Year: 2011

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;

or

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.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

A major source of criticism of Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act—both before and after the election—is that the new laws aren’t needed, and that all we need is better enforcement. We’ve also been told that Proposition B penalizes “good breeders” who do meet current laws, and does little to punish the “bad breeders”. Some have even stated that Proposition B laws will “hurt” the dogs, rather than help them.

In the next several pages, I compare the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act with existing Missouri Department of Agriculture and USDA laws. You can then judge for yourself the veracity of the claims.

The Proposition B text.

The USDA guidelines regarding animal welfare are listed under the Animal Welfare Act. The enforcement of the guidelines is under the responsibility of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The requirements of breeders are located in the requirements for dealers in the Animal Welfare Regulations (pdf), found in the APHIS Publications and Reports page.

In order to ensure transparency in its actions, APHIS provides a database of inspection reports available to the public. APHIS also provides a reading room for decisions regarding violations of AWA.

The Missouri Department of Agriculture’s rules regarding to animal welfare in regards to dogs and cats are contained within the Animal Care Facilities Act Program (ACFA). The basis for the act is contained in Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 273: Dogs–Cats. The actual delimited rules are found in the Animal Care Facilities Regulations (pdf).

Access to inspection records can be made based on Missouri’s Sunshine Laws. However, to access the records, you must travel to Jefferson City and review paper copies of the inspection reports. In addition, there is a per page copy fee, and there are labor charges if you wish to have someone in Jefferson City copy inspection reports for you, and either mail them or send them via email.

Since USDA licensed breeders must also be Missouri licensed breeders, and since access to the Missouri records are so encumbered, any inspection material in these pages is primarily from the USDA records.

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.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

When the Missouri legislature isn’t working on repealing child labor laws, it’s going after puppies.

Today, the House Agriculture Policy committee voted to support HB 131, which isn’t a surprise. As I just wrote, HB 131 pretends to be a “modification” of Proposition B but completely guts it.

The Rural Community Development committee also had a public hearing on HJR 17, which wants to modify the State Constitution so that past, current, or future law related to animals can never been passed using citizen initiative. Because, you know, we’re so stupid when it comes to animals, and they’re so smart.

Of course, not only will HJR 17 undermine Proposition B, it will also bring back dog and cock fighting. And who knows that miserable torturous activity the anti-animal folks will invent in the future.

Representative Jason Smith, of Smith’s Kennel fame, stated that this bill is to prevent outside groups from coming in and telling Missouri farmers what to do. What a crock. There’s nothing in the bill about outside organizations—Representative Smith doesn’t want Missouri voters telling Missouri farmers what to do. Yet Missouri farmers have no qualm about telling other Missouri business what they can, and cannot, do.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Several state senators and organizations have stated that the Senate bill to “modify” Proposition B leaves most of Prop B’s rules the same—only the dog limit and enforcement regulations are changed. Let’s take a closer look at these assertions.

Following is the text for Proposition B:

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

2. The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs in puppy mills 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 having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog:

(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. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may have custody of more than fifty covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet.

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

(1) ”Covered dog” means any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids, that is over the age of six months and has intact sexual organs.

(2) ”Sufficient food and clean water” means access to appropriate nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health; and continuous access to potable water that is not frozen, and is free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants.

(3) ”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.

(4) ”Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements” means constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor; is not stacked or otherwise placed on top of or below another animal’s enclosure; is cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure; and does not fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit, or rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit.

(5) ”Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs” means having (1) sufficient indoor space for each dog to turn in a complete circle without any impediment (including a tether); (2) 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; (3) at least one foot of headroom above the head of the tallest dog in the enclosure; and (4) at least 12 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog up to 25 inches long; at least 20 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog between 25 and 35 inches long; and at least 30 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog for dogs 35 inches and longer (with the length of the dog measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail).

(6) ”Regular exercise” means constant and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area that is composed of a solid, ground level surface with adequate drainage; provides some protection against sun, wind, rain, and snow; and provides each dog at least twice the square footage of the indoor floor space provided to that dog.

(7) ”Adequate rest between breeding cycles” means, at minimum, ensuring that dogs are not bred to produce more than two litters in any 18 month period.

(8) ”Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or syndicate.

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

(10) ”Retail pet store” means 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.

6. A person is guilty of the crime of puppy mill cruelty when he or she knowingly violates any provision of this section. The crime of puppy mill cruelty is a class C misdemeanor, unless the defendant has previously pled guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case each such violation is a class A misdemeanor. Each violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense. If any violation of this section meets the definition of animal abuse in section 578.012, the defendant may be charged and penalized under that section instead.

7. 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 when such dogs are not used for breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet. 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. This section shall not apply to any retail pet store; animal shelter as defined in section 273.325; hobby or show breeders who have custody of no more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those dogs and selling any offspring for use as a pet; or dog trainer who does not breed and sell any dogs for use as a pet. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise, or sell hunting dogs.

8. 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.

9. The provisions herewith shall become operative one year after passage of this Act.

Following is the text after SB 113 “modifies” Proposition B:

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

2. The purpose of this act is to prohibit the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs in puppy mills 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 having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog:

(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” means, 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” means any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids, that is over the age of six months
30 and has intact sexual organs;

(3) “Necessary veterinary care” means, at minimum, examination or a site visit to the facility at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian, prompt treatment of any illness or injury, and where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed acceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association;

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

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

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

(7) “Retail pet store” means 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” means

(a) The provision, at suitable intervals of not more than twelve hours, unless the dietary requirements of the species requires a longer interval, of a quantity of wholesome foodstuff, suitable for the species and age, enough 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, with no interval to exceed eight hours;

(9) “Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements” means 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 regulations of the Missouri department of agriculture;

(10) “Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs” means appropriate space depending on the species of the animal, as specified in regulations by the Missouri department of agriculture, as revised.

5. (1) A person is guilty of the crime of puppy mill cruelty when he or she knowingly violates any provision of this section. The crime of puppy mill cruelty is a class C misdemeanor, unless the defendant has previously pled guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case the defendant may be charged with a class A misdemeanor. Each violation of this section may constitute a separate offense. If any violation of this section meets the definition of animal abuse in section 578.012, the defendant may be charged and penalized under that section instead.

(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (1) of this subsection to the contrary, for a person who possesses a valid license to operate under sections 273.325 to 273.357 and who knowingly violates any provision of this section, and if such violation is deemed by the department of agriculture to be of a serious nature, such person shall be given a period of time by the department of not less than thirty days nor more than one hundred eighty days in which to correct the violation before a criminal prosecution may be commenced. Upon the end of the time period, the department of agriculture shall conduct an inspection. If the violation has been corrected as of the date of the inspection, then no violation of this section shall be deemed to have occurred. If the violation has not been corrected as of the date of the inspection, the department may refer the matter to the prosecuting attorney. Regardless of whether the violation was corrected or not corrected by the date of the inspection, the department shall conduct another inspection after a second period of time, as determined by the department, but which shall not be less than thirty days or more than one hundred eighty days after the date of the first inspection. If the violation had been corrected during the first period of time but the person is found to have committed the same violation during the second period of time, the department may refer the matter to the prosecuting attorney. If the violation was not corrected during the first period of time and remains uncorrected after the second period of time, the department may revoke such person’s license issued under section 273.327. If the department determines that a violation is not of a serious nature, then no criminal prosecution or inspections under this subsection shall be commenced for such violation.

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 when such dogs are not used for breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet. 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 [dogs] dog’s enclosure, during supervised outdoor exercise, or during any emergency that places a [dogs] dog’s life in imminent danger. [This section shall not apply to any retail pet store, animal shelter as defined in section 273.325, hobby or show breeders who have custody of no more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breed those dogs and selling any offspring for use as a pet, or dog trainer who does not breed and sell any dogs for use as a pet.] 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 one year after passage of this act.

Section B. In order to allow businesses enough time to modify their facilities to comply with changes in the law, section A of this act is deemed necessary for the immediate preservation of the public health, welfare, peace and safety, and is hereby declared to be an emergency act within the meaning of the constitution, and section A of this act shall be in full force and effect upon its passage and approval.

In actuality, SB 113 completely removes all of the Proposition B regulations, replacing them with a reference to the regulations that are currently in existing laws.

One of the arguments against Proposition B is all that’s needed is more enforcement of existing laws. As you will note, one thing that SB 113 does not provide is more funding for enforcement of existing laws. So much for the credibility of the crafters of SB 113.

Update The bill was amended after this post was written. I have a more recent look at the bill, and more on the issue of funding.