Legal, Laws, and Regs Political

The Reality of HB 131 – Part 2

Earlier I provided a comparison between Proposition B and the tattered results after it’s hacked apart by HB 131. Since then, several modifications were made to the original HB 131. As you’ll see, the bill is no longer about puppy mills, and really doesn’t have any new requirements, or enforceability. It does increase the upper fee limit for the larger operations…such as shelters like HSMO, which adopts out thousands of dogs a year.

Oh, and it provides funding for one whole Bark Alert inspector. Of course, Bark Alert is specific to unlicensed breeders, only. However, the representatives assure us: licensed breeders never have any problems.

First, before I get into the Prop B hackery, I’ll list the committee’s modifications of other statutes.

Section A. Sections 273.327, 273.340, and 273.345, RSMo, are repealed and four new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 273.327, 273.340, 273.345, and 1, to read as follows:

273.327. No person shall operate an animal shelter, pound or dog pound, boarding kennel, commercial kennel, contract kennel, pet shop, or exhibition facility, other than a limited show or exhibit, or act as a dealer or commercial breeder, unless such person has obtained a license for such operations from the director. An applicant shall obtain a separate license for each separate physical facility subject to sections 273.325 to 273.357 which is operated by the applicant. Any person exempt from the licensing requirements of sections 273.325 to 273.357 may voluntarily apply for a license. Application for such license shall be made in the manner provided by the director. The license shall expire annually unless revoked. As provided by rules to be promulgated by the director, the license fee shall range from one hundred to two thousand five hundred dollars per year. Each licensee subject to sections 273.325 to 273.357 shall pay an additional fee of twenty-five dollars to be used by the department of agriculture for the purpose of promoting Operation Bark Alert. Pounds or dog pounds shall be exempt from payment of such fee. License fees shall be levied for each license issued or renewed on or after January 1, 1993.

273.340. A dealer shall only purchase animals from persons in this state who are licensed under sections 273.325 to 273.357, or who are exempt from licensure. If a dealer purchases animals from a person who is exempt from licensure, the animal shall meet the same vaccination and health requirements of those animals sold by a licensed person. Any dealer who knowingly purchases animals in violation of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and each purchase made shall constitute a separate offense. In addition to such penalties, the director may revoke such dealer’s license.

Yes, it does look like the increased fees apply to shelters and rescues—that will teach them to support animal protection laws. There’s nothing more vindictive than a Representative scorned.

Following is the modification specific to Proposition B.

273.345. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the “[Puppy Mill] Dog Cruelty Prevention Act.”

2. The purpose of this act is to prohibit the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs by requiring large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with basic food and water, adequate shelter from the elements, necessary veterinary care, adequate space to turn around and stretch his or her limbs, and regular exercise.

3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person licensed or required to obtain a license under sections 273.325 to 273.357 having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs:

(1) Sufficient food and clean water;

(2) Necessary veterinary care;

(3) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;

(4) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs;

(5) Regular exercise; and

(6) Adequate rest between breeding cycles.

4. For purposes of this section and notwithstanding the provisions of section 273.325, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) “Adequate rest between breeding cycles”, at minimum, ensuring that female dogs are not bred to produce more litters in any given period than what is recommended by a licensed veterinarian as appropriate for the species, age, and health of the dog;

(2) “Covered dog”, any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids, that is over the age of six months;

(3) “Necessary veterinary care”, at least two personal visual inspections annually by a licensed veterinarian, prompt treatment of any serious illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian, and where needed, humane euthanasia using lawful techniques deemed acceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association;

(4) “Person”, any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or syndicate;

(5) “Pet”, any species of domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof;

(6) “Regular exercise”, that which is consistent with regulations promulgated by the Missouri department of agriculture;

(7) “Retail pet store”, a person or retail establishment open to the public where dogs are bought, sold, exchanged, or offered for retail sale directly to the public to be kept as pets, but that does not engage in any breeding of dogs for the purpose of selling any offspring for use as a pet;

(8) “Sufficient food and clean water” :

(a) The provision, at suitable intervals of not more than twelve hours unless the dietary requirements of the species require a longer interval, of a quantity of wholesome foodstuff suitable for the species and age and sufficient to maintain a reasonable level of nutrition in each animal. All foodstuffs shall be served in a safe receptacle, dish, or container; and

(b) The provision of a supply of potable water in a safe receptacle, dish, or container. Water shall be provided continuously or at intervals suitable to the species;

(9) “Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements” , the continuous provision of a sanitary facility, protection from the extremes of weather conditions, proper ventilation, and appropriate space depending on the species of animal, as required by the regulations of the Missouri department of agriculture;

(10) “Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs” , having:

(a) Sufficient indoor space for each dog to turn in a complete circle without any impediment (including a tether);

(b) Enough indoor space for each dog to lie down and fully extend his or her limbs and stretch freely without touching the side of an enclosure or another dog;

(c) Appropriate space depending on the species of animal, as specified in regulations by the Missouri department of agriculture, as amended.

5. (1) Whenever the state veterinarian or a state animal welfare official finds past violations of the state animal care facilities act, sections 273.325 to 273.357, have occurred and have not been corrected or addressed, the director may request the attorney general or the local prosecutor to bring an action in circuit court in the county where the violations have occurred for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, or a remedial order enforceable in a state circuit court to correct such violations and in addition may assess a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars for each violation under section 273.333. Each violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense.

(2) A person commits the crime of pet neglect if such person repeatedly violates sections 273.325 to 273.357 so as to pose a substantial risk to the health and welfare of animals in such person’s custody, or knowingly violates an agreed to remedial order involving the safety and welfare of animals under this section. The crime of pet neglect shall be a class C misdemeanor, unless the person has previously pled guilty or nolo contendere to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case, each such violation shall be a class A misdemeanor.

(3) The attorney general or the local prosecutor shall, within ninety days, bring an action for criminal punishment under sections 273.325 to 273.357 in circuit court in the county where the crime occurred.

(4) No action under this section shall prevent or preclude action taken under section 578.012.

6. The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare. This section shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulation protecting the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this section prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations in addition to this section. This section shall not be construed to place any numerical limits on the number of dogs a person may own or control. This section shall not apply to a dog during examination, testing, operation, recuperation, or other individual treatment for veterinary purposes, during lawful scientific research, during transportation, during cleaning of a dog’s enclosure, during supervised outdoor exercise, or during any emergency that places a dog’s life in imminent danger. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise, or sell hunting dogs.

7. If any provision of this section, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this section are severable.

8. The provisions herewith shall become operative January 1, 2012.

Section 1. Any breeder who houses animals in stacked cages without an impervious barrier between the levels of such cages is guilty of a class A misdemeanor; except when cleaning such cages.

I don’t know why the bill had the odd thing tacked on to the end. It’s part and parcel of the sloppiness I’ve come to expect of the representatives, in their haste to appease the agribusiness concerns.

As you can also see, the bill is about everything now, including shelters. But then the bill completely removes all Proposition B provisions.

The enforcement section is absolutely appalling. What it amounts to, if I read it correctly, is that no law enforcement people can make a move against anyone, including a breeder, without first going through a prosecutor and have a court order. This means that the confiscation of the dogs at Knee Deep Collies last week wouldn’t be allowed. Not without first going to the prosecutor and then the prosecutor going in front of a judge.

The dogs, all of them, would be dead by then.

These representatives…have they no shame?

Critters People

Fox News interviews with Jason Smith

Fox News has done an outstanding job questioning Jason Smith on his mother’s kennel and his legislative efforts—both to rip apart Proposition B, and the Constitutional amendment prohibiting any citizen initiative about animals.

Part 1 is focused primarily on Smith’s mother’s kennel and the perceived conflict of interest.

The second part is focused on the Constitutional Amendment.

Smith truly believes that only farmers can make laws about farmers. Do we then change the Constitution that only cops make laws about cops? Teachers make laws about schools? Restaurant owners for restaurants? Chemical plant owners make laws covering toxic waste? Food producers make the laws covering the safety of food?

We had an example of what happens when an industry makes it own rules last summer, with the Deepwater Horizon catastrophe.

The farmers of this state are someday going to have to realize that we’re their customers, not their enemies. And they’re going to need to start to work with us, not around us.


Committee text for HB 131

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

The agriculture committee has published the committee version of HB 131. It differs from the introduced text, so I need to update my “reality of HB 131”.

Right now, though, I’m so peeved at the deception and the dishonesty inherent in this bill that I need to take a break.

In the meantime, you can read it yourself. Yay, your Missouri tax payer dollars at work…ensuring a miserable life for dogs in Missouri.


We need solutions before the dogs are dying

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Friday, the Humane Society of Missouri participated with the Missouri Department of Agriculture and the Stone County Sheriff’s office to rescue 74 dogs from a licensed breeder.

The kennel is named Knee Deep in Collies, a harmless sounding name. You can see from the kennel’s web site (static capture before site was taken down) how deceptive these puppy mills are: advertising as a sweet, small breeder, when in actuality, the dogs are living crammed into cages or allowed to run loose—starving,with little water, sick, filthy, and dying

Some would say this rescue is a demonstration of why we don’t need Proposition B; that the current laws worked, and the dogs were rescued. They are wrong—this story demonstrates exactly why we desperately need the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.

We should not have to wait until dogs are dead and dying before we can rescue them. We shouldn’t have to wait until they’re in this horrid state before acting. The current laws are too lax, with too many loopholes, too many regulations that favor the breeder over the dogs. Proposition B’s sole purpose is to allow the salvation of these dogs before the situation gets this bad.

I want to send a note about this rescue, and I hope you’ll join me, to the following state representatives for their sponsorship and co-sponsorship of bills to gut Proposition B, and/or their vote for such bill in committee. If they succeed in their endeavor, they, and those who vote for these bills, will own breeders like Knee Deep in Collies. They will own every single sick and dying dog that could have been saved if Proposition B had been left, as is.

Senator Bill Stouffer
Senator Brian Munzlinger
Senator Mike Parson
Senator Victor Callahan
Senator Chuck Purgason
Senator Ryan McKenna
Senator Dan Brown

Representative Stanley Cox
Representative Chuck Gatschenberger
Representative Wanda Brown
Representative John Cauthorn
Representative Don Wells
Representative Ward Franz
Representative Barney Fisher
Representative Jay Houghton
Representative Rodney Schad
Representative Caleb Jones
Representative Ed Scieffer
Representative Lindell Shumake
Representative Mike Kelley
Representative Sandy Crawford
Representative Craig Redmon
Representative Rick Brattin
Representative Bill Lant
Representative Bill Reiboldt
Representative Zachary Wyatt
Representative Paul Fitzwater
Representative Keith Frederick
Representative Charlie Davis
Representative Sue Entlicher
Representative Mark Parkinson
Representative Todd Richardson
Representative Tony Dugger
Representative Jason Smith
Representative Wayne Wallingford
Representative Tom Loehner
Representative Tom Shively
Representative Joe Aull
Representative Tom Long
Representative Shane Schoeller
Representative Gary Cross
Representative Charlie Denison
Representative Darrell Pollock
Representative Steve Cookson
Representative Donna Lichenegger
Representative Delus Johnson
Representative Glen Klippenstein
Representative Bob Nance
Representative Paul Quinn
Representative Terry Swinger
Representative Billy Pat Wright

Representatives Sally Faith and Chuck Gatschenberger have repudiated their co-sponsorships.

A note of thanks to the 119 Representatives and the 27 State Senators who have not co-sponsored a bill to repeal Proposition B, nor have voted for the passage of such a bill in an agricultural committee. I hope you continue to respect the will of the voters. I also hope that you keep these 74 dogs in mind when you do vote on these bills—and think about future stories about dog rescues such as this, and your name attached to each and every sick and dying dog.

The shame of Knee Deep in Collies should not be forgotten. If the Missouri legislature votes to override the will of the people and to gut Proposition B, they will be knee deep in hurt, sick, starved, dehydrated, injured, dying, and dead dogs.


The breeder has voluntarily given the dogs up for adoption. The Humane Society of Missouri believes many will be able for adoption in a couple of weeks.

In the meantime, there are other wonderful dogs that desperately need a home at HSMO.


Veterinarian Care

The USDA APHIS regulations and the ACFA regulations for veterinarian care are identical in everything except for some minor bookkeeping differences. To save space, I’m only duplicating the text from the Missouri Department of Agriculture ACFA regulations.

(8) Attending Veterinarian and Adequate Veterinary Care.
(A) Each licensee shall have an attending veterinarian who shall provide adequate veterinary care to animals covered under the rules in 2 CSR 30-9.

1. Each licensee shall employ an attending veterinarian under formal arrangements. In the case of a part-time attending veterinarian or consultant arrangements, the formal arrangements shall include a written program of veterinary care and regularly scheduled visits to the premises of the licensee. Boarding kennels in large metropolitan areas, where twenty-four (24) hour emergency veterinary clinics are in operation, and rotation of veterinary practitioners is essential for good will and referral services, may be exempted from the requirement of a formal arrangement if approved by the state veterinarian. This exemption must be requested in writing, and will be approved only on an individual basis.

2. Each licensee shall assure that the attending veterinarian has appropriate authority to ensure the provision of adequate veterinary care and to oversee the adequacy of other aspects of animal care and use.

(B) Each licensee shall establish and maintain programs of adequate veterinary care that include:

1. The availability of appropriate facilities, personnel, equipment and services to comply with the provisions in 2 CSR 30-9;

2. The use of appropriate methods to prevent, control, diagnose and treat diseases and injuries, and the availability of emergency, weekend and holiday care;

3. Individual health records shall be maintained on all animals above the age of eight (8) weeks or that have been weaned or that have been treated with a medical procedure, whichever occurs first. Litter health records may be kept on litters when littermates are treated with the same medication or procedure. Health records (or a copy) may accompany all animals upon the transfer of ownership;

4. Daily observation of all animals to assess their health and well-being. Provided, however, that daily observation of animals may be accomplished by someone other than the attending veterinarian; and provided further, that a mechanism of direct and frequent communication is required so that timely and accurate information on problems of animal health, behavior and well-being is conveyed to the attending veterinarian;

5. Adequate training and guidance to personnel involved in the care and use of animals. The employer must be certain his/her employees can perform at the level required by these rules; and

6. Adequate pre-procedural and postprocedural care in accordance with established veterinary medical and nursing procedures.

(C) If the state veterinarian or his/her designee finds that an animal or group of animals is suffering from a contagious, communicable or infectious disease or exposure to a disease, a quarantine to the premises may be issued until the animals are—

1. Recovered and no longer capable of transmitting the disease;

2. Isolated;

3. Humanely euthanized and properly disposed of;

4. Tested, vaccinated or otherwise treated;


5. Otherwise released by the state veterinarian.

A. Animals under quarantine shall not be removed from the premises without written consent of the state veterinarian, nor shall any other animals be allowed to enter the premises.

B. A quarantine issued by the state veterinarian shall remain in effect until released in writing by the state veterinarian.

(D) Animals with obvious signs of disease or injury shall not be sold (except on the advice of the attending veterinarian and with the knowledge and consent of the purchaser), abandoned or disposed of in an inhumane manner.

(E) A person licensed or registered under the ACFA shall not knowingly sell or ship a diseased animal, except on the advice of their attending veterinarian and with the knowledge and consent of the purchaser.

The Proposition B, Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act provision on veterinarian care states the following:

”Necessary veterinary care” means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed “Acceptable” by the American Veterinary Medical Association.

There’s actually quite a bit of text in the sections related to veterinarian care with existing laws. Everything is covered except for one thing: there’s nothing in any of the sections that states a veterinarian has to actually examine and treat the dogs.

The veterinarian can develop a plan, can visit the site annually, can work with the people, even train the people, but there’s nothing in either the APHIS or the ACFA regulations that requires a dog to actually be seen by a veterinarian.

Notice the section detailing daily observation:

Daily observation of all animals to assess their health and well-being. Provided, however, that daily observation of animals may be accomplished by someone other than the attending veterinarian; and provided further, that a mechanism of direct and frequent communication is required so that timely and accurate information on problems of animal health, behavior and well-being is conveyed to the attending veterinarian;

The requirement is that the breeder is supposed to observe the animal and “communicate” observations to a veterinarian. However, there is no mechanism included in the requirements that ensures that if the dog is sick or has been injured that the veterinarian has to come out and examine and treat the dog. All that’s required is the breeder “communicate” with the vet.

The most egregious violations I’ve read in the USDA APHIA inspection reports were the notes by inspectors of sick and injured dogs that had no treatment by a vet.

At the single deck building, there are two Pugs that have previously had surgery on their right eyes. Now the left eyes are bulging and have a dark crusty coating on the surface of the eye. Also in this building, there is a black Pug that has bulging in both eyes. There is a dark crusty coating over both eyes. At the shed, the black long haired Dachshund has had an injury to the eyelid of its left eye. The skin around the eye is swollen and appears to be torn on the upper lid. There is also white, greenish discharge around this tear. The injuries of these four dogs may be painful, possibly infected, and can lead to other health issues. These animals require evaluation by an attending veterinarian and appropriate treatment. During the inspection, the licensee made an appointment with the attending veterinarian to bring the dogs to the clinic later in the day.

Breeder customer #: 4625

It wasn’t until prompted by the inspector that the breeder made an appointment to bring the dogs into the vet. Even then, if the breeder had so chosen, they could have phoned symptoms into the vet and received instructions as to care—there’s nothing in the regulations that states the vet must attend to these dogs, directly. Yet these are not minor injuries.

This breeder is also one of the largest in the state, with an inventory of 562 adult dogs in 2009. The breeder’s record with Pet Shop Puppies demonstrates that health issues have followed the puppies from the breeder. From the records, it’s about a 50/50 chance if the puppies will end up being sick or not. Yet one of the kennel owners is currently the president of the Professional Pet Association in Missouri (from MIssourians for the Protection of Dogs)—you have to assume she is supposed to know what she’s doing when it comes to caring for dogs.

There’s an additional relevant, anecdotal note about this breeder, from a web site set up to close a pet store that bought puppies from this breeder and others:

I stopped in the Pampered Pets store there and noticed that they had a Scottish Terrier for sale. I inquired about her, not out of interest to purchase her, but simply because I was curious. The store associate told me that she was half-price because the breeder had “accidentally” docked her tail. I was concerned about this — how does one accidentally cut off a dog’s tail? I asked the associate, and he told me that the breeder’s daughter had grabbed the “wrong dog.”

There is nothing in either the APHIS or ACFA regulations that would prohibit the breeders from doing their own tail dockings…or debarking or other surgical procedures on their dogs.

Another breeder:

There are four West Highland Terrier dogs in 1 pen, 3 dogs in the next pen that have feces that are loose, non-formed, yellow to whiteish-grey color and mucoid in appearance, bright red muccous(sic) was also present. There was also the appearance of a red-tinged substance in feces and muccous.

A 7 year old, male Yorkshire Terrier (ID …) was noted to be shivering (temperature was 53 degrees), thin with ribs, hips and vertebrae easily palpable. He also had an obvious waist tuck. Feces was stuck to the hair around the anal area.

A female Dachshund (ID …) was very thin, with ribs, vertebrae and hip bones easily seen and palpable. She also had a very obvious waist and abdominal tuck.

A Shih Tzu male had a thick, muccous-type green discharge around both eyes.

A dog was limping holding the rear left foot up. Upon removal of the dog, a hole (about 1/4 inch to 1/2 inch in diameter) was actively bleeding. The right front foot had a wound with pink tissue that “licensee indicated he was putting ointment on”.

A male Boston Terrier was thin, with bony vertebrae, ribs, and hip bones easily seen and palpable. There was hair loss on the back of the legs.

A male Boston Terrier was thin with ribs and vertebrae easily seen and palpable. There was a wound behind the right ear and numerous sores on the legs, skin, and inner ear. Hair coat was dull and splotchy.

A Pekingese had thick, muccous-type green discharge around and in both eyes. There appeared to be small, approximately 1/8 inch in diameter circular lesion in the left eye.

These dogs are not under special veterinary care provisions. They have not been evaluated by the attending veterinarian with a proper diagnoses and treatment program. These dogs must be evaluated by the attending veterinarian within the next 72 hours for a complete physical examination and treatment administered as appropriate. Any sick or injured animal must be examined by a licensed veterinarian and health records must be maintained.

APHIS customer #: 4411

I picked this inspection specifically for a couple of reasons, and not just because of the number of obviously sick and injured dogs. Note that in the last part of the inspection, the inspector stated that any sick or injured animals must be examined by a licensed veterinarians. The section of the APHIS regulation the inspector quoted as justification for the directive was the following:

(b) Each dealer or exhibitor shall establish and maintain programs of adequate veterinary care that include:
(1) The availability of appropriate facilities, personnel, equipment, and services to comply with the provisions of this subchapter;
(2) The use of appropriate methods to prevent, control, diagnose, and treat diseases and injuries, and the availability of emergency, weekend, and holiday care;

The text dances around the topic but doesn’t come out and actually say: a qualified veterinarian must directly examine the injured or sick dog.

Proposition B did add this explicitly stated regulation. However, this regulation was struck in both HB 131 and SB 113—bills pending in the Missouri Legislature to remove all of the key Proposition B provisions.

Another reason I decided on this inspection is that it lists both Missouri Department of Agriculture and USDA inspector names. Does this mean that the inspectors inspect at the same time? Or does this mean that one or the other does the inspection and the other just copies the work? From the existing audits of the Missouri Department of Agriculture procedures, it would seem that the Missouri inspectors have been accepting the USDA inspections as Missouri inspections.

Though understandable considering the staffing challenges the Department faces, this is counter to existing procedures and regulations. More importantly, with two inspections a year, problems are more likely to be spotted more quickly than if only one inspection happens in a year. In addition, different inspectors at different times should ensure more comprehensive coverage.

Also note in the inspection that this item is actually a repeat from a previous inspection, including the severity and number of violations; yet in the follow up, all is supposedly in compliance. However, we don’t have any record that the dogs were actually seen, or if the problems noted elsewhere in the inspection report were actually fixed. Were the dogs seen by a vet and cared for? Or were the dogs just euthanized? And who exactly did do the follow up?

The gaps in existing procedures and regulations, especially regarding veterinarian care, are significant enough to undermine the effectiveness of both the regulations, and the inspections.

I could continue listing inspection results from far too many breeders, but I’ll end with one that had caught my eye early on. Unlike the other breeders listed here, who are still actively licensed with the USDA, the following breeder did have her license either cancelled or revoked in December:

(from inspection dated September 3, 2009)

A female Yorkie, had an embedded collar around the neck. The areas of the embedded collar are red, swollen, and open in some areas. This dog needs to be seen by a veterinarian to remove the embedded collar. The licensee must record all findings and treatments for the inspector to review upon next inspection.

This item was also non compliant on 7 Aug 08

APHIS customer #: 4454

The dates say it all, yet the breeder continued to be licensed by the USDA until December of 2010.

Some may disagree with my interpretation of APHIS and ACFA regulations. They may believe that within the text there is an understood provision that sick or injured dogs must be directly treated by a qualified veterinarian. If this is so, then Proposition B only restates what is contained in APHIS and ACFA.

However, if my interpretation is correct, then Proposition B states what we must consider to be a necessary: sick or injured dogs need to be seen by a vet. End of story.