BurningbirdI don’t have a lot of patience with the fooflah about the “pet” definition, but I don’t much care about it one way or another.
If I were going to define “pet” I would define it as an animal that is not maintained for food, fiber, fuel, or other by-product.
A back and forth with Representative T. J. Berry, R-Kearney District 35. From Puppy mill issue hits House.
This is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.
For one, Representative Berry’s district supported Proposition B by 57.1%. What he’s telling you, people of his district, is that your vote doesn’t count.
As for accusations about Proposition B:
No representative has been able to show in the text of Prop B where it states it’s for licensed breeders only. There are existing laws in addition to Prop B about unlicensed breeders–it’s illegal, period. But Prop B applies to both licensed and unlicensed breeders.
And believe me, if you’ve read as many USDA inspection reports on licensed breeders in this state, as I have, you would come to know that we have a lot of really bad but still licensed breeders in Missouri.
The USDA APHIS database can be accessed at:
http://acissearch.aphis.usda.gov/LPASearch/faces/LPASearch.jspx
Just enter Breeder as type and Missouri as state.
There is funding for Proposition B. Proposition B just adds some constraints to the same inspections, no new inspections. As the Dept of Agriculture stated in the fiscal note for Proposition B, it needed more inspectors for its current work load. It’s needed more inspectors for years. Yet it never asked for the budget for more inspectors.
In the SB 113 fiscal note, it did ask for more inspectors, and said the increased fee would not be sufficient. The Senate oversight department stated since they have to do the inspections anyway, they don’t need the additional inspectors. So it denied the Dept of Ag request for additional inspectors.
In addition, the new license fee cap impacts more on shelters than it does breeders. Why?
Breeders pay a $1.00 per pup sold in license fees. Even the largest breeders don’t sell a couple of thousand puppies a year. Yet a non-profit like HSMO and others can process thousands of dogs for adoption. They have to pay $1.00 per dog adopted out.
This upper limit fee is more punitive against the shelters than corrective. The agricultural community is peeved that most of the shelters and rescues supported Proposition B.
The increased fees should only be applied to breeders, but it was also applied to shelters. The only ones exempt are municipal pounds.
The note about the puppies is an especially egregious misrepresentation. For one, Proposition B is about adult dogs, only. If puppies need to have heating pads, heating lamps, or even puppy incubators, this isn’t a violation of Prop B.
Then there’s the fact that mother dogs provide most of the warmth for the puppies when newborn. Use commonsense — when you’ve seen dogs give birth in that cardboard box, do you turn the heat of the enture house up to 92 degrees? Seriously?
I’m disappointed that the reps played this kind of semantic shell game.
Bunk on the 50 dog limit and the grossly exaggerated claim on legal filings. Really Representative, is this what you think of the people in your district–that they’re dumb as bricks to believe this?
Proposition B is not the first state law to limit dogs or put stringent requirements on dog breeders. I would suggest you check to see the legal filings, because you’ll find that the reality does not match this…fantasy.
In addition, I notice the House and Senate had no problems putting extreme regulations on the adult entertainment business last year–and they did have a legal standing on which to file suit and did file suit. In addition, there was excessive loss of revenue to the state for this action, as well a the loss of over 3,000 jobs — yet you all had no problems passing that law.
You’re telling the voters of this state that you want to spit on their vote, and then you’re implying we’re too stupid to know what you’re doing.
Reply back from Representative Terry:
Shelly, your letter is misleading at best. I have not made up my mind on how I will vote on the issue. When we make a law in Jefferson City it is written reviewed in committee, debated on the floor then sent to the Senate for debate then to the governor to sign. The process takes alot of time and the laws that you get are usually balanced. HSUS wrote there law put some money behind it and it was passed. The Prop was stilted to one side which makes for bad law and I don’t like that. With that said I still have a real problem overturning the vote of the people.
The only reason that I will consider voting to modify prop b. is line 9 in the proposition. It defines pet as any domesticated animal. That means some lawyer may be able to use this law to apply to other animals. I do not want to see that happen.
Sincerely,
T.J. Berry
State Representative 35th District
My reply back:
Representative Berry
Please do not insult our intelligence.
The line before the list of definitions states that the definitions apply only to this specific bill. This is standard, and if you look at other laws, you’ll see the same language. As a representative you should be aware of how laws are formed.
It does not bode well to know that the people who supposedly spend a lot of time developing laws don’t even understand what these definition sections really mean, and why they’re included.
According to your logic, then, the only allowable type of dealer in the state is an animal dealer, because that’s how ACFA defines “dealer”.
Of course, according to people behind SB 113, the only pets in Missouri are dogs — think about how that sounds?
Your comment about HSUS writing the law, already shows you’re trying to re-frame this discussion–trying to use HSUS as a scapegoat, not only to justify your disrespect of the voters in your district, but also discredit HSUS at the same time. Must seem like a bonus to you.
That will teach any organization that actually cares about animals that the only ones who decide on animals in this state are the members of the Missouri Farm Bureau and the Cattlemen’s Association. Oh, and Forrest Lucas, and all his nice campaign contributions.
Heaven forbid that some schmuck of a dog lover will come along and tell you all that no, wire cages only 6 inches longer than the dog, are not good for dogs. Or that a drive by visual inspection is not not proper veterinarian practice. Or that it’s not OK for dogs to be sick and hurt and injured and not seen by a vet, because Billy Bob has this ointment someone gave him and it cures everything. Or that it’s not OK for dogs to be forced to lick frozen water, or stuck in a plastic “dogloo” with a bit of straw for warmth — spending most of their time shivering from the cold.
Heavens, no, we don’t want that kind of person in Missouri.
This is all nothing but political theater: smoke and mirrors. People scared to death of the Missouri Farm Bureau.
Representative Terry’s reply:
Shelly,
Your not being rational. I had the rep for HSUS in my office Tuesday morning. He was not against what I said and understood the argument that I made. I do understand how laws are made and changed.
Obviously you don’t understand that once a prop becomes a law it can change like any other it’s no different.
If you had wanted to make it unchangeable you should have made a constitutional amendment. Then it would have been held to a different level than just an ordinary law.
I get very irritated when people will not give an inch. That attitude is caustic to our system. It has lead to the polarization of our society. So if HSUS agrees with what I am trying to do why don’t you? If you would like to talk with my contact at HSUS I would be more than happy to provide it.
If you would like to talk in person, I would be more than happy to.
T.J.
My reply:
Compromise on what?
So it’s OK for dogs to get water in an algae coated rusted bucket? Or maybe to be forced to lick frozen water? Is this the compromise you want to make?
(Yes, from USDA inspection reports of existing licensed breeders)
Or do you want to compromise on access to an indoor sleeping area? Allow breeders to keep dogs in outdoor only kennels in subzero temperatures, with only a plastic barrel and a bit of straw for warmth?
(Yes, from USDA inspection reports of existing licensed breeders)
Perhaps the compromise is in keeping dogs in wire cages that are only 6 inches longer than they are. Imagine a dog in a cage where they can barely turn around–and they live there all the time. Should we compromise on that?
(Ditto on the inspection reports)
Dogs with hair so matted, they can’t move and their skin develops sores. Dogs that can barely stand up, they’re so sick. Dogs with bloodied eyes partially poked out by a loose wire in their cages. Dogs with twisted injured legs because their foot fell through the wire floor and got caught.
Cages with dead puppies. A dead calf between kennels. A yorkie with a collar so tight, it became embedded in her neck leaving open sores. Dogs shivering from the cold. Dogs emaciated from parasites. Dogs desperately licking at frozen water, because that’s the only water they have.
Dogs never getting fresh air. Or dogs never out of the elements, even for a little bit.
Dogs never getting out of their cages…there day after day after day. Never a kind word, never a gentle hand — not even the impersonal handling of a vet once a year.
Breeders with so many dogs, lined up by the hundreds–either desperately barking, or silent because the breeder shoved a steel pipe down their throats to debark them.
The smell of ammonia in the kennel so strong, it makes the inspectors eyes water. Waste feet high underneath the cages. Flies everywhere.
So exactly what compromise do you want to make? Which of these is acceptable to you?
Compromise is a political term. I’m not in this for the politics, I’m in this for the dogs.
If you want to spend some time, I can send you some USDA inspection reports. Grab some of your peers and go visit the breeders. See who you are defending.
As for your HSUS rep: Proposition B isn’t about HSUS. Wasn’t in the past, isn’t now.
So tell me: where should we compromise?
update Futher:
I want line 9 changed that is what I want. You are wrong about what can be used to define the possible law suit HSUS has agreed to the new language. So again I ask you what problem do you have with that!
My reply back:
I have no problem with line 9 being changed. This isn’t HSUS’s call, though. But I have no problems with line 9 being changed.
I also have no problems with clarifying the language on the breeding cycle restriction so that it states the restriction is for female dogs, either.
So can we assume that if anything else but line 9, or the addition of gender in the breeding cycle restriction, is changed, you won’t vote for the bill?
Rep. Berry replied:
Shelly,
So whose call is it that we change line nine in the law?
T.J.
My last:
One of the downsides to modifying or repealing a citizen initiative is you’re accountable to everyone who voted for it. You’re also accountable to everyone who believes in the importance of the individual vote, regardless of their view on the particular issue. Most representatives from other states consider repealing or modifying a citizen initiative, especially right after it was voted on, tantamount to drunk waltzing in a mine field. Missouri representatives must like living on the edge.
What you can be reasonably confident about is that the Proposition B community you have chatted with doesn’t particularly care one way or another about the change to the definition of pet. This change doesn’t impact on either the care or the environment of the dogs, and that’s what is important for us–not semantics on definitions for the word “pet”. If you wanted to keep the pet definition that’s shown in HB 131 or SB 113, but throw away all the other changes, I don’t believe you’ll get any push back from any of us.
I don’t think you would have any push back if you wanted to modify the regulation about breeding cycles to be about females only. I also don’t think you’ll have any push back on the increased ceiling fee, though this does impact on non-profit shelters and rescues more than the breeders–and the rescues and shelters are having a real hard time right now. Donations are down.
I probably will quibble about the Bark Alert fee, because frankly the program lacks transparency and we know from comments elsewhere in this thread that some people are using the program to enforce their own religious bigotry. The concept is good, but just like the Blue Ribbon kennel campaign, how effective is it, really?
Also, it’s important that people are fully aware that the fees from the ceiling change only provide enough money for one inspector. I believe that misinformation on this has been give out in House meetings on these bills.
Regardless, I can only speak for myself on these issues.
Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
Those concerned about the law predicted the loss of 3.000 jobs and millions in state revenue. They said the provisions of the bill would be enough to decimate an entire industry. They challenged the Constitutionality of the law.
No, I’m not talking about Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention act. I’m talking about SS SCS SBs 586 & 617 passed in 2010, otherwise known as the Adult Entertainment Law. The law has since been challenged in court and is expected to eventually make its way to the Missouri Supreme Court.
We’re told that Proposition B would cost jobs and that’s why the legislature can’t allow it to proceed. We’re told it will cost revenue for the state, and that’s why we can’t allow it to proceed. We’re also told that it would decimate an entire industry, and that’s why it can’t proceed. Most importantly, we’re told that Proposition B is somehow Unconstitutional, and that it is the legislators obligation to not allow the bill to proceed.
But the representatives heard the same thing about the Adult Entertainment Law.
People were told that the Adult Entertainment Law was necessary because the adult entertainment industry is responsible for crime and divorce and broken families, but the facts do not prove out the statements.
We’re told that Proposition B isn’t necessary because most breeders are really terrific, providing a wonderful home for the dogs, but the facts don’t prove this out, either.
So why is is OK to apply strict new business regulations for one industry, but not another? Why is it OK for the state to add stringent new laws for adult entertainment venues, when no regulations are being broken, but it’s not OK for the state to add stringent new laws for an industry notorious for violating existing laws?
I have some guesses to share.
For one, the adult entertainment group didn’t get the Missouri Farm Bureau or Cattlemen’s Association on its side. It didn’t get Forrest Lucas of Lucas oil to brag about how he wants to “bloody the nose” of the prudes.
The adult entertainment group didn’t build their strip clubs in former hog barns, or in the middle of corn fields.
The strip clubs didn’t feature acts with dogs crammed into wire cages 6 inches longer than they are, desperately licking frozen water. Or dogs in plastic igloos, huddled in straw, shivering—with artfully matted fur, bloodied raw wounds, or dead puppies scattered about. No, the strip clubs wouldn’t feature such acts.
They have standards, you know.
I think the real reason, though, is that the Adult Entertainment Law wasn’t passed by the people of the state. If it had been, the legislators would have sneered at our gullibility, as they happily ripped it apart.
Recovered from the Wayback Machine.
The BBB published a scathing report condemning Missouri’s place as the Puppy Mill Capital of the US, and calling for stricter enforcement of our laws. As noted in the report, one area of improvement demanded was an increase in fees to fund more inspectors.
The three audits the Missouri State Auditor has made of the Department of Agriculture (2001, 2004, and 2008 (pdfs)) have all shown that the Department is not doing enough to inspect the facilities under their responsibility, to enforce the appropriate fees, or to collect fees and penalties. Though the third audit was not as thorough or comprehensive as the first two, it still noted that the Department was not fully inspecting facilities. In response, the Department stated:
Our workload continues to increase faster than our available staff resources. Our
program has added 756 facilities but only 2 inspectors since the 2004 audit. Our staff
cited 1,652 violations in 2004, 1,914 violations in 2005, 2,283 violations in 2006, and
3,156 violations in 2007. Inspectors have been instructed to point out every violation
witnessed during an inspection, and the number of documented citations has increased
significantly each year. This increase in numbers includes primarily new disclosed
unlicensed sites that usually have numerous violations and therefore require more
inspection time. There were 1,506 facilities inspected during calendar year 2005, 1,681
facilities inspected during calendar year 2006, and 2,282 facilities inspected during
calendar year 2007. We continue to add facilities at a faster rate than we add staff. We
are working toward inspecting 100 percent of the kennels 100 percent of the time and as
noted in this audit we have increased from 30 percent in 2004 to 60 percent in 2006.
Whenever violations are severe, action is taken to remove animals from harm’s way,
taking a large portion of our staff’s time.
One claim made against Proposition B, before the vote and now that it is the Puppy Mill Cruelty Act, is that it didn’t include the funding necessary to implement its measures. As part of the ballot process, a fiscal note (pdf) was prepared for Proposition B that showed the Department of Agriculture expressing a need for additional inspectors in order to enforce the provisions of Proposition B. In their defense of the SB 113, which amounts to a complete repeal of Proposition B, the backers have added a Bark Alert fee and increased the license fee ceiling, which, they have said, would provide the additional enforcement necessary to rid us of puppy mills—removing the need for Proposition B. Even Governor Nixon is now talking about funding and enforcement, in what sounds to be a prelude to support for SB 113.
However, there is more than a little resemblance to a shell game associated with the issue of Proposition B funding. And the only way to keep an eye on what’s happening with all of the references, back and forth, on funding is to follow the money.
When the Animal Care Facilities Act was instituted in 1993, part of the Act included the issuance of licenses and the collection of fees. The fees collected go into a special fund called the Animal Care Reserve fund, which can only be used for the implementation of the statutes listed in 273.325 to 273.357. Implemented as a statute, Proposition B would be inserted into the Statutes as section 273.345. As such, any funds collected for licenses and fees would be applicable to the Proposition B requirements, as they are applicable to other requirements listed in these sections.
In the Proposition B fiscal note, the Department of Agriculture noted:
The Department of Agriculture indicated that this initiative petition will add additional
responsibilities to the department’s Animal Care Program. There is core funding for
current responsibilities of the Animal Care Program but the current level of funding is
inadequate to meet the current level of responsibilities. The additional responsibilities
added by the initiative petition cannot be accomplished with existing funding.…
The Animal Care Program does not have the financial resources it needs to meet the
current program requirements. The additional requirements of this initiative petition
would significantly increase program responsibilities and could not be accomplished
without a commensurate significant increase in program funding.
What the Department of Agriculture stated in the fiscal note was also noted in the BBB report: there is inadequate funding for inspectors considering the number of commercial breeders that need to be inspected. The unanswered question is: what about Proposition B makes an additional requirement on the inspectors, considering that Proposition B does not require additional inspections, and is, in fact, a refinement on existing inspection regulations? Especially considering the fact that the new restrictions on number of dogs would simplify inspections at larger breeders?
The Department of Agriculture also provided input into the fiscal notes for HB 131 and SB 113, except for these bills, the Department provides more specific details as to its requirements. In SB 113, it stated:
Officials at the Department of Agriculture (AGR) state the requirements of this proposed legislation would mandate that the department follow up on any violations deemed to be of a serious nature and then prepare a legal referral to the prosecuting attorney or revoke the license of the facility. The current mandate is once per year or upon complaint.
AGR states three additional Animal Health Officers responsible for the enforcement of the proposed legislation would be required for preparing investigations of alleged violations of the proposed legislation. The additional Animal Health Officers would work with program participants, general public; inspect commercial breeders, pet shops, kennels, animal shelters, and related facilities for proper licensure and compliance with animal care statutes and regulations.
The Department further stated that though the higher fee limit would bring in an addition $83,000 dollars for inspections, this wouldn’t be sufficient to hire three more people. The Department stated it would need General Revenue funds in the amounts of $141,452 in FY12; $114,770 in FY13; and $117,284 in FY14. The response by Oversight to the request was:
Oversight assumes since the Department of Agriculture (AGR) already inspects all licensed dog related facilities, therefore they would not need three additional Animal Health Officers. If AGR experiences a measurable increase in its workload as a direct result of this proposal then it can request additional FTE in future budget requests.
Well, huh. It would seem that Oversight also, indirectly, supports the supposition that additional inspectors would not be needed for supporting Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Act.
However, additional inspectors are needed regardless of what bill is allowed to stand. The BBB report and all three state audits confirm this. And new licensing fees are not sufficient. As the Department noted in response to the 2008 department audit:
Although the department does not agree with all of the points made in the four page discussion
of the Analysis of Fees finding, MDA does agree in principle with the Auditor’s
recommendations regarding the need to evaluate, adjust, and establish fees as appropriate.
However, we also believe it’s important to recognize that in many instances fees were never
intended to cover all of a program’s costs.
The Department of Agriculture’s original estimate in the Prop B fiscal note of seven full time inspectors and support equipment and staff seems inflated compared to the amount of existing work. What specifically about Proposition B led the Department to assume it needed an additional seven inspectors, just for this bill? The Department didn’t provide this information.
The request for three additional inspectors for SB 113 seems low, again compared to existing requirements, and the requirements for additional inspections. However, at least the Department provided specifics behind its request for the three additional inspectors for SB 113.
In neither case, though, has the Department provided a realistic request for what it needs to meet the requirements as outlined in the three Missouri audits and the BBB report. As it has stated in a Fiscal Note Contact Log obtained under a Sunshine Law request, the inspectors try to inspect all of the facilities but in FY10, of the total number of licensed facilities (2,731 total), they were only able to inspect 2,354 facilities. In my opinion, the amount of time the inspectors spend at each facility must be insufficient when you compare the number of facilities they have to inspect, in addition to their other responsibilities such as responding to complaints and investigations of unlicensed facilities—primarily generated by Bark Alert submissions.
The increased fee limit in SB 113 will bring in an estimated $83,000 which can be used to fund inspections. According to a worksheet, also obtained via a Sunshine Law request, the licensing fee increase would be enough to fund only one additional inspector. The additional General Revenue funds request is to fund two additional inspectors. These inspectors would be necessary in order to handle the increased number of inspections under SB 113, as well as preparing any legal cases.
The Senate Oversight denied the request for the additional two inspectors. Point of fact, it denied the need for all three inspectors.
What this means is that not enough funding is provided in SB 113 in order to meet the new requirements it adds on to the Department of Agriculture. I do note that the Department has asked for $875,620 in Animal Care Reserve Fund monies for FY12, but that the Governor struck this amount and recommended an allotment of $751,482—approximately $50,000 less than what was appropriated for 2011.
It’s important to be aware that the additional $25.00 per licensed facility for Bark Alert only brings in $57,000. This money is specifically earmarked in SB 113 for Bark Alert promotion—not for funding additional inspectors. According to the fiscal estimates given for inspectors by the Department of Agriculture, the amount of money generated would not be sufficient for funding even one new inspector.
During the debates on SB 113 the success of Bark Alert was referred to by more than one legislator, and on more than one occasion. After all, the Bark Alert web page states:
Since the launch of Operation Bark Alert, more than 4,300 dogs have been rescued in across Missouri in 2009, Missouri saw a decrease of 164 commercial breeders thanks to Operation Bark Alert. In 2010, the trend continued with more than 200 commercial breeders no longer in business in Missouri.
I attempted to find out background information on these impressive sounding statistics given by the Department of Agriculture, and was told that records for breeders that closed during 2009 and 2010 were moved to the archives already and the cost to research these records to find what I needed would be more than the amount I specified in the Sunshine Law request. Yet one would think the data to support the assertions in the web page would be readily available—at least in some spreadsheet somewhere— in order to justify posting such values to the web site; especially considering the debates ongoing about Proposition B and SB 113.
In actuality, I believe the numbers touted for Bark Alert are misleading. I believe that the number of breeders the Bark Alert page lists as closed are the number of breeders who have closed for any number of reasons: unlicensed breeders shut down, breeders who have voluntarily gone out of business, and even some breeders who were shut down because of severe violations. I was told that there were 1,802 commercial breeders in 2009; 1,638 commercial breeders in 2010; and there are 1,414 commercial breeders at the beginning of 2011 (supposedly there are 1,390 breeders right now).
The differences reflect the total number of commercial breeders who have closed, not those specific to Bark Alert.
There is no differentiation between breeders who closed because of Bark Alert, who closed voluntarily because they were quitting the business, and who closed because of criminal action and extreme negligence. We have no way of verifying the efficacy of Bark Alert.
Though the additional funding that SB 113 allocates is insufficient to fund increased enforcement, perhaps it would be sufficient enough for the Department of Agriculture to implement more modern record keeping practices including digitalization of inspection records and easier access to the other data.
The discussion about funding for inspectors has been equal parts real need and political mechanization.
In the Proposition B fiscal note, the Department of Agriculture mixed in the current (and chronic) needs for an increased number of inspectors with the requirements for enforcing Proposition B in such a way that we can’t determine which funding amount actually applies to the enforcement of Proposition B. However, as was stated by the outside auditor that compiled the fiscal note:
Bradley Ketcher, Ketcher Law Firm, LLC indicated in summary, the proposed
initiative will have no or little fiscal impact on state or local government. In addition, it
offers some opportunity for cost savings.
The Department of Agriculture was more precise with the SB 113 funding requirements, and asked for General Revenue funds for two additional inspectors in addition to the inspector that would be funded by the increased licensing fee ceiling. Oversight denied the request for all three inspectors.
The Department of Agriculture’s Bark Alert program’s efficacy has to be questioned in light of the fact that the Department can’t readily back up the facts and figures posted at the web site. Regardless, the $25.00 fee is for program promotion, only, and doesn’t provide any funding for additional personnel or increased investigative capacity.
An honest assessment of what the Department really needs in the way of inspectors must be determined. In addition, an honest attempt to meet the additional requirements should also be undertaken—as well as better oversight of the inspectors to ensure that the requirements outlined in the first two Missouri audits have been met. The inspectors cannot be taking the time they need—not and inspect as many facilities as they say they’re inspecting every year.
What is also needed at the Department of Agriculture is more modern record keeping practices, more computers, and better access to publicly accessible data for the public—comparable to what the USDA APHIS provides. One of the requirements given in the 2008 audit of the Department is that the Department of Agriculture needed to provide a method of evaluating which facilities need enhanced inspections. Storing all data in boxes that are archived does not facilitate such evaluations.
Bottom line: contrary to assertions made by Missouri state representatives, SB 113 does not provide adequate funding.
PS As of February, 2011, the Animal Care Reserve Fund has $570,529. And change.
update
From the spreadsheet, the following is the cost for one new inspector:
| Salary | 35,084 |
| Benefits | 15,792 |
| Vehicle (Amortized over three years) | $6,000 (per year) |
| Equipment | 1,697 |
| Supplies | 1,500 |
| M & R Services | 900 |
| Travel, in-state | 7,000 |
| Professional Development | 1,000 |
| Misc. Expenses | 750 |
| Communication services | 500 |
The total for one inspector is: $78, 323.00. A year.
Increased fee ceiling should generate an additional $83.000.
Therefore, there is only enough funding for one new inspector. And that’s if the department is allowed to hire, in this cost cutting atmosphere.
You can’t re-frame the mathematics.
update
As was pointed out to me tonight, there was a SB 795 passed last year, that removed the exemption for shelters from the fees collected.
So not only is the Missouri Legislature protecting the puppy mill industry, it is deliberately doing everything in its power to add additional financial burden on to animal shelters and rescues—the people actually having to clean up the mess the puppy mills leave.
I’ve never seen such assholes in my life—and you voted them into office, folks.
I’ve also had to file a complaint against the Department of Agriculture with the Attorney General tonight, because of what I perceive to be violation of Sunshine Laws.
—
I’m writing up a deeper analysis of the impact on existing laws with Prop B as compared to SB 113. I know that the HSUS has done the same with a one page talking points comparison, but I want to take it deeper. I don’t know if it will make a difference in the long run, but I want to record facts: not hyperbole, not politician bullshit speak.
One error I had made in comments here and there is the fact that SB 113 would require license fees from the shelters. I’m assuming that the exemption of licensing fees for shelters/rescues that exists in ACFA would still apply with SB 113.
However, there is no exemption for pet stores and dog boarding companies, so I imagine they’ll be just peachy keen at having to pay more because of the commercial breeders. But then, they’re not farmers, so they don’t count.