Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
Though not yet reflected in the text of HB 131, evidently the agricultural committee that passed the bill also added an amendment to raise the fees commercial dog breeders pay a whopping $25.00! This should be enough to generate a whole $34,000 a year!
Yes, the amount of money to hire one inspector will make all the difference…except for the fact that the Missouri Department of Agriculture estimated it needed an additional seven inspectors, as well as other additional support to really do a proper job. And that’s just to enforce existing laws, such as dogs in wire cages only six inches longer than they are, getting little or no exercise, having no access to qualified vet care, being kept in plastic “dogloos” in freezing weather, and so on. Yes, another inspector to ensure this type of life for a dog—I’m just overwhelmed by the generosity of spirit on the part of these representatives. It demonstrates, so well, what kind of people they are.
Let’s scrape away the dirt from this myth: the amount of money is nothing more than a token, most likely added because several of us noted that the argument against Proposition B was that there wasn’t sufficient enforcement, but none of the new bills accounted for additional enforcement support. It’s not enough money to really make a big difference, but the representatives can pretend that they’re really trying to solve the problem—without raising the fees more than the cost for a few packs of cigarettes, so they don’t upset their agribusiness sponsors.
Again, deceitful and deceptive—can we never count on straight dealings from the agricultural committees?
update The fiscal note attached to HB 131 is egregiously deceptive. I will have more on this and the fiscal note for SB 113 in a post later in the week. I’m also planning on publishing a detailed breakdown between existing laws and the impact of Proposition B, and what it means if HB 131 and SB 113 were to succeed.
Time to stop the deceit: time for truth.