Mad biologists love puppies too

Barb Shelly has another excellent run down of what’s happening in Jefferson City this session, not only about Proposition B, but so many of our other votes. In Silly Lawmakers aren’t just in DC, she writes:

Only the all-knowing, all-powerful Missouri General Assembly can be counted on to do the right thing.

Thank heavens for legislative sessions. Besides warming a cold planet with five months’ worth of hot air, they provide a chance for lawmakers to undo the damage caused by the meddlesome federal government, hapless local governments and clueless voters.

Puppies aren’t the only thing being kicked in Jeff City this year. Add to this workers, unions, civil rights, as well as the young, and we’re really showing the world what a warm and caring place our state is—not to mention how much the people we elect respect our vote once they’re in office.

And Mike, the Mad Biologist over at the famous ScienceBlogs network, weighs in on the Senate vote on SB 113 with Missouri GOP Hates Puppies (And schoolchildren. And the elderly.) No, Really, They Do:

And why wouldn’t you want to keep puppies between 45 – 85 degrees? The Honorable Sen. Parsons explains:

“We don’t do that for our senior citizen facilities, we don’t do that for our schools, we don’t do that for the state Capitol,” Parson said.

That sound you just heard is my jaw hitting the floor. In Missouri, it’s legal to house the elderly or children in facilities that aren’t at least 45 degrees? Because that’s pretty damn cold. I realize the founders froze their asses off at Valley Forge, so who are we to complain about 45 degrees, but, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

You don’t house puppies or people at 45 degrees. If it’s not illegal, make it illegal.

But then, Mike is a biologist, so what does he know about what organisms need to survive and thrive?

However, Senator Parson is inaccurate in his statement, as we do have regulations that govern nursing homes and senior centers in our state, as well as schools (and other government centers). So not all of us in Missouri are callous—just some who call themselves our representatives.


Where’s the Puppy Pride Department of Agriculture

Earlier, in Pride of Place and Puppy Mills I wrote:

I looked through the literature for the State and the Department of Agriculture—you know, the brag sheets. We export this much corn and soybeans, and we’re number seven for hogs, and so on. But you won’t find puppies among the listed exports, nor will you find any boasting on being the number one large scale commercial dog breeding state in the country.

This week, Missouri’s Department of Agriculture is celebrating National Agriculture Week with all sorts of festivities. Missouri’s agricultural products will be especially touted…except for one.

Nowhere in the festivities will Dr. Jon Hagler brag about Missouri’s position as the state with the most large scale commercial dog breeding operations. He won’t hold up a basket of puppies and suggest we take home a dozen. He’s not going to lead agritourists on tours of some of the larger operations.

What does this say about how we really view large scale commercial dog breeding?


HTML5 Content logo

I created this logo originally for a new tech web site. Since I’ve merged all my separate sites back into one, I’m using this logo for all my HTML5 related postings.

I’m very fond of it.

HTML5 logo with cat scratch through it


House moves on SB 113

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Missourinet has a short story on the House plan to adopt SB 113 rather than pursue HB 131. Are the two bills similar? Yes, in that they both gut Proposition B, but no in the particulars of how they do it.

However, the faster the representatives can gut Proposition B, the happier the agribusiness interests will be.

Missourinet does have inaccuracies in its coverage of the story, though. One is that there are four inspections per year. There are not.

If the breeder is licensed by both the USDA and the Department of Agriculture, they may have two separate inspections, one from each. However, I have found both Dept. of Agriculture inspector names along with USDA inspector names on USDA inspection reports, which leads me to believe they are sharing some inspection responsibilities. The only way to verify this is to compare Dept. of Agriculture inspection records, side by side, with USDA inspection records. Unfortunately, the Dept. of Agriculture records are not easily accessible.

In addition, many Missouri breeders are not licensed by the USDA, which means they only have the one Department of Agriculture inspection.

Lastly, the two “veterinarian” site visits are not inspections. The vets are hired directly by the breeders. As we’ve seen at too many breeders, not all kennel veterinarians have the dogs welfare at heart. Point of fact, many of them seem to be more concerned about the breeders than the dogs.

This type of misinformation is common about Proposition B and SB 113. The misinformation is fostered by Senator Parson, and now Representative Cox seems to have taken on this rather dubious mantle in the House of Representatives.