Author: Shelley Powers

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

The state representatives are still busy, trying to ensure that no laws regarding animals, including the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, are dared asked for, or passed, by the citizens of this fair state.

Another bill has been submitted to modify Proposition B, HB 281, introduced by Mike Kelly (126). HB 281 is another bill that pretends to be a “compromise”, but is anything but. It modifies the Proposition B Puppy Mills Cruelty Prevention Act in the following ways:

• Modifies the breeding restriction from 18 months to 12 months. Considering that the average reproductive cycle of dogs is six months, big of the representatives to allow breeders to breed the dogs every single cycle.
• Removes the requirement that a veterinarian examine each dog at least once a year. Considering that vets tell pet owners to have their dogs examined annually, why would dogs in a more demanding physical environment be allowed less veterinarian care?
• Redefines the definition of pet to be anything related to a dog. Guess what folks–that cat, gerbil, bunny, fish, bird, or hamster of yours is no longer a “pet”. You heard it here, first, in *Missouri legislation.
• Removes the requirement that a veterinarian treat an injured or sick animal, or euthanize the dog. Yup, Billy Bob wants to continue thwapping the dogs on the head to kill them. What Billy Bob wants, Billy Bob gets.
• Removes the unfettered access to an outdoor area. Now, exercise is whatever the Department of Agriculture “deems fit”, which means Fido can kiss off having any form of exercise at all. After all, dogs don’t like to romp, play, or even stretch their legs and have a little bit of fresh air now and again. Silly city people for thinking dogs need this.
• Removes requirement for an indoor shelter for the dogs. All that’s required now is that dogs have “shelter” from the elements. In this state this means a plastic igloo with a ratty old blanket when the weather gets as cold as it is this week (-10 below). Or whatever the Missouri Department of Agriculture deems “appropriate” according to “species”, which still means a plastic igloo and a ratty old blanket..
• Feeding is required according to species needs. Water is required according to species needs. The problem with these types of statements is that it is difficult, if not impossible, for the inspector to verify if the animal has received what it really needs. Particularly with water, all the breeder has to say is, “Oh, well, she got water four hours ago”, when an inspector points out an empty water receptacle. Even though that “four hours” may have been closer to four days.
• The space requirement is removed, to be replaced by whatever the Department of Agriculture “deems fit”. And since the Department of Agriculture has been faulted in three different Missouri audits and in a BBB report for being too cozy with the breeders, perhaps even the “six inches longer than the dog” cage requirement will be cut. After all, a dog doesn’t need to stand up; a dog doesn’t need to stretch; a dog doesn’t need anything but what the breeder decides it needs.
• Of course, the cage can be all wire with this new “modification”, too. Since the dogs can’t move about anyway, what does it matter if the wire hurts their legs and paws.
• The class A and C misdemeanors still exists, except that they don’t really enforce anything, and they’ve been modified to maybe, possibly, the person might be charged.
• And we’re not surprised that the 50 dog upper limit requirement has been removed.

These so-called “compromises” are nothing more than a deliberate deception on the part of the state representatives. The representatives are not only ignoring the citizen votes, but they’re basically lying to the people, too. They’re pretending that they’re only “modifying” the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, when in actuality, they are gutting every last aspect of what’s important in the bill.

The proposed bill is particularly disingenuous when you consider that it defers to the Department of Agriculture for all requirements. Why? Because the Department of Agriculture is the organization that originated the first set of laws that have proven, time and again, to be wholly and completely inadequate. In other words, the wording of this bill was engineered to revoke every last bit of Proposition B, while seeming to offer a compromise.

A bill to repeal the whole damn thing would be better than these so-called “compromise modifications”. At least the repeal bills are honest rather than duplicitous.

But wait…there’s more.

Two separate bills have also been submitted: HB 100 and HJR 3. Both these bills would make sure that the state legislators and the agribusiness community need never worry about pesky citizen initiatives again. How can they possibly do this? Because they would prohibit any citizen initiative having to do with livestock.

Yes, we can have a say in every type of business in Missouri…except agribusiness.

Of course, this is bad legislation for two reasons: one, it limits the types of citizen initiatives we can bring, and does so specifically to benefit one particular industry; two, there’s no way in hell it can survive a Constitutional challenge.

Don’t our state representatives have anything better to do?

*And they say that citizen initiatives shouldn’t be allowed because we don’t have a clue how to draft the legislation.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

There is a public hearing on three of the anti-Proposition B bills next Tuesday, January 25th, at noon (12 pm). The meeting will be held in House Hearing Room 6.

The following bills will be discussed:

HB 99: Exempts all existing breeders from Proposition B legislation

HB 94: Outright repeal of Proposition B

HB 131: Extreme modifications to Proposition B

The committee is the Agricultural Committee, and the meeting will be chaired by Tom Loehner, vice chaired by Bill Reibolt.

Again, the public is invited to attend, and participate.

Recovered from the Wayback machine.

The Columbia Missourian was kind enough to allow me to write a guest column, Separating myths and facts regarding Prop B. In the article I address several of the myths and misunderstandings about Proposition B, including funding, the supposed “slippery slope” that will impact on all farm animals, the Outside Influence that seems to obsess so many people, and that Proposition B will kill puppies.

We had to cut one of the myths out because the article was so large. There are also several other myths and misunderstandings that I didn’t have time and space to cover. Here at Puppies @ Burningbird, I plan on expanding on the myths covered in the Missourian article, as well as cover additional ones in the next week or so.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

More bills have been introduced in the Missouri Legislature. Why yes, we must have few problems in Missouri if the state representatives primary concern is revoking regulations to prevent puppy mill cruelty.

SB 95 Modifies Proposition B to the following:

Under current law, the provisions of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act apply only to commercial dog breeders with over 10 breeding females. This act makes the animal care standards applicable to anyone in the state who has more than 10 female dogs over 6 months of age.

Current law prohibits anyone from having more than 50 dogs when the purpose is to breed them and sell the resulting puppies. The act removes the purpose criteria and instead just prohibits anyone from having more than 50 dogs that are over 6 months of age.

The act modifies the title of the act by referring to it as the Puppy Cruelty Prevention Act, modifies the definition of “covered dog”, and removes the definition of “pet.”

Under current law, animal shelters are exempt from the requirements of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. This act removes that exemption.

This makes little sense, other than as a spiteful, petty jab at dog shelters in the state.

What Senator Brian Munzlinger (R, 18), who introduced this bill, doesn’t seem to realize is that there isn’t one dog shelter or rescue in Missouri that isn’t desperately trying to have less than 50 dogs. Every shelter and rescue would absolutely love to have fewer than 50 dogs.

In addition, public shelters can’t restrict the number of dogs they have: they’re mandated by county or town laws to take any and all dogs.

Both public and non-profit shelters incur expenses for every dog they take in. Unlike commercial breeders, rather than profit by the number of dogs they have, shelters lose money. For public shelters, this typically means more taxpayer money going to care for the dogs. However, if the public and non-profit shelters don’t take the dogs, they roam the street: homeless, potentially dangerous, and definitely suffering from cold, hunger, illness, and injury.

Perhaps someone needs to instruct the good Senator in basic economics and humanity. Or responsible legislation.

SB 113 Amends Proposition B

I had missed this one earlier. SB 113 modifies Proposition B as follows:

Current law prohibits anyone from having more than 50 dogs when the purpose is to breed them and sell the resulting puppies. The act removes this prohibition.

The act modifies many of the act’s definitions.

Under current law, anyone subject to the act’s provisions who violates the act commits the crime of puppy mill cruelty, which is a class C misdemeanor. The act gives breeders who are properly licensed a grace period of between 30 and 180 days in which to correct serious violations of the act before being charged with the crime. The act also requires the Department of Agriculture to conduct two follow-up inspections on any properly licensed breeder who is found to have committed a serious violation of the act. The department may revoke the commercial breeder’s license of a breeder who fails to correct a serious violation after the second inspection.

The act contains an emergency clause.

Of course, the problems with this amendment is that this actually adds a significant burden to an already overburdened team of inspectors. In addition, breeders are given 30 to 180 days to correct a serious violation.

Consider what a “serious violation” is? Sick and injured dogs not seen by a vet; dogs freezing in this cold weather; emaciated dogs; dehydrated dogs—if the person who owned the dogs wasn’t a breeder, they would be arrested and charged for animal abuse.

In addition, we will continue to have problems as long as people can own and breed hundreds of dogs at a time. Our shelters can’t continue caring for the dogs worn out or no longer useful for these breeders. And inspection reports show, time and again, that breeders cannot properly care for large numbers of dogs.

Then, if you dig deeper and look at the full text of the bill, you find that it completely removes every single Proposition B provision. Rather than state this upfront in the bill summary, the supporters “hide” what the bill really does in the text of the bill. Not particularly transparent or open. Some could even call such actions, deceitful.

HB 131 Repeal Proposition B and replace the text.

This bill would change the title of the new act, from “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act” to “Dog Breeder Cruelty Prevention Act”. I’m assuming the only reason why is the state representatives who are sponsoring this bill don’t like the term “puppy mill” —even though puppy mill is a common term, and has been legally defined.

That’s just semantics, though. What isn’t is what they did to the rest of Proposition B:

• Remove both the adequate shelter and veterinarian care provisions.
• Change the provisions so that the bill only applies if the breeder has more than 100 dogs
• Remove the section that would allow the dogs to rest between breeding cycles
• Remove the qualifications on food and water, so that water dishes can continue to have filth and algae, food doesn’t have to be wholesome

They did leave in the misdemeanor charges, but for what? The representatives have basically gutted the entire Proposition B bill, and left in only a few tattered, innocuous pieces. Is this the compromise that Representative Kelly spoke of, earlier in the month?

Algae. How could a person remove a provision that would prohibit algae from growing in water dishes? What kind of person, what kind of state representative, would protest this?

Evidently, the same state representatives who believe continued cruelty to dogs is acceptable.