Missouri Proposition B: The Puppy Mill Bill

[Animal Cant Read]

Why would a dog proponent support a "puppy mill bill" that doesn't cover the treatment of the puppies?

[Awesome veteran]

Hell you ask me breeding dogs in general should be illegal. There are enough stray dogs in the world we really don't need to make more. Purebred dogs are usually inbred and disease prone

[Vote Yes]

As a puppy mill owner and dog fighting affectionate...I'm voting yes. Under the bill, I no longer am required to provide adequate food and shelter to the puppies. I can save money!!! I just have to remember to get rid of the puppies (feed them to the fighting dogs) before they reach six months. I'll set a reminder on my Iphone.

[MISSING HIM]

Animal lover wrote:

It is time that we show some compassion for our animal friends who can not speak for themselves. It is our obligation to vote YES and protect them from the horrors of the puppy mills in Missouri.
My vote is YES which is the right vote and I hope that your vote is also YES on Proposition B. Thank you.

I agree

[Critterlover]

Sweetie wrote:

<quoted text>
If you look up the list of what the bill refers to as domesticated animals, dogs are first on the list, then cattle, sheep, hogs, cats. They do not have to be living in your house, they just have to be maintained by you and rely on you for their care on your property. That means in my fields that is fenced and they are fed grain and hay, so yes they are domesticated animals to which this bill refers to as a pet. No sarcasm intended, if it reads that way.

Please provide a link to the "list" to which you are referring. The bill refers to Dog Breeders, and dogs....not cattle or the like. Maybe we are reading two different bills.

(9)”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.

I see nothing else that refers to anything but dogs in the bill I'm rading.

As far as it being a precusor to a nonexistant bill that MAY happen one day that affects farm animals.....maybe they do need to look into the conditions some of these factory farms are in, the recent egg fiasco should be an indicator of that.

[Farm Girl]

It actualy sais domesticated animals kept in "or near" the home of the owner there of. The Ar crowd really likes to try and color things up for their own benefit!

[Observer of the Obvious]

fallen19 wrote:

I will vote No cause it is a stupid bill. My dad has a kennel that he takes very good care of the dogs he has in it. They already have laws that should be enforced by the government and police instead of adding more to it.

Then your dad has nothing to fear from this bill.

[Observer of the Obvious]

Yes

[EntropyRising]

Sweetie wrote:

<quoted text>
If you look up the list of what the bill refers to as domesticated animals, dogs are first on the list, then cattle, sheep, hogs, cats. They do not have to be living in your house, they just have to be maintained by you and rely on you for their care on your property. That means in my fields that is fenced and they are fed grain and hay, so yes they are domesticated animals to which this bill refers to as a pet. No sarcasm intended, if it reads that way.

If you read the proposition you will see it stated clearly that it is intended for dog breeding facilities. Please read it fully.

[Farm Girl]

Proposition B: a ‘dangerous and extreme measure’ Wednesday, 29 September 2010 11:45 Submitted Story
By Congressman Blaine Luetkemeyer

9th District of Missouri

As a small farmer and rancher, I have a personal understanding of the importance of adhering to high standards of animal welfare. Over the last few weeks during my time in the district, I have heard from countless farmers and ranchers who are extremely concerned about the impact of a state ballot measure, Proposition B, in Missouri.

In rural communities where animals have been raised for generations there is real concern that Proposition B, which will appear on the November ballot, will do nothing to address those who keep animals in horrible conditions as long as the animals are not being bred to produce puppies for sale as pets. Many also believe the measure will harm the legal, licensed professional dog breeders in Missouri who produce healthy, happy puppies.

It is my belief that passage of Proposition B would be the first step toward ending the production of livestock in the state of Missouri. The next thing likely to happen is that animal rights groups will go after any hogs, chickens and turkeys in confinement. This is a dangerous and extreme measure. I’ve talked to folks in California and Ohio who are already seeing this kind of thing happen to their farmers and ranchers, and Missouri is next. To be clear, Proposition B is not about helping animals. It is about eliminating an already regulated industry and laying the necessary groundwork to severely restrict livestock production in our state. Passing this measure would impact our farmers in a very negative way.

To the people of the 9th District, taking away our beef, pork and poultry operations would be economically devastating when you consider that more than 35,000 farmers operate 23,000 farms on approximately 6.3 million acres, generating sales that are valued at approximately $1.4 billion for Missouri’s 9th District.

I feel very strongly about where Proposition B is going to take us and I look forward to continuing to discuss the issue. It is important that folks stand up and speak out when they feel that our agricultural industry is being targeted and our farming way of life is threatened.

[EntropyRising]

Vote Yes wrote:

As a puppy mill owner and dog fighting affectionate...I'm voting yes. Under the bill, I no longer am required to provide adequate food and shelter to the puppies. I can save money!!! I just have to remember to get rid of the puppies (feed them to the fighting dogs) before they reach six months. I'll set a reminder on my Iphone.

There are current laws stating that you must have a license to breed. Prop B isn't going to change that law. Where do you people get your information?

[Farm Girl]

Beware of Proposition B's real intent e-emery
Updated: 2010-10-03 10:50:10



Article Product of ignorance
by Missouri Rep. Ed Emery (R-126 including the counties of
Barton, Dade, Jasper and Polk

Proposition B will be on Missourian's November 2, 2010 ballot. No matter how it is promoted it is fundamentally the product of ignorance. It reflects ignorance about breeders, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the power of the free market, property rights, and liberty. It is being driven by propaganda rather than truth and depends on emotional appeal rather than the achievement of meaningful reform.

Missourians love their pets and hate to see animals abused. Dog breeders, and I have met a number of them, raise dogs because they love dogs and enjoy seeing others find just the right dog for their family. The goal of these small business people is to satisfy the public's longing for pets at a cost most can afford. My family used to raise basset hounds, and I remember that even a single flea bite on an otherwise perfect puppy meant an unacceptable price penalty along with the determination to find and fix any problem. If a puppy had anything more serious, they might just be refused. It simply does not pay to mistreat animals. But the best breeder would be hurt the most by Prop B.

Many are ignorant about the nature and objectives of HSUS-- the organization behind Prop B. A visit to www.humanewatch.org or www.activistcash.com will help you assess whether their intentions have anything at all to do with the treatment of animals. While less than $500,000 went to animal shelters (less than 0.5% of HSUS's budget in the same year HSUS's own website lists 14 executives who, it is reported, received $2.5 million in 2008 in pension benefits alone; their salaries are not available.

However, most harmful is ignorance of the significance of property rights to basic American freedoms. There is no more important unalienable right that our constitution secures than that of property rights. Personal property - almost unheard of before the United States exceptional founding - is the right that guarantees all others. It is the only right that once lost will almost certainly not be restored short of armed conflict. Prop B directly assaults property rights and for that reason alone is completely unacceptable and should be ruled unconstitutional. But the courts aside, no issue is important enough to concede to government our last defense against its abuse of the people.

Dispelling ignorance about what is actually in Prop B will help defeat it at the ballot box. First of all, the use of the word "cruelty" is to invoke prejudice, not reason. For example, keeping 51 dogs is cruel but keeping 50 is not; keeping a dog in a 5' by 5' 11" enclosure is cruel while adding one inch to the length makes it kind; kennel temperature of 45 degrees F is kind while 44 degrees is cruel. "Cruelty" is not for the dog; it is for the emotional appeal. We're told Prop B is for "large-scale" breeders, but just 11 female dogs makes you a "large-scale" breeder, and your animal quarters will have to be heated and air conditioned. Finally, if Prop B is about animal cruelty then why are hunting dogs excluded from the regulations?

Proposition B is not about animals or about cruelty, it is an assault on property rights, small businesses, and the free market. It employs a proven strategy for stripping rights from the people and empowering the elitists: 1) find an innocent lovable party - puppy, 2) make them a victim with an emotion-stirring label - puppy mill, 3) make "more government" the solution - Prop B. If voters take a broader and thoughtful perspective and if they insist that freedoms be protected and that policies be logical rather than emotional, then American ideals will win, and Prop B will fail in November.

Go Back

[Farm Girl]

Beware of Proposition B's real intent e-emery
Updated: 2010-10-03 10:50:10



Article Product of ignorance
by Missouri Rep. Ed Emery (R-126 including the counties of
Barton, Dade, Jasper and Polk)

Proposition B will be on Missourian's November 2, 2010 ballot. No matter how it is promoted it is fundamentally the product of ignorance. It reflects ignorance about breeders, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the power of the free market, property rights, and liberty. It is being driven by propaganda rather than truth and depends on emotional appeal rather than the achievement of meaningful reform.

Missourians love their pets and hate to see animals abused. Dog breeders, and I have met a number of them, raise dogs because they love dogs and enjoy seeing others find just the right dog for their family. The goal of these small business people is to satisfy the public's longing for pets at a cost most can afford. My family used to raise basset hounds, and I remember that even a single flea bite on an otherwise perfect puppy meant an unacceptable price penalty along with the determination to find and fix any problem. If a puppy had anything more serious, they might just be refused. It simply does not pay to mistreat animals. But the best breeder would be hurt the most by Prop B.

Many are ignorant about the nature and objectives of HSUS-- the organization behind Prop B. A visit to www.humanewatch.org or www.activistcash.com will help you assess whether their intentions have anything at all to do with the treatment of animals. While less than $500,000 went to animal shelters (less than 0.5% of HSUS's budget in the same year HSUS's own website lists 14 executives who, it is reported, received $2.5 million in 2008 in pension benefits alone; their salaries are not available.

However, most harmful is ignorance of the significance of property rights to basic American freedoms. There is no more important unalienable right that our constitution secures than that of property rights. Personal property - almost unheard of before the United States exceptional founding - is the right that guarantees all others. It is the only right that once lost will almost certainly not be restored short of armed conflict. Prop B directly assaults property rights and for that reason alone is completely unacceptable and should be ruled unconstitutional. But the courts aside, no issue is important enough to concede to government our last defense against its abuse of the people.

Dispelling ignorance about what is actually in Prop B will help defeat it at the ballot box. First of all, the use of the word "cruelty" is to invoke prejudice, not reason. For example, keeping 51 dogs is cruel but keeping 50 is not; keeping a dog in a 5' by 5' 11" enclosure is cruel while adding one inch to the length makes it kind; kennel temperature of 45 degrees F is kind while 44 degrees is cruel. "Cruelty" is not for the dog; it is for the emotional appeal. We're told Prop B is for "large-scale" breeders, but just 11 female dogs makes you a "large-scale" breeder, and your animal quarters will have to be heated and air conditioned. Finally, if Prop B is about animal cruelty then why are hunting dogs excluded from the regulations?

Proposition B is not about animals or about cruelty, it is an assault on property rights, small businesses, and the free market. It employs a proven strategy for stripping rights from the people and empowering the elitists: 1) find an innocent lovable party - puppy, 2) make them a victim with an emotion-stirring label - puppy mill, 3) make "more government" the solution - Prop B. If voters take a broader and thoughtful perspective and if they insist that freedoms be protected and that policies be logical rather than emotional, then American ideals will win, and Prop B will fail in November.

[fun4ever]

I definitely support this bill. I'd support a bill that outright banned puppy mills. Nothing good ever comes from them. There are enough stray dogs and cats in this country. In fact, I believe the statistics are 6 dogs and 9 cats to each person (including children).

[Dog lover]

The actual Bill wrote:

The actual bill can be read here
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions...
Looks like you should go ahead and vote yes as it only applies to female dogs and as long as you breed dogs you say are for "hunting" you don't have to comply.

Where do you read just female dogs?

[Fred Cosmoped]

Dog lover wrote:

<quoted text>
Where do you read just female dogs?

Item #3. It states 10 female dogs
http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions...

[Anon]

It's a nice idea, but I'd rather have our law enforcement (and tax dollars) working on bigger problems than the crazy cat lady down the street whose living room is a couple square feet short of regulation. Besides, if there is something actually harmful going on, wouldn't it fall under existing animal cruelty regulations?

[Jim DVM]

Missouri Veterinary Medical Assoc., American Kennel Club, Farm Bureau and a long list of organizations have condemned Prop. B
I am a vet.
This proposal will kill dogs. If you read it states "unfettered access" to the outdoors. This means a dog can go outside at any time. A bred female could walk out in zero temps and whelp. Her litter would freeze to death. If I prescribed this to my clients and it happened, I would be sued for malpractice and lose my license. Skipping breedings in bitches is dangerous. It can lead to a fatal condition known as pyometra. Prop B would make all kennels reduce to 50 dogs. What happens to the excess? Will HSUS find homes for these dogs? 30,000 dogs folks! What do you think will happen? Do you as a voter want to be responsible for killing these dogs? They want to end all purebred breeding. They want to end meat consumption. No more dog shows in St. Louis! Would ya like fries with your McVeggie Burger?

[fun4ever]

Anon wrote:

It's a nice idea, but I'd rather have our law enforcement (and tax dollars) working on bigger problems than the crazy cat lady down the street whose living room is a couple square feet short of regulation. Besides, if there is something actually harmful going on, wouldn't it fall under existing animal cruelty regulations?

It isn't the 'crazy cat lazy'. Arguably, she's doing her part with 9 cats given the cat-to-human ratio. People are breeding dogs in vast amounts, don't provide proper shelter, enough food, or bother with veterinary care. They just suffer until they die because no one will buy a sick dog.

[goodness]

Tell me this, all of the "puppy mills" we see getting busted on TV weren't licensed to begin with. So they have already thumbed their nose at the law so why would this bill change that???? IT WON'T! I agree that something needs to be done but the problem lies with those that aren't licensed and this bill doesn't address that but yet it will cost us tax payers almost a million dollars a year. Where is that money going to come from, our state is already broke!