# Prop B in MO... disturbing.



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

The "you know who" has come to Missouri. They paid to bring in out of state people to canvas the state for signatures. I hate it that Missouri is so infamous for the puppy mills. This makes it a perfect place for AR extremists to get a foothold in the law and legislature. Who would vote FOR puppy cruelty? 

Arrrrgh. Wayne P. has been in several cities. This is not an effort by Missourians for Missouri animals but rather an effort but a large organization from the outside. 

seMissourian.com: Op/Ed Column: Proposition B opposition (10/04/10)


----------



## Arkaneinc (Sep 27, 2010)

am I reading it correctly? they want to get rid of all licensed breeders?


----------



## BlackPuppy (Mar 29, 2007)

The language of "Prop B" is not posted, or I missed it. But the goal of PETA and HSUS is to totally eliminate dogs and cats as pets, among other things.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Yes, they want to get rid of all licensed breeders and may be successful if this passes.

Then the bill is a law and can be expanded by amendment to all other breeding endeavors. My own city just recently toyed with idea that anyone who breeds a litter in the city limits must be inspected and registered as a breeder and meet breeder housing requirements. Wow.

The Truth about Prop B - Alliance for Truth


----------



## BlackPuppy (Mar 29, 2007)

Yes, they try to pass something to get a foot in the door, so to say. Then later they can make changes to it to make things worse.


----------



## dogs_dolls (Apr 27, 2001)

no they dont want to elimate all breeders. Not the ones who get proper vet care for their dogs, not the ones who allow their dogs access to the outdoors, not the ones who give their dogs enough room in their crates to actually stand up and turn around, not the ones who let their females recover before breeding them again, and on and on. A breeder who cares for their animals is already doing most everything the bill mentions. What we do want to eliminate are the ones like the guys in Tuscumbia with the 100+ dogs living in absolute horror. That is what we would like to eliminate. And if you have less then 9 breeders why you can do just about anything you darn well please to those little lives even under these new laws.
By the way I am not PETA or any other group. Just a Missourian who would like our state to NOT be known as a puppy mill haven.


----------



## dogs_dolls (Apr 27, 2001)

I would urge each of you to read the bill, really read it and then tell me what you would want done differently if it was YOUR dog. The language of the bill is not radical and all the fear mongering that we are hearing is just that. Really it isn't a bad thing. Lots of Mo Vets are behind this bill as are many (maybe ALL) rescue groups. Giving a dog a kennel that is large enough for him to lie down in and stretch his legs is hardly extremist. This is a pretty conservative state and the bill may not pass. and that would be very sad for a lot of lives.


----------



## selzer (May 7, 2005)

Large scale is eleven females??? Owning eleven females does not equal breeding eleven females. 

Whatever.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

(4) ”Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements” means constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor; is not stacked or otherwise placed on top of or below another animal’s enclosure; is cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure; and does not fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit, or rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit. 
*This means that breeders will have to provide a kennel building for their dogs -- a dog house will not be considered adequate shelter under this provision.*

(6) ”Regular exercise” means constant and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area that is composed of a solid, ground level surface with adequate drainage; provides some protection against sun, wind, rain, and snow; and provides each dog at least twice the square footage of the indoor floor space provided to that dog. 
*We are back to the kennel building again with indoor/outdoor capabilities. Dogs could not be kept in the home as they would not have "regular exercise" as required in the bill.*

*Other parts of the bill require that crates not be stacked. I understand the feeling that it is important from the pictures used in the ads as support (by the way, the HSUS is paying for those ads), but I have friends that breed Schipperkes. It is hard to bend over to open crates that are on the floor -- so having all of them on the floor would be difficult.*

*My German Shepherds are in big crates -- 26 x 42 x 34, but they would not be big enough according to the bill. Just something to think about.*


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

The dogs will also have to have constant access to the outdoors. How many of us provide that? Newly whelped pups able to get outside in the winter. 

I am not for puppy mills. I do believe this bill is just a foot in the door to stop most breeding. Unfortunately, what looks good on the surface gets public support especially in the cities. They use the horror of some puppy breeder situations to advance a larger agenda.

We have very adequate animal cruelty laws on the books here. More legislation is not needed at all to protect animals. The problems come from other sources. Unfortunately, if one is not aware of who and what is behind the bill, it reads fine on the surface. All of the vets in my area are against the legislation.


----------



## JakodaCD OA (May 14, 2000)

Instead of a "bill",,which I don't agree with, and if this is aimed at the puppy mills in MO, why not AIM it at those puppy mills? Go in, inspect and shut em down??

I am also not for puppy mills, but this seems to be targeting "non puppy millers" as well.

I could not give my dogs constant access to outside because they are IN my house and there's no way I would build a kennel building , leave them in it, especially while I'm not home..

Glad I don't live in MO.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

Because of the puppy mill notoriety here we are a target where it might be possible to get legislation in with a broad reaching goal. Once passed, it is easier to amend and attach to existing law. Certainly this was driven by an outside, large organization which brought in outside money and persons to push their agenda. We are one of the places where they are trying to make an inroad and begin nation wide efforts. For sure, it is not about living in MO particularly.


----------



## Achielles UD (May 26, 2001)

Oh exactly. It looks good because it is proposed as the "puppy mill" and animal "cruelty" act/law. The problem is that that is not what it is about. HSUS is trying to get their foot in the door to stop all breeding and owning of domestic animals. Dogs, cats, horses, pigs, cows, you name it. They define a pet as living on the owners property, basically. Where does that leave farmers? This is not about puppy mills. 

I'm obviously against puppy mills, but this new proposed bill is not the way to stop them. The laws in place are more than sufficient to go after puppy millers. The problem is they don't have the man power to enforce them with inspections and housing facilities when they do shut them down. 

The new bill will effectively shut down almost all show kennels too. This isn't about puppy mills. It is about getting a foot in the door to place laws to basically legally stop owning pets! 

If you're in Missouri, VOTE NO on Prop B November 2!!


----------



## Emoore (Oct 9, 2002)

It's easier to pass a bill that makes it look like you're doing something than it is to actually do something.

And next election season, who wants to be the the guy whose opponents can say, "John Smith opposed the anti-puppy cruelty bill. John Smith voted in favor of cruelty to puppies."


----------



## lauren_b_d (Aug 4, 2010)

Thank you for posting this!! I would have voted yes, because I thought this bill was doing something it's not. Now that I have done some research I know this bill will not only effect ALL breeders but our farmers also.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

*Where can we find the text of the actual bill?* I would decide to vote Yes or No based on that, not based on people's opinions on this forum. 

As far as I can tell this is some heavy handed propaganda (and money!) coming from both the supporters and the opposition. I would put my money on the truth about the bill lying somewhere in between the claims on either side.

And btw, I would never trust an organization calling themselves "The Alliance for Truth." If that doesn't scream propaganda, I don't know what does. Check out their funding sources and you'll see it's coming from big ag (large scale agricultural organizations)...you know the people who most recently brought you salmonella in chicken eggs? Yeah, those folks. 

So do thorough research of your own before you believe anyone else's representation of a particular bill (or candidate).


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

Here's the full text, as listed on the MO Secretary of State website:

SOS, Missouri - Elections: 2010 Approved Initiative Petitions


----------



## lauren_b_d (Aug 4, 2010)

Okay so after a ton of research I ran across this site. I am blown away by what it has to say! I am so mad that they are using the poor mistreated dogs for their hidden agenda! We don't need anymore laws we have them already, we need funding for more jobs to help enforce the laws that we already have!!

Humane Society of the United States: Funding sources, staff profiles, and political agenda

ETA: Read the whole thing I just tried to skim through it the first time but I was amazed at the info I missed doing that.


----------



## GROVEBEAUTY (Oct 23, 2008)

I do not live in MO but in Oklahoma the laws aren't the problem. The problem is that they have too few inspectors for the number of kennels. The kennels do not get the inspections or the attention they need to enforce the law.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

lauren_b_d said:


> Okay so after a ton of research I ran across this site. I am blown away by what it has to say! I am so mad that they are using the poor mistreated dogs for their hidden agenda! We don't need anymore laws we have them already, we need funding for more jobs to help enforce the laws that we already have!!
> 
> Humane Society of the United States: Funding sources, staff profiles, and political agenda
> 
> ETA: Read the whole thing I just tried to skim through it the first time but I was amazed at the info I missed doing that.


Keep doing your research. Here's the source of the information above: 

Center for Consumer Freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Center for Consumer Freedom or Deception? You Decide.

Center for Consumer Freedom - SourceWatch

The person who runs that website is a HIGHLY PAID lobbyist. His organization started with a big chunk of cash from Philip Morris. They also oppose Mothers Against Drunk Driving, among other innocuous and super legit non-profits. So basically the info he provides about the HSUS can also be applied to his own organization.


----------



## lauren_b_d (Aug 4, 2010)

my whole point is, I feel like they are lying to us. I fell for those hsus adds and never in a million years would I have thought that they had no affilation with any actual shelters. I contacted my local shelter just to find out and they said "no they have nothing to do with our shelter". 

I am all for saving the animals and cracking down on puppy mills but in Missouri the rules for dog breeding conditions are already in place, they just need to be enforced. This is unnecessary and invasive law making.


----------



## Andaka (Jun 29, 2003)

www.newstribune.com/articles/2010/10/21/opinion/nt071op20propb10.txt


----------



## Jessiewessie99 (Mar 6, 2009)

Wow, I am glad I am not in Missouri.

They should be going after the actual puppy mills.


----------



## lauren_b_d (Aug 4, 2010)

Andaka : What a fantastic link thanks for posting!!


----------



## JeanKBBMMMAAN (May 11, 2005)

lauren_b_d said:


> my whole point is, I feel like they are lying to us. I fell for those hsus adds and never in a million years would I have thought that they had no affilation with any actual shelters. I contacted my local shelter just to find out and they said "no they have nothing to do with our shelter".
> 
> I am all for saving the animals and cracking down on puppy mills but in Missouri the rules for dog breeding conditions are already in place, they just need to be enforced. This is unnecessary and invasive law making.


Are you upset that the American Cancer Society does not do cancer treatments?

Not supporting either organization but they tell you what they are about when you read their mission and vision statements. And if it's not in their mission to do so, they won't. 

*American Cancer Society mission statement*

The American Cancer Society is the nationwide, community-based, voluntary health organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer, saving lives, and diminishing suffering from cancer, through research, education, advocacy, and service.
ACS Mission Statements



> *Our mission statement: Celebrating Animals, Confronting Cruelty.*
> 
> 
> We work to reduce suffering and to create meaningful social change for animals by advocating for sensible public policies, investigating cruelty and working to enforce existing laws, educating the public about animal issues, joining with corporations on behalf of animal-friendly policies, and conducting hands-on programs that make ours a more humane world. We are the lead disaster relief agency for animals, and we provide direct care for thousands of animals at our sanctuaries and rescue facilities, wildlife rehabilitation centers, and mobile veterinary clinics.
> ...


About Us: Overview : The Humane Society of the United States

You might still disagree with them, but that tells you their mission. How they are doing in meeting those goals is another document/rubric.


----------



## BowWowMeow (May 7, 2007)

And here's what Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Kenab, Utah (a VERY reputable source) has to say about this bill: Raising the bar


----------



## Cassidy's Mom (Mar 30, 2003)

BowWowMeow said:


> ....Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Kenab, Utah...


My sister is there right now.


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

I really don't enjoy Wayne and his group's agenda. Prop B is not what it is on the face of it. I think people have to come to understand the history and the agenda.


The Humane Society of the United States: Email - Final week! Go to bat for puppies


----------



## Vandal (Dec 22, 2000)

We just went through the same situation here in Los Angeles County. The AR groups, Last Chance for Animals and Best Friends ( yes the Utah group), used one kennel out of compliance, ( Animal Control discovered too many dogs ), and a sensationalized News Cast to try to convince the LA County Board of Supervisors that we had a "Puppy Mill Crisis" here in LA County. So, one of the AR friendly Supervisors decided to form a "Puppy Mill Task Force" to solve this HUGE, ( NOT!), crisis. This Task Force consisted of Animal Care and Control, an AR friendly member of the Regional Planning Dept. , Zoning, the AR people, and an AR friendly Rescue Group . None of the kennel operators or breeders were invited . The first thing they tried to do was to remove the land zoning required to have a kennel permit, for every kennel in LA County. The Regional Planning employee claimed there was a 1971 ordinance making dog breeding an "accessory use", so, after they had signed off on our Kennel Permits when we all applied for licenses, they decided they were just going to change their minds. Interestingly, they were unable to provide the 1971 ordinance when we requested it. 
Of course, there had to be a hearing first before they could go through with this but oddly, NOT ONE kennel was notified . They decided they would send the notice to the AKC even though OF COURSE they knew where to find us. LOL. It so disgusting, it is almost funny but really, a year of my life wasted, the loss of huge sums of money as far as property value and the ability to continue to keep my animals here at my kennel, is not funny at all. It is also not funny to watch people lying and manipulating people without any concern for the consequences or who they are hurting while they "claim" they are trying to help animals. 
Most of us purchased our properties specifically for the purpose of keeping animals and now they were telling us we would need to get a conditional use permit to the tune of 10 grand, and of course, there would be no guarantee it would be granted....with no refund of money if it wasn’t. You also have to understand that a CUP will be denied if ONE person objects. They also wanted to make it so boarding kennels had to be separate from breeding kennels and breeding kennels would only be allowed on M1, industrial property. M1 properties are more expensive and usually located in the worst areas with the most pollution. I would NEVER keep animals in a place like that. Of course, all this was for the benefit of the animals ...uh huh. 

A number of breeders and kennel operators presented our case to the Regional Planning Commission at the "secret hearing". We were lucky in that most of the people on the Regional Planning Commission had some common sense and were aware that people actually have RIGHTS. After listening to our testimony, one of the commisioners commented that the Puppy Mill Task Force had a very offensive name and forcefully suggested the Board of Supervisors change it. Most on the panel were offended by the use of one sensationalized News Cast presented at the hearing as evidence of this HUGE, ( one kennel out of compliance), problem and unanimously ruled against any zone change. They stated that in their opinion, the existing laws were sufficient and that better enforcement of those laws was the answer. 

Having held onto our businesses and ability to keep our animals..... for the moment anyway...... we were now faced with all the new changes to Title 10, ( County code for kennels), that were amazingly similar to Prop B in Missouri. You see, they are ALL the same because this is indeed a master plan and in some cases, the plan is working. The idea behind it is not simply to eliminate Puppy Mills, it is to eliminate ALL breeders. Oh sure, not right away but that's the goal.

So, we started to really let the BOS know how we felt about the RIDICULOUS changes to Title 10 .Feeling the pressure, a number of meetings were arranged with Animal Care and Control , the County Attorney and a representative from the BOS. Some of the Title 10 changes they came up with concerning breeding were actually DANGEROUS for the dogs. One in particular would have forced breeders to spay retired females and then put us all in a situation where we would be forced to either put some of them put down or place those old girls when they were retired. Most of us were simply horrified by the laws they wanted to implement that would have taken our ability to make decisions for the safety of the animals out of our hands. When we pointed out all the flaws in the ordinance, THEY TOO were horrified. You see, they had no idea how to breed dogs and they had no idea how each breed is different in that regard. They believed the propaganda presented to them by the AR groups that all breeders only care about money and pumping out puppies to sell. They had not really thought through these "suggestions" that the AR attorneys had written up for them. They did not realize that sometimes, it is not safe to make a dog exercise for an hour. After all, some areas get pretty hot and some breeds are quite sensitive to that and can die. Their new laws would have made it illegal to PROTECT the dogs by not exercising them. They also realized that the size requirements for kennels posed a safety issue in some cases and were simply overkill, ( designed to increase the cost and difficulty of keeping animals), with no real benefit to the dogs. For example, some kennels had dog runs that most would consider on the huge side. These were not big enough according to the AR Title 10 changes because they were longer than wide. Ten feet wide by 24 feet long was too small. How and when we could breed our dogs was also shot down when the different breeders who were breeding different breeds, educated all of us on the differences that exist in the breeding, raising and care of those different breeds. The list went on and on and included the stacking crate prohibition. Well, some breeders bring their dogs inside when the weather is bad and had crates stacked because of space. It certainly wasn't a situation where they are stacked like those pictures the ARs use to try to disturb and anger people. The dog did not LIVE in them, they were normal, clean crates used to keep the dogs comfortable when the weather outside wasn't. The new changes would have made doing that, against the law. Making laws to force a group's ideas and beliefs on others is dangerous, especially when those beliefs are based in IGNORANCE. What these groups are doing is EXACTLY that. It is less about the animals than most people can even imagine. 

We spent a huge amount of time educating the head of Animal Care and Control, the supervisors office and the Lawyer for the County on the care of animals and the differences in caring for each individual breed. They realized that you cannot write laws so specific it removes the caregivers ability to make decisions on the animal's behalf. Luckily, they listened to what we were saying and came to the conclusion that much of what the ARs suggested was not necessary. The suggestions these AR people , ( who had NEVER bred a litter of pups ), suggested, in no way benefitted the dogs. These things must be left to the discretion of the breeders and the care givers. You cannot make more laws, you have to enforce what is there and the laws are ALREADY THERE! It is a matter of enforcement!! The care of the animals must be left to the operators and YES, those operators should be inspected but making laws that take away that caregivers ability to make decisions on behalf of the animals and for their safety is not doing a THING to protect the animals. The thing about this also was WHO all these changes were affecting. It was the breeders with good reputations, people who really cared about their dogs and were extremely knowledgeable in the care of their breeds. It didn't affect the "Bad breeders" but it would have impacted some of the Rescues.....now being labeled as "Hoarders" by the ARs. That's another topic but all you Rescue people better be on your toes because they are coming after you too. 

The last meeting was with the AR people in attendance, Breeders, Animal Control, County Attorney and a rep from the BOS . The emotions of those AR people was a bit difficult to deal with. They were very quick to accuse everyone there of abusing their animals in some way. No proof but they were sure it was happening. That too was an eye opener since the Head of Animal Control took us all up on our offers to give her a tour of our kennels. She had visited several while on her way to that meeting. Many of the AR people spoke in unison saying the exact same words in response to arguments. It was really rather spooky watching all the 20 somethings behaving like robots while telling people with 40 and 50 years of animal care experience how to care for their dogs. When asked if they had ever run a kennel, most were repulsed by just the thought of it. While amusing it was also infuriating . How dare these people try to tell someone how to do something when they have NO IDEA how it should be done. They just pulled those ideas out of their arses and you can be SURE, it didn't matter if you made it clear how dangerous their ideas were. They just dismissed it. That is because this is not about helping people breed dogs the right way, it is about making breeding IMPOSSIBLY DIFFICULT so no one will have the time, money or desire to do it any longer. I can assure you this experience has taken some of the wind out of my sails and THAT is just what those people want. We are losing our rights and the inability of people to THINK these things through vs just getting emotional about it, is also dangerous. Somehow, somewhere, someone has had a profound effect on the way these people think . I am sorry , I am not trying to offend people who care about animals but this was not about the animals as much as it was about them feeling useful. Like their life had a purpose. The ideas and the rigid thinking these people displayed, any reasonable person would be bothered by. 

In the end, the changes to Title 10 have been mostly abandoned with a few slight changes. The Govt. came to see that enforcement was the best approach. At the last meeting, our group suggested that a tier system be implemented. Those with 0 to 50 dogs would pay a certain amount and as the number of animals increased, so did the cost of the license. That has always been the case but the one change we suggested was this. The more dogs a kennel had, the more times they will be inspected. The kennel will pay for those inspections. So, now, if you have over 100 dogs in your breeding kennel, you can expect to see Animal Control 4 times a year and it is a cost of doing business because the kennel pays for the inspection in the cost of the license, not the County. It is a really simple answer to a problem that never really existed but it will be what works . The AR people are not happy with the solution but that is to be expected.


----------



## lauren_b_d (Aug 4, 2010)

Thank you... What a great explanation!


----------



## BlackPuppy (Mar 29, 2007)

I don't see it mentioned, but Prop B passed by a small margin, mostly due to the population of the large cities. 

I'm interested to see if any breeders are actually shut down.


----------



## dogs_dolls (Apr 27, 2001)

Yes it passed . It will immediately affect the operations with more then 50 breeding females. Was interesting seeing who was funding all the ads here. There were tons of signs and radio ads against Prop B. Mosly paid for by livestock producers. (cattle, pork and chickens..which the bill did not affect at all)

I thought the bill was very clearly written on the ballot. Nothing tricky or hard to understand. You either were for it or against it. I am glad that we have the bill. Now I hope it is used wisely and well to relieve and prevent suffering. Time will tell. Maybe in a few years Mo. will not be known as the Puppy Mill Capital of the USA.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

I was actually sorry to hear that it passed. Very slippery slope for all livestock producers as well as small time breeders. I'm not a fan of puppy mills, but there are already laws that would end the majority of their abuses, there just isn't enough enforcement! Never a fan of adding new laws when the old ones are adequate if properly enforced.


----------



## dogs_dolls (Apr 27, 2001)

small scale breeders with less then 10 breeding females are exempt from the law. The large scale breeders were the main target of the new laws. They will henceforth be limited to no more then 50 breeding females. And this was targeted solely at dogs...no livestock....just dogs. 
Also contrary to what has been said the new law does contain things that were not in the previous law...like no more then 2 litters per 18 months. I agree that more enforcement is needed and probably more employees to do that enforcing. My hope is that (for the sake of those breeding females) it helps improve conditions.


----------



## Dainerra (Nov 14, 2003)

yes, but it is merely a step farther to expand this law to cover other circumstances. It happens in many other venues, but I do hope that this isn't the case here


----------



## Samba (Apr 23, 2001)

It only passed in the large metro areas and a few other counties. Hopefully it will help with puppy mill issue but I not so sure of its overall benefit. It does not take much to expand the legislation from here. We will have to remain vigilant.


----------



## AgileGSD (Jan 17, 2006)

BowWowMeow said:


> And here's what Best Friends Animal Sanctuary in Kenab, Utah (a VERY reputable source) has to say about this bill: Raising the bar


 Unfortunately, Best Friends leans heavily towards AR these days, at least when it comes to legislation. They also have typical AR type propaganda on their site about some subjects such as altering (some misinformation in there about neutering...): http://www.bestfriends.org/theanimals/pdfs/allpets/spayneuteradvice.pdf and mixed breeds: Best Friends Animal Society - Special Feature The "mutts are healthier" stuff is all over their website.

They are not the extreme group that HSUS or PETA is and I don't think they are an AR group but when it comes down to it, they will tend to support AR laws. The one big difference they have from AR though is that they fully support no-kill and AR strongly opposes it. 



JeanKBBMMMAAN said:


> Are you upset that the American Cancer Society does not do cancer treatments?


 The problem is that the HSUS's name sort of implies that they are associated with animal shelters. I suspect it is intentional, as they get a lot of donations from well meaning people who think this is a national group which oversees and helps local humane societies. The fact is, most of what they do is campaign for legislation which supports their agenda.



dogs_dolls said:


> small scale breeders with less then 10 breeding females are exempt from the law. The large scale breeders were the main target of the new laws. They will henceforth be limited to no more then 50 breeding females. And this was targeted solely at dogs...no livestock....just dogs.


 Livestock producers will often strongly oppose any HSUS or PETA backed bill. HSUS and PETA would happily push for legislation outlawing raising animals for food, if they thought they could get it to passed today. For every victory HSUS and PETA have, it makes them more powerful and more of a threat to everyone involved with domestic animals. 

If you like purebred dogs, owning multiple dogs, owning animals at all or even the ability to choose what you eat it is foolish to support HSUS or PETA back legislation. It might sound good and it might target the people you want targeted...this time. These organizations have a clear agenda though and any law they are proposing or supporting is just part of their bigger picture.


----------

