Category: Critters

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.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

As of this morning, the following bills have been filed in the Missouri General Assembly related to Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act:

SB 4 – to repeal the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. Sponsored by Senator Bill Stouffer.

HB 94 to repeal the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. Sponsored by Representative Tony Dugger, co-sponsored by Representatives Wells, Fisher, Faith, Fraker, Franz, Pollock, Lichtenegger, Reibolt, Entlicher, Crawford, Cookson, and Gatschenberger.

HB 99 – Exempts all shelters, pounds, kennels, pet shops, facilities, dealers, and breeders licensed under specified statutes prior to November 2, 2011, from the provisions of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. Sponsored by Representative Loehner, co-sponsored by Reiboldt, Schieffer, Rowland, Hinson, Fisher, Phillips, Nance, Fitzwater, Dugger, and Schad.

What these bills tell me is that evidently our state is in great shape, because there are no other pressing matters to take the attention of our state representatives.

These bills also tell me that Proposition B is fine…as long as it isn’t applied to existing breeders. Well, at least the representatives realize that commercial dog breeding is a non-growth industry of little or no importance to the economy of the state. However, if the bill is good enough for future breeders, isn’t it good enough for those currently in business?

The whole point of Proposition B is to eliminate the worst of the dog breeders, not enshrine an exemption for them into our state laws.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

The history of the citizen initiative, also called a “ballot initiative” or “popular initiative”, has its beginning in the late 1800s through early 1900s, during the Populist and Progressive Era. The purpose for the initiative was to give the people the ability to break the monopoly that money interests frequently had on state legislatures. These initiatives have long been considered the act of last recourse for citizens, invoked when state legislatures refused to act on popular or needed legislation.

Proposition B came about because Missouri state representatives would not act for necessary improvements to the Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA), the set of regulations which regulate commercial dog breeding and other pet-specific industries in Missouri. There was a bitter fight to get the initiative on the ballot, as Missouri state representatives presented bill after bill to alter the state Constitution to deny the citizen initiative process for anything to do with animals, or to modify who can collect signatures^1,2.

Even the wording of Proposition B was challenged in court, a challenge that failed³.

Not long after Proposition B was voted into law in Missouri, opponents of the ballot initiative were pointing out the “unfairness” of the vote because, according to them, only “103 out of 114 counties voted for it!” Or you heard people talking about the “urban/rural” split. Senator Bill Stouffer, a strong opponent to Proposition B, stated at a recent meeting, “Somehow you have to break this divide between urban and rural because when you have 80% against in rural and 80% for in urban somehow there has to be some understanding of each other.”⁴

However, according to the State of Missouri Constitution, you can have a 100% rural vote against something and 100% urban vote for it, or 100% rural vote for and 100% urban against, and it still becomes law if the majority of the people of the state vote for the bill; what matters in Missouri is the people—not the demographics of the vote. In addition, the number of counties that voted for or against Proposition B also doesn’t count, because a county that has a few thousand people doesn’t weigh equally with a county that has several hundred thousand people. It is the count of people, not the location of the voters, that counts.

Now, what does have meaning in Missouri is the type of item on the ballot, and whether it is a Constitutional amendment or new or modified state statute. Proposition B is new state statute, which can then be amended by the legislature. The legislature is made up of representatives based on district, rather than county, and districts are, themselves, derived from population density. So, rather than look at counties, we need to look at a break down of the Proposition B vote by House of Representative district and Senate district.

Unfortunately, Missouri does not track votes for a statewide initiative by district. Understandable, because you don’t, typically, want the legislature attempting to override citizen initiatives. Citizen initiatives are difficult to get on the ballot: requiring close to a 100,000 signatures to be placed on the ballot in Missouri, and costing a considerable amount of time and money—both to the initiative proponents, and to the state of Missouri. In 2010, 100 petitions were filed with the State of Missouri. Of these, only 23 were approved by the Secretary of State, and only four could gather enough signatures. Ultimately, by the time November 2 came around, only two citizen initiatives were on the ballot, including Proposition B⁵ As you can see, citizen initiatives are not a light undertaking.

Since we cannot get a definitive breakdown of Proposition B votes by Missouri legislative district, I created several spreadsheets in order to analyze the vote data⁶ and manually split it by district. Most of the district split was cleanly for Proposition B or against it, as the district was contained entirely within a county, or overlapped several counties with little or no mixed vote. However, several Senate and Representative districts were split across counties, and the counties varied in Proposition B support. In addition, there were larger towns that, though they were in counties that ultimately voted No on Proposition B, did impact on the overall county percentages, raising the Yes vote high enough to consider that any urban districts were, effectively, for Proposition B.

To help in my effort, I downloaded a population density map for Missouri, based on the 2000 Census. Though we have had population loss since 2000, the map densities should be relatively accurate.

I also found and downloaded a Missouri map⁷ with counties marked in color gradients based on the Proposition B percentages.

I merged the two maps. The resulting map strongly indicates an urban influence that goes beyond just the St. Louis and Kansas City areas. There are indications of an urban influence surrounding Columbia, as well as Springfield and even Branson. More importantly, there’s also stronger support for Proposition B along major highways, as well as popular tourism locations—both of which account for the positive outcomes in counties in the Missouri boot heel region.

I then created spreadsheets to help gather the data for my analysis. One spreadsheet contains a listing of counties with the percentage of voters⁸, as well as the for and against Proposition B vote, which I then used to calculate the county’s overall Proposition B vote percentage. For each county, I also listed the Senate and House of Representative districts that cover all or part of the county. I converted this spreadsheet to a Results web page, which also contains a link to a CSV file with the data.

I created a second spreadsheet for the Senate districts, listing out the District number and the current District representative. Most of the districts either encompass several counties, or are included solely within one county, and it was a simple matter to determine the Proposition B vote. Other districts, though, had overlapping counties with conflicting votes. I then looked at the population density of the district, in addition to evaluating the vote in surrounding areas, and either set the district to Yes or No based on the findings.

District 30 is primarily in the Springfield area, which is largely urban. The overall county vote was No, but the percentage for Proposition B was much higher than in surrounding counties. I attribute this to the urban effect, and significant enough to give District 30 to the Yes side.

I converted the spreadsheet to a Senate Proposition B vote web page, which also links the CSV file for the data.

I created a third spreadsheet for the Missouri House of Republican districts. These were, in many ways, simpler to work with then the Senate results, because the districts were smaller and it was simpler to determine the Yes or No vote for the district. However, again, there were districts with overlapping district votes, or districts solely contained in urban areas and enough evidence of urban influence to give the district to the Yes side.

As with the Senate results, I converted the data to a House of Representative Proposition B vote web page, with links to the CSV file with the raw data.

Both pages should demonstrate that most of the districts did not require analysis, and it’s a simple matter of looking at the district county or counties to determine how the district voted. Of the districts where I had to derive the vote, the Yes and No split was about even. I have a high degree of confidence that the representatives from all the districts will, most likely, agree with the results.

According to the data and maps, I found the following for the Missouri Senate Districts:

19 Senate districts voted Yes for Proposition B
15 Senate districts voted No for Proposition B

I found the following for the House of Representative Districts:

91 House of Representative districts voted Yes for Proposition B
72 House of Representative districts voted No for Proposition B

I had to manually pull together most of the data. If you see an error in my calculations, please email me a note, or add a comment and I’ll make a correction.

 

The Proposition B proponents gathered more than 190,000 signatures to put Proposition B on the ballot.

• • • ¹HJR86 – to modify the Constitution preventing initiatives impacting on agricultural use of animals
    • ²House Bill 1441 – to modify parties and process for filing a ballot petition

  ,

House Bill 1788 – same

• ,

House Bill 1749 – same

• ³Court upholds [Proposition B] language
• ⁴Missouri Lawmakers Address Crowd on Repeal of Proposition B
• ⁵Ballotpedia: Missouri 2010 ballot measures
• ⁶State of Missouri Proposition B count by county map
• ⁷Proposition B support map courtesy Campaign for Liberty
• ⁸State of Missouri voter turnout map

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

November 2, 2010, the people of Missouri voted for Proposition B: The Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. This Act is an amendment to existing laws that focuses specifically on commercial dog breeders, and strengthens current regulations regarding food, water, shelter, veterinary care, breeding frequency, and number of intact (not spayed or neutered) dogs. The bill also creates new Class C and Class A misdemeanors for puppy mill cruelty.

Proposition B was a controversial ballot issue, generating a considerable amount of heated discussion. Proponents for Proposition B included the Humane Society of the US, the Humane Society of Missouri, the ASCPA, the Best Friends Animal Society, Humane Society of Kansas City, Stray Rescue, and a host of other animal welfare organizations, civic leaders, Missouri veterinarians, and businesses. Supporters also included a lot of just plain folks, like me.

There was strong opposition to Proposition B, from commercial dog breeders, which was a given, but also from cattlemen, chicken farmers, the Missouri Farm Bureau, Missouri Federation of Animal Owners, Missouri Veterinarian Medical Association, and even the AKC. The argument from some of the organizations was that there are laws in place and the only problem is lack of enforcement. However, the main argument from the agricultural communities was not about Proposition B’s influence on dog breeding, but was more about a perceived influence of the bill on other forms of livestock management, including that for cattle, chickens, and hogs.

Though Proposition B was specifically worded for dogs, and was included in Missouri Revised Statutes under the Dog/Cat designation, many people voted against Proposition B primarily because they saw it impacting on other forms of livestock. However, the majority of Missourians voted for Proposition B and it passed 51.6% to 48.4%.

Immediately after the vote, the same groups that argued against Proposition B cried foul because the majority of the positive vote occurred in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas, while most of the rural areas voted No. “103 of 114 counties voted No!”, came the shout, as Proposition B opposition forces prepared to continue the fight past the election. Not long after, state representatives, including Senator Mike Parson and Senator BIll Parson, promised that they would bring about legislation in 2011 that would either repeal Proposition B completely, or revise it considerably. At this time, there are two bills, Missouri House Bill 94 and Missouri Senate Bill 4, both focused on repealing Proposition B.

This site’s purpose is not only to track these and other bills associated with Proposition B, but also to provide a more in-depth look at what Proposition B is, and how it will impact on existing dog breeders, now and in the future. I hope that this site is helpful in the fight to preserve Proposition B.

And preserve Proposition B, we must. We have allowed barbaric conditions at too many large scale dog breeders to exist for too long.

He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals — Immanuel Kant

Web References:

• Proposition B text
• Missourians for the Protection of Dogs
• Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation
• Senate Bill 4
• House Bill 94
• Missouri Revised Statutes Chapter 273: Dogs–Cats
• Missouri Department of Agriculture Animal Care Facilities Act Program