Category: Environment

Categories
Critters

Current bills related to the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act

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.

Categories
Critters

Proposition B and Missouri state districts

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 signatures1,2.

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.

Missouri population density map

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

Map of Missouri with counties outlined, colored by percentage of favorable Proposition B vote

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.

merged population density map and Proposition B vote map

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.

House Bill 1788 – same

    • ,

House Bill 1749 – same

Categories
Critters

Why Puppies

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:

Categories
Critters Political

Election, undone

So much for the importance of the vote. So much for the will of the people.

Other stories have popped up about Missouri state representatives deciding to undo Proposition B in the state legislature. Not a lot of representatives, and none from the urban areas:

That Missouri lawmakers would even consider overriding the will of the people is disturbing, but to do so in support of animal cruelty is astonishing.

This year, one of the most important movies is “Winter’s Bone”, a movie about a family in the Ozarks caught up in the Meth trade. Due to the critical acclaim and popularity of the movie, this is how many people will “see” Missouri.

We do not need to add to this story that Missouri also condones puppy mills, and disregards the vote of the people. We need to re-write the tale that is Missouri into something better.

As for some state representatives thinking that they can overturn Proposition B, I am going to borrow from history and promise that I have not yet begun to fight.

update The Humane Society of the United States responds to the recent discussions.

Categories
Critters Political

Election, please be done

Election 2010 is one of the most exciting mid-terms I’ve been through, and the one I want finished more than any other in the past. That the election has been ugly is the mother of all understatements. Add to this the anxiousness of seeing people I would expect to find living behind barbed wire with signs saying “Trezpassers will be shot”, amid hills filled with buried food and real metal coins, as candidates for national office, and I find myself wishing for an alien invasion from space.

Except the aliens wouldn’t be welcome in Arizona, and no matter their appearance, Sharron Angle would say they look vaguely Asian. It is that kind of fruitcake year.

The effect the Tea Party has had on the election is evident, and not just on the chosen candidates. The Tea Party folks said they were angry and that anger continued and solidified until we now have this sullen ember of burning, querulous discontent that is the antithesis of hope that marked 2008. That a campaign worker would stomp on a woman after she was knocked to the ground just doesn’t surprise us. That he would then ask for an apology from the women is no more than a head shaking moment. Worse, in all the foot stomping media coverage, no one asked the question, “Why was she knocked down in the first place?” She was neither armed nor a threat, and the only crime she seemed to be guilty of is that she wasn’t one of the people around her. But she was knocked down, and the police actually called and no one has said, “Wait? What’s up with that?”

Of course, this doesn’t surprise us either, as we’ve watched candidates literally fleeing from buildings and handcuffing journalists, rather than answer questions that should be asked, to get answers we need.

What’s most frightening though is knowing that there will be people who vote for candidates with staff members that stomp on a woman as she is held helpless on the ground or handcuff a journalist asking questions; candidates who refuse to answer questions and then display an unseemly pride in the fact. “We don’t answer questions from the liberal media”, they shout. When you look around, though, you quickly realize that all but a few are deemed liberal media.

What’s a little humorous, in a sad, shadowy way, is that here in Missouri, one of the birthplaces of the Tea Party movement, not one Tea Party candidate for national office made it to the polls. I’m not sure what that says about Missouri, other than it can be an exhausting place to live sometimes.

We do have our share of contentiousness, though. The Blunt/Carnahan race has been deemed one of the ugliest in the nation, and that tells you a lot when you consider how ugly the campaigns have been. We also have controversial issues up for a vote including Propositions A and B: The Earnings Tax Initiative and the Puppy Mill Cruelty Act. You would expect an issue related to taxes to be acrimonious…but puppies?

Early on, thanks to a rant from Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher, it was thought that the Tea Party movement would move, as one monolithic body, against the puppies, but no such event happened. It would seem that the Angry Ones draw the line when it comes to their dogs. However, there is still plenty of hostility remaining, as the agricultural interests worked hard to ensure that they would be allowed to treat their animals however they wanted. It is none of our business, they tell us, if dogs live their lives on wire floors, in small cages that barely allow the dog to turn around, without a chance to run on the grass, sniff the air, or even chew a dog bone. One pet shop owner said in an interview that the dogs’ needs are met, and that we should be so lucky to live so well.

Unemployment is high, too high. Companies are actually doing well, but we’re faced with a new phenomena where companies having money no longer translate into jobs, as employees are expected to do more for less pay, or jobs are outsourced to other countries. Some say all we need do is lower taxes, but taxes are not the problem, nor are they the solution.

And yet, among all the anger and evasiveness, and cruelty and greed, the hope does still remain.

This last weekend, as a closed down factory farm breeder auctioned off 800 dogs, rescuers came from all over the country to try to save some of them. They managed to save 200, probably the ones that needed help the most. The other 600 went to commercial dog breeders, primarily the Amish who have taken to large scale dog breeding like ducks to water, but there’s hope for the dogs. There’s a change in the wind, and a growing awareness of what lies behind that cute little doggy in the window, and the days of these large, inhumane facilities are coming to a close.

Today, we also have a national health care plan. If all goes as planned, the majority of those currently uninsured will be covered in three years. In three years, no one need fear having to go bankrupt when they become ill; people will no longer be dying solely because they don’t have insurance. A need for a national health care plan has been one of the top concerns of every president since Harry Truman, and now that we have one, I’ll be damned if I’ll let someone tell me it’s a failure.

Unemployment is high, yes, but we have stopped that out-of-control upward spiral that began in 2008. We are spending a little more—not a lot, but we spending. There is no longer a threat of financial collapse, and people’s pension funds now look a lot safer than they were a few years back. People seemingly hate the stimulus fund, but it has provided jobs. They hate TARP, but it actually succeeded, and may even make the country money someday. We should actually be more hopeful today, if it weren’t for the incessant messages of doom and gloom— messages that reflect political and corporate motivation more than reality.

After years of watching consumer rights eroded, they’re back and even stronger with new consumer protection laws. The practices that triggered our financial meltdown have now been blocked and hopefully blasted into enough pieces so they can never surface again. The FCC came out with a report condemning the debt collection practices and urging states to crack down on abusive debt collectors. A state attorney general managed to convince the largest and most notorious arbitration firm to no longer take consumer cases—people’s constitutional rights to the courts have been restored.

Thanks to the new health care act, health care clinics in our state and others have received enough money to expand their operations; sick kids can’t be denied coverage; the ill can continue needed treatments; college students can remain on their parent’s policies, rather than trust to youth to keep them from financial disaster.

We’re gaining private sector jobs, not losing them. The Osage Bridge opened recently, and our beloved Eades bridge is getting a safety upgrade—just a few of the many stimulus-funded projects that dot the land and provide signs that something is working.

Considering how bad things were two years ago—how hopeless and terrifying the times—the fact that people now have the luxury to be angry is nothing short of a miracle. I have never been more proud of being a Democrat.

And this morning, 200 dogs now have a chance for a better life.