Nixon seeks to add $1.1 million for dog inspections

Wednesday, April 6, 2011 | 5:59 p.m. CDT

JEFFERSON CITY — Gov. Jay Nixon wants to boost Missouri's oversight of dog breeders.

Nixon proposed Wednesday to add $1.1 million to the state budget to hire 10 more inspectors, investigators, veterinarians and office staff for the Department of Agriculture program that regulates dog-breeding facilities. Nixon's office says the state currently spends about $600,000 a year on such efforts.

The Senate Appropriations Committee considered the agriculture budget Wednesday but took no action on Nixon's proposal.

Dog breeding has gained increased attention recently in Missouri after voters narrowly approved a ballot measure in 2010 that tightened regulations on breeders. That new law is to take effect in November. State lawmakers are considering legislation that would change many of the voter-approved provisions.

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 April 8, 2011 | 10:09 a.m.

Got a strong stomach?

Watch this 'illegal ' video of Missouri breeders auctioning off America's pets...

"Show Me" WHAT, Missouri?

All of the above?

We cannot believe Gov. Nixon would wish to perpetuate this disgusting circus.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz April 8, 2011 | 10:57 a.m.

The beginning of the video says dog auctions are licensed by the USDA and legal. How does Governor Nixon proposing MORE money for MORE inspectors make things worse? Please connect the dots in your screed.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward April 9, 2011 | 6:47 a.m.

If John Schultz is unable to 'connect the dots' between irresponsible volume breeders and disreputable dog auctions, there is not much to say.

(Report Comment)
John Schultz April 9, 2011 | 8:22 p.m.

Um, Terry, the auctions are legal and Jay Nixon is proposing MORE money to inspect breeding facilities, and you go off as if that's a BAD thing? Must be fun in your world.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward April 10, 2011 | 8:44 a.m.

John Schultz continues to be unable to 'connect the dots' between irresponsible volume breeders and disreputable dog auctions, and instead, cites auctions as 'legal'.
Having nothing to do with anything.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward April 10, 2011 | 9:14 a.m.

John Schultz can point to where we said Nixon's proposal for more money "is a bad thing".

John Schultz has no difficulty interpreting the english language.

Yet he is intentionally misinterpreting our words.

What a waste of time and energy.

We have said SO many things diametrically opposed to John Schultz' peculiar agenda, none of which needed misinterpretation.

Why bother misinterpreting THIS when he has so much other material to play with?

(Report Comment)
John Schultz April 10, 2011 | 12:45 p.m.

Let me try to make it easy for y'all Terry...

You linked to what you said was an illegal video, but the video itself said it was legal under USDA regulations (paraphrasing here since I'm not going to waste the time to watch the first minute again).

You then huffed and puffed about Governor Nixon adding a half million dollars for inspection of dog breeders. He's not overturning Prop B (at least not yet) and dog breeding that conforms to Prop B is still legal, so why the huff and puff about Governor Nixon's proposal? Is it because he's not shutting down all dog breeders, even those who are licensed and conform to Prop B's regulations?

You can answer or you can be melodramatic, your choice.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward April 10, 2011 | 9:01 p.m.

"Huff and puff" ?
Another misrepresentation.
THIS is 'huff and puff'...

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

OK, let me know when you want to discuss the issue instead of playing YouTube tag. I've got a video of Vladimir Putin trying to sing Blueberry Hill that probably blows away whatever you want me to look at.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward April 11, 2011 | 2:25 p.m.

1. We did NOT say Nixon's proposal for more money "is a bad thing".
If you want to 'discuss' starting from there, go for it.

2. You are assuming that we are "huffing and puffing".
Assuming is stupid.
If you want to discuss without assumptions, go for it.

3. WE assumed that placing 'illegal' in quotations would be perceived by anyone with half a brain as facetious.
Obviously that was stupid. Quid pro quo.

4. Dog auctions are as disgusting as the people who participate in them, legal or not. We will not discuss this.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking April 11, 2011 | 3:22 p.m.

Terry Ward wrote:

"Dog auctions are as disgusting as the people who participate in them, legal or not."

What's wrong with auctioning dogs? Dogs, as pets, are sold in stores and from breeders every day. What makes this method so awful?


(Report Comment)
Gerald Shelnutt April 11, 2011 | 4:18 p.m.

Many people forget that in the end dogs are just animals. They are not intelligent, they do not and can not feel emotions as humans can.

(Report Comment)
Kevin Gamble April 11, 2011 | 5:14 p.m.

Gerald, no one's "forgetting" anything. A great many people - I would say a rapidly growing number, probably a majority - simply disagree with you. And further, disagree that something that's not human has no inherent value, which is the implicit message in your statement.

Simply because something isn't human doesn't mean it doesn't have value, doesn't have its own right to life and self-fulfillment, and doesn't deserve protection. To think otherwise, as you do, places you in your own described category of "animal".

(Report Comment)
Gerald Shelnutt April 11, 2011 | 5:31 p.m.

Kevin you have no idea how I think and I will not stoop to names as you have.

(Report Comment)
Terry Ward April 12, 2011 | 5:48 a.m.

You go Gerald!

Mark and John just got a new best friend!

(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.