water requirements
Sec. 3.17 Care in transit
Sec. 3.18 Terminal facilities
Sec. 3.19 Handling

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 12, 2011 | 12:04 a.m.

Shelly said- "So what if the dogs don't get the medical treatment they need, because a vet only has to "advise" the breeder--not actually treat the dog."
.
http://www.senate.mo.gov/11info/pdf-bill...
What SB113 would require- (3) "Necessary veterinary care" means at least two personal visual inspections annually by a licensed veterinarian, guidance from a licensed veterinarian on preventative care, an exercise plan that has been approved by a licensed veterinarian, normal and prudent attention to skin, coat, and nails, prompt treatment of any illness or injury,and where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed acceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association. If, during the course of a
routine personal visual inspection, the licensed veterinarian detects signs of disease or injury, then a physical examination of any such afflicted dog shall be conducted by a licensed veterinarian;

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 12, 2011 | 4:56 p.m.

In response to Mr Stoner:
Yes, the 23 pages of the ACFA are still in effect, (Only weaker now if the House & Gov Nixon approve SB113 and the gutting of the PMCPA)
.
The phrase regarding how often dogs can be bred in SB113: "what is recommended by a licensed veterinarian as appropriate for the species, age, and health of the dog" is ambiguous & open to fraud. THE PMCPA clearly spelled out that the dogs could be bred a maximum of twice in an 18-month period. SB 113 removes restrictions on breeding frequency. All a breeder needs is a vet to "recommend" the dog is healthy enough to breed. There are plenty of unscrupulous vets out there willing to say it for a price whether the dog is healthy or not.
.
Yes, I agree that 2000.00 dollars per breeder per year would help in enforcement. Unfortunately, the way SB113 is written it won't really bring in an additional $2000 per breeder.
From the ACFA Page 6
"Commercial breeder: One hundred dollars ($100), plus the annual commercial breeder per capita fee for every animal sold, traded, bartered, brokered or given away, up to a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500);"....."1. Per capita fees shall be assessed annually and based upon the budgetary needs of the program. Per capita fees shall be the same for all licensees of the same type license, but may vary by type of license at the discretion of the director. The amount of the annual per capita fee shall be determined by the director and announced each year. The
licensees will be notified by mail of the amount of the annual per capita fee, which shall accompany the new application forms.2. Per capita fees shall range from zero cents (0¢) to not more than one dollar ($1) for each service performed or board day per animal, or animal sold, traded, bartered, brokered, auctioned, given or otherwise disposed of other than by euthanasia or death."
.
So to break that down.... a commercial kennel pays a base of $100 plus up to $1.00 per dog. So as I understand this.... if the kennel has 50 dogs & sells 500 puppies in a year that would be $100 plus $550 for a total of $650. Only $150 more than what they were paying before. That is IF the director of Ag uses the full per capita amount! So it's really not an extra $2000 per kennel & only a drop in the bucket to help fund additional inspectors.
.
DEFEND THE PMCPA. NO REPEALS. NO ADMENDMENTS.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 12, 2011 | 5:08 p.m.

Continued response to Mr Stoner:
.
Yes, the full text of SP113 says the following about exams:
"(3) "Necessary veterinary care" means at least two personal visual inspections annually by a licensed veterinarian, guidance from a licensed veterinarian on preventative care,an exercise plan that has been approved by a licensed veterinarian,normal and prudent attention to skin, coat, and nails, prompt treatment of any illness or injury, and where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed acceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association. If, during the course of a routine personal visual inspection, the licensed veterinarian detects signs of disease or injury, then a physical examination of any such afflicted dog shall be conducted by a licensed veterinarian;"
.
However the text "at least two personal visual inspections" is very open to interpetation. That could mean that a vet walks onto the premises & visually scans the dogs but does not see each dog indiviually. However the PMCPA clarifies by stating:
"(3) ”Necessary veterinary care” means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed “Acceptable” by the American Veterinary Medical Association. "
.
So therefor SB113 takes away the individual exam for each dog and provides for only a vet to be on premises twice a year.
.
DEFEND THE PMCPA. NO REPEALS. NO ADMENDMENTS.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 12, 2011 | 6:04 p.m.

Continued response to Mr Stoner:
Yes, there are many pages of regulations from the ACFA. I think the ACFA is a great piece of beginning legislation. (I say beginning, becasue prior to the 1992 ACFA, we had no laws pertaining to breeding dogs. This was a good start, but after 20 years there needs to be an update to it) However, there are many loopholes in the ACFA that allow for dogs to be mistreated. The PMCPA helped close those loopholes & most importantly gave each dog more space to live it's entire life. The ACFA specifies cages sizes beginning on Page 17.
From the ACFA:
" A. Space. (I) Each dog housed in a primary enclosure (including weaned puppies) must be provided a minimum amount of floor space, calculated as follows: Find the mathematical square of the sum of the length of the dog in inches (measured from the tip of its nose to the base of its tail) plus six inches (6"); then divide the product by one hundred forty-four (144). The calculation is: (length of dog in inches plus six (6)) times (length of dog in inches plus six (6)) equals required floor space in square inches. Required floor space in inches divided by one hundred fortyfour (144) equals required floor space in square feet." must be provided with an additional amount of floor space, based on her breed and behavioral characteristics, and in accordance with generally accepted husbandry practices as determined by the attending veterinarian. If the additional amount of floor space for each nursing puppy is less than five percent (5%) of the minimum requirement for the bitch, this housing must be approved by the state veterinarian.
(III) The interior height of a primary enclosure must be at least six inches (6") higher than the head of the tallest dog in the enclosure when it is in a normal standing position."
.
To break this down... For a chihuaha that is a cage the size of a washing machine to live it's life in.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 12, 2011 | 6:05 p.m.

Continued response to Mr Stoner:
.
On Page 19 the ACFA goes onto say that the dogs can be housed individualy or separately. There are rules that apply only for houseing dogs outside only.
.
The PMCPA clarified the indoor outdoor space requirements & made it easier for inspectors to enforce:
From the PMCPA: (5) ”Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs” means having (1) sufficient indoor space for each dog to turn in a complete circle without any impediment (including a tether); (2) enough indoor space for each dog to lie down and fully extend his or her limbs and stretch freely without touching the side of an enclosure or another dog; (3) at least one foot of headroom above the head of the tallest dog in the enclosure; and (4) at least 12 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog up to 25 inches long; at least 20 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog between 25 and 35 inches long; and at least 30 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog for dogs 35 inches and longer (with the length of the dog measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail).
.
Now that chihuaha would have a 3'x4' indoor cage with twice that amount of space outside. Much more humane IMO.
.
DEFEND THE PMCPA. NO REPEALS. NO ADMENDMENTS.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 12, 2011 | 6:13 p.m.

In response to Ms Cason:
As a Missouri Voter who voted for the PMCPA (Formerly Prop B) I'd be happy to answer the questions you posed:
.
You asked: Did YOU vote to put THOUSANDS of Missourians out of work?
My Response: No. I voted to help end the cruelty inflicted upon THOUSANDS of dogs in Missouri. Missouri Puppy Mills are substandard breeding facilities that cut corners whenever possible. The few "if any" people employed by Puppy mills make minimum wage at best & I'm sure a fast food chain would be happy to take them in.
.
You asked:Did YOU vote to destroy 1390 small businesses?
My Response: I only voted to destroy the ones that are inhumane & cruel. I could care less if a small business that thinks it is ok to let dogs live in cages the size of a washing machine for it's entire life covered in piss & poop goes out of business. IMO, If a breeder cannot abide by the provisions of the PMCPA then they should be out of business.
.
You asked:Did YOU vote to kill thousands of dogs?
My response: The only way 1000 of dogs will be killed is if the breeders who won't comply to the new law put them down instead of taking the year appropriated by law to find new homes for those dogs. Voters don't kill, Inhumane disgusting BSTDS do.
.
You asked: Did YOU vote to create increases in veterinarian fees and put several out of business?
My response: If a breeder cannot afford to see to it that their breeding dogs can see a vet once a year.... they should be in business to start with! And if anything vets should see more business if breeders actually let the dogs be examined once per year.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 12, 2011 | 6:14 p.m.

(Continued) In response to Ms Cason:
.
You asked: Did YOU vote to help the illegal breeders by eliminating their competition?
My response: Illegal breeders will breed regardless. And when caught will be required to shut down or get legal.
.
You asked: Did YOU vote to reduce tax revenues in the state?
My Response: Puppy mIlls cut corners whenever possible & their tax revenue is a drop in the bucket. As a Missourian, I don't want revenue from cruelity. I think we can find better ways to bring in tax money than torturing dogs with substandard living conditions.
.
You Asked: Did YOU vote to increase expenditures by 3/4 million dollars within the first year?
My Response: Actually, The PMCPA would make it easier to inspect by clarifying the law & cutting out loopholes. thereby reducing the workload & expenditures of the state.
.
You Asked: Did YOU vote to increase expenditures every year by 1/2 million dollars?
My Response: See above question.
.
You Asked: Did YOU vote to give the HSUS free rein to further destroy all of our animal agriculture?
My Response: There is nothing in the wording of the PMCPA that gives "HSUS free rein to further destroy all of our animal agriculture".
.
You Asked: Did YOU vote to end the legal production of puppies?
My Response: I voted for HUMANE legal production of puppies.
.
I am an educated voter & read the entire text of both the ACFA the PMCPA before I voted.
And as a Missourian, I'm happy that HSUS, HSMO, ASPCA & MAAL could bring the money to our state to help fund this initiative. Dogs in Puppy mills sure could not afford it. Big Agriculture business has tons of money to defeat animal welfare law & pay off our legislators so they can continue cutting corners in animal care. Dogs suffering in mills have no one except concerned voters & humane groups. THANK YOU HSUS, HSMO, ASPCA & MAAL!
.
DEFEND THE PMCPA. NO REPEALS. NO ADMENDMENTS.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 12, 2011 | 6:18 p.m.

Updated list of the Top Offenders in Missouri's Puppy Mills:
http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs...
.
If SB113 pases the House & the Governor... expect more of the same of these reports.
please call, write & email your State House Representative along with Governor Nixon. Politely, tell them to vote NO on SB113 & why you feel that way.
.
Missouri... the "Show Me Cruelty" state.
DEFEND THE PMCPA. NO REPEALS. NO ADMENDMENTS.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Cheri Cason March 12, 2011 | 6:41 p.m.

Garbage in.... Garbage OUT.

(Report Comment)
David Karr March 12, 2011 | 7:39 p.m.

I want to thank you Marina, for your careful responses to the propaganda some of the repealers have put forward in this forum.

(Report Comment)
Yves Montclear March 12, 2011 | 7:53 p.m.

Yee ha!

This is obviously an issue that many people are passionate about.

Can we set up a cage, fightin' debate match between the two groups, face to face? It will be an easy sell.

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 12, 2011 | 9:53 p.m.

In response to Marina-"Yes, the 23 pages of the ACFA are still in effect, (Only weaker now if the House & Gov Nixon approve SB113 and the gutting of the PMCPA)" How does SB113 make the current AFCA rules weaker? or were you talking as opposed to Prop.B?
.
Breeding of dogs, under Prop. B yes it states no more than two litters in any 18 month period ,so by that statement even if the dog isn't healthy enough they could be bred anyway, since it doesn't require for the dog to be examined by a vet. Maybe some vets out there would do what you said
.
You stated-"There are plenty of unscrupulous vets out there willing to say it for a price whether the dog is healthy or not." - If that is true then an exam could be handled the same way and I personally don't believe there would be that many vets if any, that would be willing to do what you say.For most vets it is not just a job, but a passion for animals.
.

Fees - Upon reading all of page 6 of AFCA concerning fees if a breeder sells a dog or puppy to a broker and the broker then sells to a pet shop then each one of them have to pay the one dollar per capita fee. So in reality that would be 3.00 per puppy or dog sold, if the breeder in your example sold to a broker then the broker sold to a pet shop that 150.00 dollars ends up being 450.00, and if what some people claim is true about the numbers of puppies being bred in MO. that would end up being quite a large sum.(kind of like buying and selling a car it gets taxed each time it is sold)
.

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 12, 2011 | 10:00 p.m.

More to Marina-
.

Space-The sizes of cages are determined as you say but there are further regulations that require exercise if they are housed in those size cages, what I am posting is from page 18 of AFCA about individual dogs, there are others for those housed in groups "(B) Exercise for Dogs.
1. Animal shelters, boarding kennels,
commercial kennels, commercial breeders,
dealers, exhibitors and voluntary licensees
must develop, document and follow an appropriate
plan to provide dogs with an opportunity
for exercise. In addition, the plan must
be approved and signed by the licensee and
the attending veterinarian. The plan must
include written standard procedures to be followed
in providing the opportunity for exercise.
The plan must be made available to the
state veterinarian or his/her designated representative
upon request. The plan, at a minimum,
must comply with each of the following:
A. Dogs housed individually. Dogs
over twelve (12) weeks of age, except bitches
with litters, housed, held or maintained by
any animal shelter, boarding kennel, commercial
kennel, commercial breeder, dealer,
exhibitor or voluntary licensee must be provided
the opportunity for exercise regularly if
they are kept individually in cages, pens or
runs that provide less than two (2) times the
required floor space for that dog, as prescribed
in this rule." Do you really believe a dog the size of a chihuahua needs 12 square feet of area to sleep in, the space required inside the building) since it also would have another 24 square feet outside (by Prop. B standards) by those standards for the very smallest dogs, the inside of the building for 50 dogs with a 3 ft walk way to care for the dogs would have to be at minimum (without whelping room,isolation area,bathing area,etc.) would have to be 12ft x 80ft since Prop. B wouldn't allow stacking of cages even if they would have a impervious moister barrier between them (kind of like no two story houses)

(Report Comment)
Cheri Cason March 13, 2011 | 8:51 a.m.

SUPPORT HB 131 .. eviscerate Prop B!!

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 14, 2011 | 4:43 p.m.

In response to Mr Stoner-
You asked:" How does SB113 make the current AFCA rules weaker? or were you talking as opposed to Prop.B?"
.
To clarify, I meant that if the SS for SCS fo SB113/95 passes the House & is signed into law by Gov Nixon, dog breeding law in Missouri would be weaker than the ACFA plus the PMCPA. (However, the original SB113 as written would have made dog breeding law weaker than prior to the passage of the ACFA in 1992 since it had a provision that would weaken enforcement provisions by allowing violations of a "serious" nature to go unpunished if corrected within 30 days....thankfully, that provision was removed from SS for SCS fo SB113/95. )
.
DEFEND THE PMCPA. NO REPEALS. NO ADMENDMENTS.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 14, 2011 | 4:48 p.m.

(Continued response to Mr Stoner)
.
Regarding Breeding of dogs:
Under the PMCPA it is defined & clear: A breeding dog can have only two litters in 18 months.
Under the ACFA: No definitions for frequency of breeding.
Under SS for SCS for SB113 &95: Basically...a breeding dog can birth as many puppies as the vet allows. (creates a loophole for unscrupulous breeders)

(BTW, I agree that for many vets it is not just a job, but a passion for animals. Unfortunately, an unscrupulous breeder only needs to find one "Bad apple" vet to bypass both the ACFA & SB113, whereas the PMCPA eliminates vet approval & mandates no more than twice in 18 months)
.
Regarding Fees - (The fee page is quite a doozy to read thru, isn't it?)
Yes, if the breeder in my example sold to a broker then the broker sold to a pet shop that 150.00 dollars ends up being 450.00. But, I don't think that is the case in the majority of instances. If the breeder sells directly to a pet shop, then we are talking $300. If the breeder sells out of state, there is no additional revenue over the $150. Puppies sold online are usually direct to consumer so there is no additional revenue over the $150.
Missouri breeds about 1/3 of the puppies sold in the US, but only puppies sold to MO brokers & MO Pet stores would have the double or triple taxation. Looking at the numbers.... I still feel SS for SCS for SB113/95 would only be a drop in the bucket to help fund additional inspectors.
.
Regarding Space & exercise-
Under the PMCPA it is defined & clear: A breeding dog has a defined amount of indoor space & a defined amount of outdoor space making the law visually & immediately enforcable to inspectors.
Under the ACFA: (page 18) a breeding dog has "plan to provide dogs with an opportunity for exercise. In addition, the plan must be approved and signed by the licensee and
the attending veterinarian." The problem with the "Plan' exercise requirement is there is no way for an inspector to qualify in one visit if the dogs are actually being allowed to participate in the "plan". It is not visually & immediately enforceable.

Under SS for SCS for SB113 &95: a breeding dog has "the type and amount of exercise sufficient to comply with an exercise plan that has been approved by a licensed veterinarian, developed in accordance with regulations regarding exercise promulgated by the Missouri department of agriculture, and where such plan affords the dog maximum opportunity for outdoor exercise as weather permits" ... so it's back to the non-enforceable "Plan" system.
.
DEFEND THE PMCPA. NO REPEALS. NO ADMENDMENTS.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 14, 2011 | 4:51 p.m.

(Continued response to Mr Stoner)
.
You asked me:
"Do you really believe a dog the size of a chihuahua needs 12 square feet of area to sleep in, the space required inside the building) since it also would have another 24 square feet outside (by Prop. B standards) by those standards for the very smallest dogs, the inside of the building for 50 dogs with a 3 ft walk way to care for the dogs would have to be at minimum (without whelping room,isolation area,bathing area,etc.) would have to be 12ft x 80ft since Prop. B wouldn't allow stacking of cages even if they would have a impervious moister barrier between them (kind of like no two story houses)"
.
My response:
Yes. I do believe that a dog, the size of a chihuahua should have at a minimum 12 square feet of indoor space with a solid floor to sleep in. especially, since many of these dogs are ever let outside of their cages & their entire lives are spent in that one 12 square foot area (That's 3 feet wide by 4 feet long). And yes, I think that chihuahua ahould also have at a minimum, 24 square feet to exercise within (that's only 3 feet by 8 feet). I think at a minimum, a dog kept it's entire life in a breeding facility deserves that much space to live it's entire life in.
.
.
DEFEND THE PMCPA. NO REPEALS. NO ADMENDMENTS.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 14, 2011 | 4:58 p.m.

And thank you again Mr. Stoner for the opportunity to debate the subject with someone who keeps it civil & does not take a differing viewpoint personally. I appreciate your thoughtful responses & I know you too have taken a lot of time & interest in the issue. It is good to see citizens of our state active & actually researching the issues on their own accord without having to demean themselves to the level of attacking their opponent instead of keeping to the issues!!
.

DEFEND THE PMCPA. NO REPEALS. NO ADMENDMENTS.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 14, 2011 | 5:07 p.m.

It's not just the PMCPA that our legislators want to repeal....
.
From the Kansas City Star:
"In what may be a Missouri record, the legislature is poised this year to overturn — count ‘em — four voter-passed initiatives.
.
By a vote of 20-14, the Senate on Thursday voted for a bill invalidating many of the provisions and protections of Proposition B, the initiative cracking down on abuses by puppy breeders that Missouri voters approved in November. Supporters bemoaned the complexity of the initiative and said they were pretty sure people didn’t realize what they were voting on.
.
The House has already approved a bill repealing a 2006 voter-passed initiative allowing the state’s minimum wage to rise if the cost of living increases; action in the Senate is expected soon.
.
Another voter-approved law in the legislature’s sights is the Missouri Clean Energy Initiative, which in 2009 passed in every county in the state except Osage. It calls for 15 percent of the state’s energy to be produced from renewable sources by 2021.
.
A move is also under way to undo a 1976 voter-approved law that prevents electric utilities from charging customers for a new plant before the plant begins producing energy."
.
You can Read the full article at:
http://www.kansascity.com/2011/03/10/271...
.
DEFEND THE PMCPA. NO REPEALS. NO ADMENDMENTS.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Stanley Stoner March 14, 2011 | 7:23 p.m.

To Marina Shane- I respect the right to your opinion, it is your right to believe as you do, and I also want to thank you for keeping the debate civil,but IMO I base my thoughts on the guidance of the AVMA http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issue... and http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issue... these are professionals that have based the facts on what is needed to promote the "welfare" of dogs which I believe to be sound theory of animal husbandry that benefits both the breeder and the "welfare" of the dogs. Perhaps a little give and take from both sides, so as to make sure the dogs are being well cared for without imposing so much restrictive legislation as to force legitimate breeders out of business. Which IMO opinion is the design and wording of Prop. B, so once again I guess we will have to agree to disagree about this issue.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements