TODAY'S QUESTION: What do you think of the proposed compromise for dog-breeding regulations?

Wednesday, April 20, 2011 | 4:18 p.m. CDT

On Tuesday, Gov. Jay Nixon said he had support from at least 70 lawmakers for a compromise on a new dog-breeding law that was passed by voters in November. 

Voters narrowly passed the dog-breeding law, known as Proposition B. Senate Bill 113 was drafted to roll back several of the key components of the dog-breeding law.

Controversy about the compromise has come from both sides. Voters who supported the dog-breeding law have said the legislature should not undo a law that was passed by Missouri voters. Voters who were against the law have said outside interests that generated large donations were the reason why the law passed. Dog breeders have said they are concerned that the law, which puts a limit on the number of breeding dogs and imposes housing requirements, could put them out of business.

The compromise was crafted by Nixon's Department of Agriculture, which is also in charge of regulating dog breeders. According to a St. Louis Beacon story, the compromise will:

  • Repeal the provision that limits breeders to own no more than 50 dogs. 
  • Change the definition of "adequate breeding cycles" to what is "appropriate for the species, age and health of the dog." Under the law passed in November, owners would not be allowed to breed dogs more than twice every 18 months. 
  • Require that animals receive larger amounts of space, but that requirement will be phased in over a period of several years.
  • Change the specifics regarding veterinarian care. Instead of a licensed veterinarian examining the dogs at least once per year, the compromise would change that to "at least two personal visual inspections annually by a licensed veterinarian," according to the Beacon.

The compromise must still be approved by the Missouri General Assembly. 

How do you feel about the governor's proposed compromise for dog-breeding regulations?

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.


Shelley Powers April 20, 2011 | 4:44 p.m.

What I think about the new compromise I detailed in a post at

Basically, no, I'm not for the compromise.

I understand that HSMO and MAAL think we can't win in this situation, and so they were willing to setting for crumbs.

But too much of the bill puts the requirements into the hands of the breeder's hired vets and the Department of Agriculture, and neither has been good at reigning in bad, but licensed, breeders.

More importantly, how do you compromise on a vote of the people? You certainly don't do so by grabbing a few people and having them sign a paper. I didn't delegate HSMO or MAAL to speak for me, and I resent the statement made that they know what my "intent" was when I voted on B.

My intent was for Proposition B, and anything less is a mockery of my vote.

If Nixon really believes in his compromise, he needs to veto SB 113 and then bring this compromise to the voter. Let us have a chance to accept, or reject, this compromise.

(Report Comment)
Tom Catlett April 20, 2011 | 5:33 p.m.

Shelley Powers, where exactly are you from?

JC, obviously you missed the checks that were being given out in the capitol building by HSUS to make sure SB 113 did not pass ... but obviously that wouldn't be lobbying because a 501c3 cannot (legally) lobby ...

(Report Comment)
Ray Shapiro April 20, 2011 | 5:45 p.m.

I don't know if "Jc" is your God-given name but I definitely don't see a breakdown of democracy in this case. In fact, our Democrat of a Governor is handling this better than California's Republican Governor who legally used his authority to outright "terminate" the HSUS/PETA brigades affront on a very necessary small business enterprise network on the West Coast.
There are checks and balances in place whenever a proposition of this nature gets "voted in." Part of any good democracy requires not only the concept of majority rules but also the concept of minority rights. There seems to be some hope for the Democrats with a man like Nixon at the helm, here in Missouri.
If only our President had such common sense in matters regarding small business enterprises, our economy might have a chance.

(Report Comment)
Jessica Stephens April 20, 2011 | 6:00 p.m.

Hi, I am a copy editor here at I have removed the comments posted under "J C" because that user name violates our comment policy, which requires that our readers post comments under their full name.

(Report Comment)
Brenda DiTrapani April 20, 2011 | 6:42 p.m.

I don't think this compromise does enough to end the cruelty. First the number of dogs, there is no limit right now. What about the size of the cages, five years to get to 18 inches on each side? What about STACKED WIRE cages? What about rest between breeding cycles? What about exercise or runs? There is nothing defined yet. Visual vet checks instead of handson? There is just too much room for more misery for these dogs. BD

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance April 20, 2011 | 11:36 p.m.

We will remeber your checks and balnces when it comes time to reverse the "marriage initiative" or the " Earnings tax initiative" I guess the "will of the people" only counts if your side wins. Hypocrites. How sad that some goobs on this site have to use hyperbole and demonize a non-profit organization like the Humane Society while having no qualms about one billionaire buying elections in Missouri. How pathetic.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers April 21, 2011 | 9:14 a.m.

Tom Catlett

It seems you're a fiction writer, because you make up whatever suits your story.

If we want to look at lobbying and ethics, I suggest you read the following

Now, which side was violating campaign laws? And this is fact.

BTW, another comparison of the "compromise" with Prop B and SB 113

Bottom line: no matter how much hand waving Governor Nixon and his DeptAg head Jon Hagler do, if they truly believed in their compromise, Nixon would veto SB 113 and send the compromise to the voters.

Anything else is a mockery of our vote, and the worst form of backroom dealing and political mechanization.

(Report Comment)
Tom Catlett April 21, 2011 | 11:23 a.m.


You didn't answer my question ...

And funding advertising - be it out-of-state money to combat an out-of-state organization running propaganda advertising to fund their campaigns ... how about that 1% for direct care of animals! - is not the same as standing in the capitol building paying for votes!

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers April 21, 2011 | 12:37 p.m.

Tony Catlett, I live in Missouri as a five second Google lookup on my name would have told you.

And for the life of me, I can't figure out what you're saying with the rest of your comment.

(Report Comment)
Shelley Powers April 21, 2011 | 12:39 p.m.

Oh, ho

Another one of the "mystery" commenters who only shows up for a specific post. "Tony Catlett", is it?

(Report Comment)
Arlandis Glasgow April 21, 2011 | 3:06 p.m.

Okay I just wanted to chime in real quick. Looking at how the individual counties voted, I'd say that the individual congress men and women aren't worried about getting re-elected seeing as how if you look at the election results the majority of the counties where against it. I'm not going to way in yay or nay because if I was in the legislature and I came from one of those counties I'd probably try to do the same thing.

(Report Comment)
Paul Allaire April 22, 2011 | 6:47 p.m.

How long did it take you to learn how to spell your name correctly?

(Report Comment)
Arlandis Glasgow April 22, 2011 | 9:30 p.m.

Is that directed at me? I'm confused is that a jab saying my name is hard to spell or implying that I was a different poster? Well my name isn't that hard to spell (had it down in kindergarten or there abouts), and I haven't posted under any aliases...of course if that wasn't directed at me, sorry for being defensive.

(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.