Category: Environment

The Missouri Cattlemen got together, and worked themselves up into a froth of anxiety about HSUS.

You know that HSUS has to be doing something right when a meeting of cattlemen talks more about HSUS than cattle.

Michael Parson was doing his usual: using his elected position to bully non-profits because he doesn’t agree with them.

Anyway, as I wrote in a comment to the post:

I find it disturbing that an elected official, Michael Parson, would advocate government investigation of a non-profit, solely because he disagrees with the non-profit.

Point of fact, I find such attitude to be chilling, in its disregard of the fundamental freedoms on which this country was based.

How far will this man go to protect large agribusiness in this state?

As for the comment about HSUS and grassroots, I remind the people at this event that the people of this state voted for Proposition B. It was legislators who overrode the will of the people, in order to further corporate agribusiness agenda.

You can pretend to be on the side of the people–but the facts speak otherwise.

The agribusiness folks are frenzied because of the Your Vote Counts campaign. After all: can’t have us uppity people in the urban areas having a say in how this state is run. And how dare we voters in Missouri actually disagree with the legislators?

I am considering discontinuing this site. I want to focus more generally on animal issues, rather than only puppy mills in the state of Missouri. I’m also running into difficulties with getting records from the state and the USDA. Especially, and surprisingly, the USDA.

Without the power of a team of lawyers behind you, it’s sometimes difficult to kick through the walls agencies put up to prevent access to data. The USDA has not been helpful lately. At all. Without the information, though, I can’t really expose bad breeders. Plus I just can’t afford to pay for more inspection reports from the state.

I am starting up a new site devoted to issues related to animals, but it’s more general and not specific to just Missouri. I guess we’ll see if I post again whether I maintain this site or not. Trying to do both probably means I do neither well.

I have a draft of the ACFA rules after the modification by the “Missouri Solution”. These are draft until vetted by the Secretary of State.

The Humane Society of the US, the ASPCA, and the Best Friends Society had mixed reviews of the new rules. On the plus side, a veterinarian annual exam must be physical, not visual. In addition, the new rules do at least address some of the original concerns, such as providing a definition of what a “severe” illness or injury is, and what is meant by “extreme” weather conditions.

HSUS, ASPCA, and Best Friends still have their concerns, such as crowded housing, insufficient floor requirements, and the fact that so much of the animal medical care is still under the breeders’ interpretation. I’m concerned about the fact that the new rules demand that housing for the animals ensure they’re not subjected to lower temperature unless acclimated. Well, again, open to interpretation. However, the rules do say that the ambient temperature can’t fall below 45 degrees in indoor enclosures, period. Of course, this doesn’t say anything about the dogs in outdoor enclosures. Again, how the dogs are housed is too frequently left up to the interpretation of the breeder.

The space requirements are not good. The single cage spaces are fine, but then as you look at the space requirements table, you can see that the cages can become quite crowded when adding more dogs. And yes, the breeders will add more dogs.

In addition, the rules were weakened to allow for large groupings in cages, which are going to cause problems no matter how compatible the dogs are.

The draft does not cover the licensing fees, but according to our understanding, rescues and shelters are still being charged the same amount as commercial dog breeders. Nothing like providing a service for the community and being charged for the privilege. I would expect if this continues that communities pay this fee. After all, shelters and rescues taking care of stray, homeless, or rescued dogs means that many less dogs the communities have to deal with.

Yes, I’m talking about you, St. Louis.

The Missouri Department of Agriculture has finalized the rules based on the passage of SB 161.1. They managed to go through thousands of written comments and finalize the rules in a week’s time. Must be a record.

The rules actually listed at the MDA are still the old rules. I have no idea when the Department is actually going to post the new ones. I would have expected a link with the news release.

In the meantime, as far as we know, shelters are still being charged the same fee as commercial breeders. This on top of the fact that the State is providing funding for the professional breeders to make whatever meager changes are necessary to meet the new rules.

We are mindful that these important changes prescribed by statute and rule require a significant commitment from our licensed, professional breeders,” said Dr. Hagler. “With that in mind, we have developed a plan to make financial resources available to professional breeders as we move forward to keep the breeding industry vibrant and strong. Moreover, in conjunction with the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association we are appointing a panel of veterinarians who serve our professional breeders to monitor the current changes and make future recommendations to enhance animal care.”

Let’s see if I have this correct: shelters and rescues that are taking care of the state and community unwanted and abandoned dogs and cats are being charged extra, while puppy millers who are adding to the problem are being given state tax payer money. And we’re doing this so that we can continue to be the puppy mill capital of the US.

OK, I see how this all works.

Following is the letter I sent to Drs. Woods and Hickam.

Subject: Commentary on proposed commercial dog breeding regulations

Dear Doctor Woods and Hickam:

I appreciate this opportunity to provide commentary on the proposed new rules to be added to the Animal Care Facilities Act (related to Senate Bill 161.1). Following are my requested clarifications and modifications for these rules.

1. In the section defining “Necessary veterinary care”, please provide further clarification that the once a year examination be a hands-on physical examination, and not a visual inspection. A visual inspection is not sufficient in order to determine the dog’s health.

2. In addition to the inspection, please provide some form of clarification about what a “serious illness or injury” is. I believe that we’ll find that a non-breeder’s idea of “serious illness and injury” differs significantly from a breeder’s. The rules are far too vague in this regard.

3. You provide a definition for Pet, and limit it to dogs, but ACFA applies to dogs and cats. How will you reconcile this seeming conflict?

4. I find it disconcerting that you would charge the same fee to a non-profit shelter that you charge a for profit commercial breeder. Though you don’t have as much discretion about charging the fee, due to a law passed as an amendment to another law last year, you do have some discretion about how the fee is calculated. I hope that you consider formulating an algorithm that doesn’t harm legitimate nonprofit shelters and rescue organizations, or, at a minimum, provide for an exemption.

5. The new rules should ensure that existing wire floors grandfathered in should still be sufficient to prevent dogs paws from falling through holes, or dog claws from being caught, and the dogs getting injured.

Again, I appreciate this opportunity to provide commentary on the proposed rules.

Sincerely,

Shelley Powers

See? I can be polite when so moved.

I also cc’d the letter to Jon Hagler, Director of the MDA.