Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Thank you both for posting. I live just across the border in Iowa but work and all my co-workers live in MO. so this is a hot topic and I have gotten numerous E-mails on it. One side is selling it like if it is passed it will stop all cruelty to dogs and the other side is trying to sell it like if you farm and ever give your calves a shot then you will be next and the US Humane Society wants no one to breed any animal of any kind and the cost of everything will go up. It is really hard to determine what is the truth and who will actually benefit and what good or bad will come out of it.
I, of course, think that no dog should be in a cage 24/7 or to be bred over and over. I think all breeders should supply the dogs with clean food, water and crates. I think all dogs should be exercised daily but I worry about the vet requirements. If every breeder has to take the dog to the vet for every shot, every dose of cough medicine, ect then that seems extreme. We farm and we have always treated our livestock very humanely but if we had to have a vet out every time we needed to give a calf a shot our expenses would skyrocket.
I also think that every puppy mill should be shut down but like Nursing Homes not every breeder is bad. There are regulations to make sure that these breeders treat their dogs humanely and a lot of them do and the ones that dont should be investigated and fined, the laws are already on the books.
These are the concerns and the questions that most people have about Prop B. I am not saying it is wrong or should be voted against I am just trying to sort out the reteric from the truth.
This doesnt necessarily represent my opinion but just a different perspective on the subject.
From the above link:
These new regulations will put almost every breeder in Missouri out of business forcing the price of dogs to sky rocket and allowing pet ownership only for the very wealthy. But this bill is just a stepping stone. HSUS eventually wants to extend this law to ALL animals. Their idea of utopia is a United States with NO animal ownership; NO meat to eat; NO pets; NO hunting; NO fishing; NO service animals. If chicken farmers would be forced to own no more than 50 chickens they could no longer afford to stay in business. The same will hold true with hog farmers and cattle ranchers. Eventually, agri-business will be forced to go over seas, just as our manufacturing and tech industries.
The above I've highlighted in red is a very real concern of Missouri family farmer-ranchers and hobby farmers with a small income stream from small animal and companion animal breeding. Folks backing this legislation refuse to admit the history of the HSUS and the slippery slope potential of this legislation.
I would challenge the supporters of this bill to show me any Missouri puppy mill that has been busted where adequate enforcement of the current Missouri and federal animal protection laws allowed the mill to reach the despicable conditions that garnered it the deserved negative attention.
Please, I'm looking for specific cases where the law was actually enforced and that it can be proven that the current law was lacking and not enforcement.
If you can prove to me that the current laws are inadequate while enforcement has been simulataneously dilligent in any of these Missouri closed puppy mill cases I promise to rally hard to get this legislation passed in November. Deal?
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 10-07-2010 at 12:30 PM..
These new regulations will put almost every breeder in Missouri out of business forcing the price of dogs to sky rocket and allowing pet ownership only for the very wealthy. But this bill is just a stepping stone. HSUS eventually wants to extend this law to ALL animals. Their idea of utopia is a United States with NO animal ownership; NO meat to eat; NO pets; NO hunting; NO fishing; NO service animals. If chicken farmers would be forced to own no more than 50 chickens they could no longer afford to stay in business. The same will hold true with hog farmers and cattle ranchers. Eventually, agri-business will be forced to go over seas, just as our manufacturing and tech industries.
The above I've highlighted in red is a very real concern of Missouri family farmer-ranchers and hobby farmers with a small income stream from small animal and companion animal breeding. Folks backing this legislation refuse to admit the history of the HSUS and the slippery slope potential of this legislation.
I would challenge the supporters of this bill to show me any Missouri puppy mill that has been busted where adequate enforcement of the current Missouri and federal animal protection laws allowed the mill to reach the despicable conditions that garnered it the deserved negative attention.
Please, I'm looking for specific cases where the law was actually enforced and that it can be proven that the current law was lacking and not enforcement.
If you can prove to me that the current laws are inadequate while enforcement has been simulataneously dilligent in any of these Missouri closed puppy mill cases I promise to rally hard to get this legislation passed in November. Deal?
Sigh - Commercial Breeders are REGULATED but USDA on the federal level. There is no enforcement branch. Thats kinda the problem! The best that the USDA can do is report violations and make recommendations.
You appear to be following the party line for the puppy mills and commercial breeders that will have their profits stifled by the passage of this legislation. This bill IS NOT a stepping stone for a meatless society or any other agenda except stopping the profits made off of the suffering of dogs!
I invite everyone to visit the site below. Nowhere in here or in the legislation is there any ulterior motives. I'd be happy to be involved in any intelligent debate on this topic. Lets get rid of the rumors and outright fabrications.
Sigh - Commercial Breeders are REGULATED but USDA on the federal level. There is no enforcement branch. Thats kinda the problem! The best that the USDA can do is report violations and make recommendations.
You appear to be following the party line for the puppy mills and commercial breeders that will have their profits stifled by the passage of this legislation. ....
Don't insult me by projecting your "party line" mantra because I ask someone to show me real proof that the Missouri law combined with the federal law has has been enforced. I am not some brainless zombie that votes a certain way because someone tells me to do so on an emotional issue.
Now, if you can prove to me that the Missouri law was enforced and the law itself was too weak to do the job with adequate enforcement, then I'm on board.
Is there a new enforcement arm or funding for state/local law enforcement agencies created by the new law under Proposition B? I do not see one.
Yeah, I'm from Missouri and you really do have to SHOW ME proof that a new law is going to change effect enforcement. I'm not impressed by rhetoric.
I am in Missouri and yes, this state is OVER RUN with mills and backyard breeders......
am hoping like crazy that the puppy mill cruelty bill is passed.... not that there will be the necessary manpower to really enforce it .... particularly with the ginormous budget shortfalls the state is facing..... but it is a step in the right direction and if the laws are on the books, when something is busted, there will be a little more ammo to fire at it......
I agree. Every little step helps draw more attention to the problem. Keep the spotlight on the issue long enough and something will have to be done. I hope for all of the poor babies out there being mistreated that it does some good.
So is that it? No one can prove that the problem in Missouri is not one of enforcement of current law? Or, that this new legislative proposition provides the resources for enforcement that the current law does not?
I'm really looking for a reason to be able to support this Missouri ballot measure. I hate that these dogs suffer. However, without the ability to enforce I cannot see this as productive legislation or understand the near $800K pricetag to implement it.
i reviewed the applicable Revised Statutes of Missouri (RSMo 273.325 - .340) and spent half an hour of my life (that i will NEVER have back again) writing a post discussing each.... then my IE crashed .....
soooooo.... i will distill what i found:
The State of Missouri requires that commercial breeders, kennels, dealers, etc. be licensed and that that license be renewed annually. Facilities must be inspected prior to licensure and then annually thereafter, or upon complaint.
RSMo273.325 DOES require that adequate food, water and housing be provided.
the ONLY penalties for violating standards of care are ADMINISTRATIVE.... revocation or non-renewal of license and/or financial penalties not to exceed $1,000 (i THINK that is the correct amount.... i have already spent too much time on this today) .......
Dealers are required under state law to ONLY purchase animals from licensed breeders..... if a dealer is found to have KNOWINGLY bought animals from an unlicensed breeder, that dealer is subject to a misdemeanor charge or charges......
so, right now, the only people faciing possible criminal charges are dealers... those that commit the cruelty are subject only to administrative penalties.......
if i have missed anything, please feel free to add what i missed.....
no doubt about it mogal...... enforcement is already pretty much non-existent....and given the state of the state budget, will likely remain so for some time to come..... but having an additional weapon in the arsenal is a GOOD thing, as far as i am concerned.........
So for these closed puppy mills to be in as horrible of conditions as they have been found is it likely accurate that they were not being inspected annually? Or, is there fraud being hidden somewhere in the inspection-licensing process? Or, do these mills just go downhill that badly, that fast? Those would be an important answers to know, IMO.
lttp, I am off on the cost figure, my mistake. It is just under $700K as I read it now. I thought it was higher when I researched it two months ago.
Missouri ballot initiatives require an estimated cost disclosure to the voter. However, there is no information as to who estimated those costs and the basis that I can find. I don't know if it is available through the SoS's office or not.
It is estimated state governmental entities will incur costs of $654,768 (on-going costs of $521,356 and one-time costs of $133,412). Some local governmental entities may experience costs related to enforcement activities and savings related to reduced animal care activities.
Notice the ballot cost estimate mentions enforcement activities. However, the full text of Proposition B on the SoS's website makes no provision for enforcement. Thus, my major problem with it as an effective piece of legislation.
much more likely that the puppy mill busts that make the news are mills that are not licensed.... and therefore, not even subject to the administrative penalties.......
although i'm guessing that they could be in trouble for operating the facilities without said license .... don't recall any mention of any charges or penalties for that either..... i also didn't see anything addressing charges or penalties for individuals accused of animal cruelty..... so that tells me that this issue is left to the local jurisdictions.....
would be interesting to know where they got that cost estimate.... and if it means that enforcement would actually occur.......
So basically, if I am reading this correctly, aside from federal animal cruelty laws and provisions already contained in RSMo 273, Proposition B if passed does/adds the following:
1) Makes misdemeanor violations for people possessing 10 or more "covered" females where none existed before (certain categories exempted).
2) Lists and defines specific conditions required to be in place for dogs of people in possession of 10 "covered" females of more (certain categories exempted).
3) Limits every owner-breeder of dogs to possession of no more than fifty (50) "covered" dogs of either sex (while exempting dealers from same and without regard to the physical size of the property, number of caretakers onsite, indoor facilities, etc... of the owner-breeder and the ability &/or facilities to handle larger numbers.)
Is that correct? Did I miss any other important points?
In conclusion, this Proposition, if passed into law, would have no more effect on operators of previously unlicensed puppy mills, other than opening up the person in possession of the dogs to misdemeanor charges, in addition to any other charges that may have previously resulted from violation of existing Missouri licensing/animal cruelty and federal animal cruelty laws.
Is that correct?
Last edited by lifelongMOgal; 10-08-2010 at 05:34 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
