advertisement

LETTER: Senate should have to suffer for tinkering with puppy-breeding law

Saturday, March 19, 2011 | 9:22 p.m. CDT

Editor's note: This letter is in response to recent action by the Missouri Senate to repeal some provisions in a dog-breeding law passed in November as Proposition B.

I strongly urge and suggest that the Senate in Jefferson City be given water with fecal matter and algae. Also, that their living confines have insufficient room to turn around in. Finally, they should be housed together with 50 of their kindred spirits.

Is there no minimum intelligence requirement to sit in judgment for judicial issues in Missouri?

Gary M. Greenlee lives in Columbia.


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

John Schultz March 20, 2011 | 10:50 a.m.

Since the state Senate is a legislative, not judicial body, why should anyone bother listening to the rest of your letter? And are you asking to increase the bureaucracy in Jeff City since there are less than 50 senators?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 20, 2011 | 12:21 p.m.

And possibly we should not 'bother' to listen to the rest of Mr. Schultz.

(Report Comment)
kathie blomberg March 20, 2011 | 12:32 p.m.

Oh for heaven sake! That letter is just silly.But it does illustrated the bizarre thinking pattern of the animal rights activists.I pity them-They have such a low quality of life and such low esteem that they would rather mind someone elses business than their own.They also seem to have a very srange obsession with feces.Maybe if they ate more meat that fog in their brain would lift.Then they may be able to think for themselves rather than have Wayne Pacelle do it for them.

(Report Comment)
Robert Hazlett March 20, 2011 | 1:04 p.m.

Kathie:
I'm a rib-lovin', KC Strip-chompin' conservative. And I think it's CRUEL what the Senate did. I'd serve them Alpo with their fecal water, and I'd grab some House reps to get them up to 50.

The House and Senate bills BOTH GUT Prop B, including the provisions that stop cruelty. Period. It's there in black and white on the mo.gov website.

I didn't know who Wayne Pacelle was when I first heard of the crappy Missouri puppy mills. But I know there's a decade's old problem that has been ignored forever. NOW, everyone is all of a sudden concerned? Yeah. Right.

Bottom line - Prop B needs to be the NEW starting point, once it is enacted in November.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz March 20, 2011 | 1:36 p.m.

Terry, it's not my fault that incorrect facts in a letter to the editor doesn't make you question the rest of the alleged facts stated. I guess we just do things differently in Missouri. By the way, now that you appear to be lurking again, are you going to answer the last question I posed and re-posed to you?

(Report Comment)
Janice Eminger March 20, 2011 | 2:41 p.m.

I cannot believe how misinformed most of the people commenting on the greatness of Prop B. really are. Clean, fresh water and good food for dogs has been a law for years and years as well as adequate room and an exercise program. Prop B is solely for eliminating the pet industry. If we do not sell our puppies we can keep as many dogs as we want, in any conditions we like. Is this love for the animal or love for the money that is made. Rescues do not just find homes for dogs they sell them for a profit. I had some dogs to give away and called a couple rescues and they said no because they had no market for them. They sure love the animal don't they. I did find homes for them myself and I might add they were free. I challange all the pro Prop B defenders to write the state and USDA for copies of their laws. You will see that all the important items for a healthy happy dog are covered in their by laws. All the sad pictures of pets are pictures of dogs in rescues and humane societies. Our dogs may be in 6' cages, on wire but they are happy, lively and do not have to track through their feces. Put in solid floors and see the mess and disease. Also the misconception of cages on top of other cages. In between cages are solid waste catches so the dogs below never see, feel track through or care what is going on above them. If voters were allowed to tour kennels, inspected by the state and USDA, prob B would have been rethought and not an issue today. No one is allowed in our kennels because of diseases people can carry in that are deadly to our pets, yes pets. All my dogs are better cared for than the majority of all private pet owners. Are children raised in apartment complexes abused because some children are raised in the country?

(Report Comment)
Matteo Simon March 20, 2011 | 4:52 p.m.

@ kathie blomberg - Your decision to personally attack people that don't agree with you on this issue is reprehensible and it smacks of desperation. This behavior has been, sadly, par for the course, for the fear-mongering, propaganda-spreading anti-Prop B movement.

Further, I resent your implication that we Prop B advocates were somehow hoodwinked by Wayne Pacelle and the big, bad HSUS into voting for legislation that we didn't understand. I read both Prop B and the ACFA regs thoroughly back in the fall, and I knew EXACTLY what I was voting for. It is you who seem to have fallen prey to the lies and misinformation that have been spread on this issue by the MO Farm Bureau, and MoFed; unless, of course, you're one of them...in which case, I feel sorry for you, but don't blame you for sticking to your talking points.

(Report Comment)
Matteo Simon March 20, 2011 | 5:18 p.m.

@Janice Eminger - Ditto my comments to kathie blomberg above, except that you pile the bull even higher and deeper.

As for your comments:

"I challange all the pro Prop B defenders to write the state and USDA for copies of their laws."

1) Thank you for bringing this up, but one doesn't need to write the state; these are readily available online...in fact here are links to both, for all to see for themselves, the existing legislation under the ACFA, the current law for state-licensed breeders:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/adrules/csr/curren...

and to Prop B:

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010peti...

------

"You will see that all the important items for a healthy happy dog are covered in their by laws."

2) This has been refuted ad infinitum on this and other forums. Once again...while the ACFA regs do attempt to address some elements of animal welfare, they are vaguely-written, outdated, inadequate, and are deeply constrained in terms of their ability to provide for clear, actionable enforcement. In addition, there are some important provisions that are contained in Proposition B that are not covered AT ALL under ACFA, such as the requirements that the breeding dogs NOT be confined to a cage their entire lives (IMO, this is the most important!), that they are afforded an annual, hands-on examination by a vet, that females are allowed adequate rest in between breeding cycles, and that the dogs are allowed actual, real-life (not just an unenforceable "plan" for) access to exercise on a daily basis.

-----

"All the sad pictures of pets are pictures of dogs in rescues and humane societies."

3) This is a lie, plain and simlple. The misinformation just keeps coming from the anti-Prop B bunch...but I've come to expect nothing less.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 20, 2011 | 9:58 p.m.

This question John S?

"explain why responsible breeders are not allowed 50 dogs, intact
females, or whatever the bloody hell Prop B outlaws indiscriminately?"

As it is, it makes no sense.

Please rephrase with a clear question without the huff&puff and we will attempt an answer.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 20, 2011 | 10:09 p.m.
(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 20, 2011 | 10:42 p.m.

"No one is allowed in our kennels because of diseases people can carry IN ", Janice?

Carry in?

Carry OUT seems more to the point.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 20, 2011 | 11:05 p.m.

Robert, Mateo, we have just had an epiphany!

A great lightbulb just went off in our head.

They look at these videos and SEE NOTHING WRONG.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CGnBU7gd...

These are LICENSED kennels, everybody...

(Report Comment)
Janice Eminger March 20, 2011 | 11:47 p.m.

Matt, thanks for the links. Maybe you should read them. And Terry, sure glad your light bulb has come on. Thought it only worked when HSUS told you it could.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz March 21, 2011 | 2:21 a.m.

Terry demands less huff and puff when discussing Prop B? How droll...

My question is clear in the context of that thread. In the previous reply you stated:

"Difficult as it may be to believe, no one CARES
about responsible breeders.

They do their thing, and that is that.

It's Nobody's business what a responsible breeder does."

Thus, why should a responsible breeder be limited on the number of dogs they have?

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 21, 2011 | 6:39 a.m.

Why should a responsible driver be limited to 70 and not 71?

Why did Springfield receive $2,152,620 in CHP funding and not

$2,152,600?

Why are your taxes due April 15 and not 16?

Why are you permitted to vote at 18 and not 17?

Why is a 15.5 gal keg of Budweiser not 15.6?

Whether or not you think these numbers are 'arbitrary" is of no consequence.

Your question is mindbogglingly inane.

Why not limit them to 75?
To 6?
To 2000?

Legal numerical values are not determined by some lone Grand Poobah or by pulling numbers out of a hat.

They are determined by legal and/or historical precedence and by some sort of consensus between various groups, legislative and otherwise.
And some morsel of common sense one hopes.

Washington State limits breeders to 50 dogs.
West Virginia is considering the same.
The number is not without precedent.

If you believe that the number 50 was determined by Emperor Wayne or by some fairy-tale black ops 'animal rights' cabal or by a roving covey of proselatizing vegans then you are as looney as the rest of the anti-Prop B clowns.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 21, 2011 | 9:29 a.m.

Actually, 70 mph is pushing it from a safety standpoint. Are you familiar with Newton's Laws of Motion? Many people are not.

The kinetic energy of a body (in this case a car, SUV, truck, bus, etc.) is defined by the equation (0.5)(mass of object)(velocity of object squared). O.5 is a constant at any velocity (speed), and at the moment of a crash the mass of any specific vehicle is also constant. It's the velocity squared that really counts! BTW, a crash (either with another vehicle, a substantial fixed object, or as a series of rollovers) causes sudden dissipation of kinetic energy, and that's not good!

Which brings up another problem, not directly Newtonian: at high speeds a driver's ability to react to avoid a crash is lessened.

Ain't physics grand? Am I advocating lowering the speed limit? No, although it IS lower in some states, but next time your find yourself going more than 70 mph on Missouri's highways that are signed for 70 mph you might take a deep breath and whisper "kinetic energy."

"The speed that thrills is the speed that kills."

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 21, 2011 | 9:54 a.m.

Newton hated puppymills.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz March 21, 2011 | 10:06 a.m.

Terry, do you have any evidence that responsible breeders cannot take care of 55, 70, or 100 dogs? Or are you just ranting as usual? It would have taken a lot less time to answer the question I've put to you three times now than undertake your virtual foot-stomping tirade. You really are a piece of work.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz March 21, 2011 | 10:07 a.m.

Ellis, it's possble that physics and mathematics have been outlawed by initiative petition in Terry's world. Pi is probably equal to 3 there as well.

(Report Comment)
Allan Sharrock March 21, 2011 | 10:14 a.m.

lol.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 21, 2011 | 10:15 a.m.

Newton hated militant, ignorant, "dipstick" activists that have no regard for anyone or anything other than their cause..

And he was RIGHT to feel that way!

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 21, 2011 | 10:21 a.m.

@ John:

There was once a commercial, definitely locally produced, on one of our area TV stations that featured an argument between two yokels. One was insisting that "Pi are square," to which the other insisted that "Pi are round."

After a couple of rounds of argument, one of the guys picks up a custard pie and shoves it into the other's face as he says "Pie are messy."

I'm going to get serious. One thing about basic math, physics and chemistry is that they help us understand why things happen the way they do. Ignorance isn't bliss.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 21, 2011 | 10:34 a.m.

@ Ricky:

Good for Sir Isaac! I'll drink a bottle of George Killian's Red Lager (now brewed in the United States in Golden, Colorado, using Rocky Mountain spring water) to him.

Any excuse for a Killian's. :)

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 21, 2011 | 10:58 a.m.
This comment has been removed.
Mark Foecking March 21, 2011 | 11:19 a.m.

Terry Ward wrote:

"And some morsel of common sense one hopes."

Common sense would tell me that if a breeder is following the rules (whether the current rules, or prop B's), the number of dogs he has is irrelevant. Isn't proper care the important things here?

DK

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 21, 2011 | 11:40 a.m.

And here I thought all the commenting fun was happening over at the Beacon

http://www.stlbeacon.org/issues-politics...

BTW, not to send people outside of this excellent publication, but the article I linked is a very worthwhile read, regardless of "side".

As for the number, folks who have been working with puppy mill rescues for decades, including Bob Baker from MAAL, Tim Rickey (formerly of HSMO, now lead investigator for ASPCA), and Kathy Warnick, head of HSMO, all provided their input into the number chosen. As Warnick testified at one of the House committee meetings, they found that the quality of care is inversely proportionate to the number of adult dogs each facility had.

Most of the really bad inspection reports I read in the USDA were for people that had larger numbers of dogs--well over 50.

I believe another factor that went into choosing the number was an analysis of the number of dogs breeders have in Missouri, and a significant majority have fewer than 50 dogs.

Lastly, I believe the group also looked at number of puppies on average for 50 adult dogs, how much puppies sell for, etc, in order to determine a max number where a competent breeder could make a decent living.

You may not agree with the number, or these people, but there were several factors that went into picking the 50 limit. It wasn't an arbitrary choice.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers March 21, 2011 | 11:47 a.m.

You also have to remember that breeders add a burden on to rescue organizations within each state. The more adult dogs bred, the more used up dogs or unwanted dogs or rescued dogs get dumped into the dog rescue infrastructure.

It is right and proper for these organizations to attempt to put some kind of brakes on the out of control numbers of dogs that have to be managed in Missouri.

Then there is the additional work required of inspectors at larger places. Frankly, I believe the more the dogs, the worse the inspection because inspectors just don't have the time to examine each dog individually at larger places.

It's not just the breeders that are impacted by these counts--impacted people also include those that have to monitor and clean up after the breeders.

In addition, Oregon also has a law with an upper limit.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz March 21, 2011 | 11:56 a.m.

Shelley, thank you for answering the question that Terry blew off repeatedly. I may not agree with the reasoning 100% but you at least laid out the argument.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz March 21, 2011 | 11:59 a.m.

Ricky, I shall send out some Facebook messages to get the behind-back-talking lunch arranged.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 21, 2011 | 12:20 p.m.

Excellent! Let’s arrange an exquisite "behind the back crap talkfest" complete with good food and wonderful people as always!

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 21, 2011 | 1:25 p.m.

Any time for lunch, Ricky, any time.

I believe John has my phone number, but it's also in the book.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 21, 2011 | 1:48 p.m.

I'll make sure you are notified Ellis. We have to keep at least one fair-minded and reasonable person at the table. LOL.

Can't wait to see everyone.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 21, 2011 | 2:09 p.m.

@ Ricky Gurley:

Ricky said, "We have to keep at least one fair-minded and reasonable person at the table."

And who would THAT be? :)

I've been accused of many things, but "fair-minded" and "reasonable"? I've given those up for Lent.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 21, 2011 | 4:58 p.m.

John, can you produce any evidence that they can?

When you find time from your boy-bonding party.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 21, 2011 | 5:19 p.m.
This comment has been removed.
Ricky Gurley March 21, 2011 | 9:41 p.m.

There are females at these "get togethers", Terry. And these "get togethers" are open to anyone here. Just not you....... LOL.

Oh, and one other person; who shall remain nameless..............

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz March 21, 2011 | 10:43 p.m.

Terry, it seems to me that proof should be incumbent upon those who wish to regulate the number of dogs...

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 22, 2011 | 8:37 a.m.

John, it seems to us that you were the person to ask for proof in the first place.

......."Terry, do you have any evidence that responsible breeders cannot take care of 55, 70, or 100 dogs?"

John, says....." proof should be incumbent upon those who wish to regulate the number of dogs..."

Which would be John.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 22, 2011 | 8:44 a.m.

Who is "us" Terry? You got a mouse in your pocket?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 22, 2011 | 8:58 a.m.

As we lived in NYC for 40 years, we are well aware of "behind the back" boy-parties such as Ricky G describes and thought them somewhat amusing, albeit from a very great distance.

We enthusiastically support consenting adult boys of all persuasions and count many amongst our dear friends.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 22, 2011 | 9:17 a.m.

Thank you Terry. We do all consent to an occasional lunch so that we can talk about people behind their backs, make fun of them, and have a jovial time at their expense.

I think we have a very special topic lined up for this upcoming lunch; "Prop B Militant Activits and What Went Wrong In Their Lives".

I am sure that something is missing from your life to be over 60 years old and living in that little crowded white two story house with the green shutters that is in such need of a paint job on that little crowded street. I could not stand to be "on top" of my neighbors like that.

At your age, is that really all you have to show for yourself?

In New York City for 40 years and now in the crowded area you live in there in Beth., PA.? Really, have you ever even had a pet in your life? Are those Schipperkes even yours or are they just pictures that you got off of the Internet? You must stay in a lot?

While I now have a completely different perspective on you, because I understand you a little better now; thus I feel kinda sorry for you. You will still be the "guest of honor" at our next "Behind the back boys party". You should provide for much entertainment.... Thank you, Terry.

Take care, Terry.

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz March 22, 2011 | 9:49 a.m.

Oh Terry, you've posted dictionary definitions before. Get thee to one and look up regulate. You're the one wanting to do that in a state you don't live, not me. Now I know why you didn't answer that question the first three times I asked you and your pocket mouse, you don't have a logical answer.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 22, 2011 | 10:06 a.m.

Our sister would be deeply saddened by your description of her charming house and her most beautiful back yard.

As she is very ill, we will not share your opinions with her.

Those indeed are our Schipperkes.
We will gladly post more pics if you are so interested.

The two smallest are from Missouri puppy-mills, the large one is from a notorious Tennesee puppymill whose owner is now enjoying a jail sentence for her unspeakable abuse of 700 animals.
The forth is an owner-dump.

We do find your opinion of our age a bit curious.
But not at all suprising.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 22, 2011 | 10:34 a.m.

"Our sister"? What did you do, marry your brother?

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 22, 2011 | 11:14 a.m.

Actually I left NY to care for our sister, who is dying.
But thank you for asking.

(Report Comment)
Ricky Gurley March 22, 2011 | 11:52 a.m.

It is so unfair to try to solicit sympathy for such a terrible thing that is happening in your life from the person that you are making these snide little remarks at, Terry....

Ricky Gurley.

(Report Comment)
Marina Shane March 22, 2011 | 12:25 p.m.

To Terry, Our family will keep you & your family in our thoughts & prayers. I know how difficult a time this must be for you. I lost someone very close to me last year & during that time, since there was nothing I could do to help him, I dedicated more time to my volunteer work in his honor. I understand how difficult this time is for you & truly appreciate your continued advocacy during this stressful time. I'm sure your sister must be proud of you.
.
DEFEND the PMCPA, NO Repeal. NO Amendments.
.
MSL

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward March 22, 2011 | 12:55 p.m.

Thanks Marina...
Many of us will face something like this eventually.

In my experience MOST of them..no matter what their politics.. consider the experience a privilege and not a cause for sympathy.

(Report Comment)
Kathy Snowberry March 22, 2011 | 10:12 p.m.

What separates a Professional Dog Breeder from a Puppymill is the focus on quality of puppies produced vs mass production for pofit.

What MO legislators are fighting for are the very conditions that Professional Breeders often define as Puppymills. Large numbers of breeding females, No rests between breeding, No regular hands-on vet care, and MINIMUM standards for socialization and housing.

And their basis for this is PROFITS for MO commercial dog breeders.

@ MO commercial dog breeders: YOUR legislators and their lobbyists are portraying you - to the world - as puppymillers. They are doing you more harm than HSUS or the animal welfare activists possiby could.

(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