Category: Critters

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.

The Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation (MAAL) has posted its own list of Proposition B votes by Senate district. It’s also in the process of posting the same vote distribution for the House of Representative districts, but you can see the list now, at the Humane Society Legislative Fund.

From the data, it looks like the folks went to each individual district and were able to get actual vote percentages. This would make their efforts more accurate than my own, which are based more on analysis of population density and vote comparison with surrounding counties than actual counts. However, the differences between the two sets of figures are small.

For the Senate districts, MAAL had 18 districts for Proposition B, 16 districts against. Where we differ is how District 26 voted: I have this district as Yes, they have it as No.

For the Representative districts, I was off on three No votes (which ended up being Yes), and six of the Yes votes. I had Districts 25, 129, and 137 as No, but they have them as Yes. And I had Districts 29. 36, 106, 109, 121, and 124 as Yes, but they have them as No. Instead of 91 voting yes and 72 No, it’s 88 voting Yes to 75 voting No.

All in all, I didn’t do too badly, and I’ve updated my initial results. The important fact to take away from this data is that the majority of Senate and House districts voted Yes for Proposition B. In addition, in the borderline districts, the split is close enough to 50/50 for the representatives in those districts to risk antagonizing a significant number of people in their districts if they override Proposition B. After all, even people who voted against Proposition B have been critical of the representatives seeking to overturn the vote of the people.