Critters Legal, Laws, and Regs

HB 131 heard in the House

I had thought that the representatives were no longer going to follow through on HB 131, but evidently it was taken up for Perfection today. Darn, I wanted to hear the debate.

Luckily, Jason Rosenbaum did catch some audio of the testimony, and has posted an excerpt. In the audio, you’ll hear Representative Riddle spend her time quoting from the 1986 arrest records for Wayne Pacelle from the HSUS. Yes, I would think that a 1986 arrest for an individual would be out of scope for this bill. She also called him a terrorist, and continued her rant until the Representative from St. Louis raised a point of order.

This type of name calling has happened all too frequently: those who testify “for” these bills to gut Proposition B spend all their time trashing HSUS. Hello! Did you happen to forget that over half the people in this state voted for Proposition B!?

Getting tired of the absolute lack of respect these representatives have for the voters in this state.

If I find links to more audio for the testimony, will post.

Critters Legal, Laws, and Regs

Before the vote

The third reading and vote on SB 113 is listed as the 8th item of business today in the Senate. It’s a toss whether the vote will happen today or not. I believe it will. Regardless, I’ll be listening, just in case, and I’ll be recording the debate and vote when they occur.

This vote has been a long time coming, and the way has been rough. The very first bill filed about Proposition B was Senator Stouffer’s bill, SB 4. Unlike SB 113, with it’s “fix”, Senator Stouffer’s bill was a repeal of Proposition B. In many ways, it was the most honest bill filed about Proposition B.

We’ve been told, from both Senate and the House of Representative members, that their only interest is to “fix” the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. Yet, one only has to examine the statements made at meetings these representatives had in their districts, to see that there has never been any interest to “fix” problems with the text—the intent was either to repeal it, or to pull every last meaningful requirement in the bill.

Representative Chris Kelly came out with some editorials supposedly urging compromise, but never once did he mention what was good about Proposition B. He wouldn’t even praise the requirement that demanded continuous access to potable, clean, and unfrozen water free of contaminants. All he would say is that Proposition B was “unbalanced and fatally flawed”.

“Unbalanced and fatally flawed” are not the words of a person with his hands outstretched, wanting to work with those who backed Proposition B.

During the House meetings on HB 131 (the House version of SB 113), the only change that the agricultural committee members mentioned that was a genuine fix, was changing the text of the bill so that the breeding cycle rest period extended only to females. There’s not a person who favored Proposition B who would have a problem with this modification to the text.

But when the Senate and House members made their “fix”, they also completely pulled the rest cycle requirement. This isn’t a “fix”, this is a complete repeal.

Senator Parson made much of solid flooring in Tuesday’s debate. Where is the definition for solid flooring in criminal statutes, he asked. Yet if one of the proposed changes to Proposition B had been an extended definition of solid flooring, it’s unlikely most Proposition B folks would have a problem with this action. But what Senator Parson did, was remove all of the criteria for any kind of flooring other than the wire flooring that exists now.

Again, this isn’t a “fix”, this is a complete repeal.

Senator Parson also implied that he reached out to the Proposition B community. As you can see from the beginning section of my Dissecting Michael Parson’s SB 113 article, he didn’t reach far. The only meetings I know of that he had were held in conjunction with the Missouri Farm Bureau, the Cattlemen’s Association, or both.

During the public hearings on HB 131, rather than be open with those testifying in support of Proposition B, Representative Jason Smith grilled them, like he was a prosecutor, and they were criminal scum. He also neglected to mention his own personal involvement in the issue, which should have ethically kept him from actively participating.

These are not the actions of a people wanting to compromise. As oil and cattleman Forrest Lucas so eloquently put it, at one of Senator Parson’s “community meetings”, these are the actions of a people wanting to “bloody the nose of HSUS”. And they took these actions less because they wanted to support the dog breeders, and more because they wanted to “hurt” HSUS.

Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, is not about HSUS. Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, is about the dogs. It doesn’t matter who sponsored the ads, because in the end it came down to how we, the people of Missouri, felt about this issue. I didn’t become involved in this bill because of HSUS, I became involved because I read through the USDA inspection reports and was appalled at the picture they painted of the large scale commercial dog breeding industry in this state. I became involved because I was embarrassed about living in the state known as the “Puppy Mill Capital of the US”. How could I not become involved after seeing the results of rescues from bad breeders in the news, again, and again, and again.

I have to wonder: how many inspection reports did these senators and representatives read? How many kennels have they visited, especially without advance notice? I think we would find the answer to both of these questions to be “none” and “none”. This may sound harsh, but in my opinion, these representatives just don’t care about the quality of life for the dogs in these kennels. The only thing they care about, is to “bloody the nose” of HSUS.

Even if it it means beating the vote of the people of Missouri to a pulp in the process.

Even if it means condemning dogs in too many of these breeding operations to a life of hell.

Even if it means continuing to tarnish the image of this state, and how the rest of this country perceives us.

Critters Legal, Laws, and Regs

Increased Activity

Last update

Evidently the Senate will be debating SB 113 tomorrow, too. At least, that’s the impression I have from MissouriNet.

So, evidently the idea is to move on the bills quickly, one way or another.

second update

HB 131 should be up for debate on the House Floor tomorrow, at 10am. You can listen to the debate by accessing the General Assembly web page, and look for the Live House Debate icon.


Missed this entirely, but HB 131 is up for perfection on the House floor today.

I need to finish my deconstruction of HB 131 and SB 113, as well as address some of the new criticism of Proposition B/Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, but I’m just tired of the battle this week.

However, I’m not as tired, or as sick or injured or miserable, as the dogs in too many of the large scale commercial dog breeders, so once more unto the breach, Dear Friends.

SB 113 is still on the informal calendar for perfection, but now that so many of the other contentious issues have had their painful airings this week, I expect movement on SB 113 next week. In addition, HB 131 has now been passed out of the Rules committee, so expect that one to hit the House floor, probably next week.

Now is the time to make a lot of noise—contact your representatives, contact other representatives, especially those from the Yes on Proposition B districts. Remind the representatives to respect the voters, rather than give into special interests.

Legal, Laws, and Regs Political

The Reality of HB 131 – Part 2

Earlier I provided a comparison between Proposition B and the tattered results after it’s hacked apart by HB 131. Since then, several modifications were made to the original HB 131. As you’ll see, the bill is no longer about puppy mills, and really doesn’t have any new requirements, or enforceability. It does increase the upper fee limit for the larger operations…such as shelters like HSMO, which adopts out thousands of dogs a year.

Oh, and it provides funding for one whole Bark Alert inspector. Of course, Bark Alert is specific to unlicensed breeders, only. However, the representatives assure us: licensed breeders never have any problems.

First, before I get into the Prop B hackery, I’ll list the committee’s modifications of other statutes.

Section A. Sections 273.327, 273.340, and 273.345, RSMo, are repealed and four new sections enacted in lieu thereof, to be known as sections 273.327, 273.340, 273.345, and 1, to read as follows:

273.327. No person shall operate an animal shelter, pound or dog pound, boarding kennel, commercial kennel, contract kennel, pet shop, or exhibition facility, other than a limited show or exhibit, or act as a dealer or commercial breeder, unless such person has obtained a license for such operations from the director. An applicant shall obtain a separate license for each separate physical facility subject to sections 273.325 to 273.357 which is operated by the applicant. Any person exempt from the licensing requirements of sections 273.325 to 273.357 may voluntarily apply for a license. Application for such license shall be made in the manner provided by the director. The license shall expire annually unless revoked. As provided by rules to be promulgated by the director, the license fee shall range from one hundred to two thousand five hundred dollars per year. Each licensee subject to sections 273.325 to 273.357 shall pay an additional fee of twenty-five dollars to be used by the department of agriculture for the purpose of promoting Operation Bark Alert. Pounds or dog pounds shall be exempt from payment of such fee. License fees shall be levied for each license issued or renewed on or after January 1, 1993.

273.340. A dealer shall only purchase animals from persons in this state who are licensed under sections 273.325 to 273.357, or who are exempt from licensure. If a dealer purchases animals from a person who is exempt from licensure, the animal shall meet the same vaccination and health requirements of those animals sold by a licensed person. Any dealer who knowingly purchases animals in violation of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor and each purchase made shall constitute a separate offense. In addition to such penalties, the director may revoke such dealer’s license.

Yes, it does look like the increased fees apply to shelters and rescues—that will teach them to support animal protection laws. There’s nothing more vindictive than a Representative scorned.

Following is the modification specific to Proposition B.

273.345. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the “[Puppy Mill] Dog Cruelty Prevention Act.”

2. The purpose of this act is to prohibit the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs 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 licensed or required to obtain a license under sections 273.325 to 273.357 having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs:

(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”, 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”, any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids, that is over the age of six months;

(3) “Necessary veterinary care”, at least two personal visual inspections annually by a licensed veterinarian, prompt treatment of any serious illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian, and where needed, humane euthanasia using lawful techniques deemed acceptable by the American Veterinary Medical Association;

(4) “Person”, any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or syndicate;

(5) “Pet”, any species of domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof;

(6) “Regular exercise”, that which is consistent with regulations promulgated by the Missouri department of agriculture;

(7) “Retail pet store”, 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” :

(a) The provision, at suitable intervals of not more than twelve hours unless the dietary requirements of the species require a longer interval, of a quantity of wholesome foodstuff suitable for the species and age and sufficient 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;

(9) “Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements” , 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 the regulations of the Missouri department of agriculture;

(10) “Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs” , having:

(a) Sufficient indoor space for each dog to turn in a complete circle without any impediment (including a tether);

(b) 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;

(c) Appropriate space depending on the species of animal, as specified in regulations by the Missouri department of agriculture, as amended.

5. (1) Whenever the state veterinarian or a state animal welfare official finds past violations of the state animal care facilities act, sections 273.325 to 273.357, have occurred and have not been corrected or addressed, the director may request the attorney general or the local prosecutor to bring an action in circuit court in the county where the violations have occurred for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, or a remedial order enforceable in a state circuit court to correct such violations and in addition may assess a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars for each violation under section 273.333. Each violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense.

(2) A person commits the crime of pet neglect if such person repeatedly violates sections 273.325 to 273.357 so as to pose a substantial risk to the health and welfare of animals in such person’s custody, or knowingly violates an agreed to remedial order involving the safety and welfare of animals under this section. The crime of pet neglect shall be a class C misdemeanor, unless the person has previously pled guilty or nolo contendere to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case, each such violation shall be a class A misdemeanor.

(3) The attorney general or the local prosecutor shall, within ninety days, bring an action for criminal punishment under sections 273.325 to 273.357 in circuit court in the county where the crime occurred.

(4) No action under this section shall prevent or preclude action taken under section 578.012.

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. 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. 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 January 1, 2012.

Section 1. Any breeder who houses animals in stacked cages without an impervious barrier between the levels of such cages is guilty of a class A misdemeanor; except when cleaning such cages.

I don’t know why the bill had the odd thing tacked on to the end. It’s part and parcel of the sloppiness I’ve come to expect of the representatives, in their haste to appease the agribusiness concerns.

As you can also see, the bill is about everything now, including shelters. But then the bill completely removes all Proposition B provisions.

The enforcement section is absolutely appalling. What it amounts to, if I read it correctly, is that no law enforcement people can make a move against anyone, including a breeder, without first going through a prosecutor and have a court order. This means that the confiscation of the dogs at Knee Deep Collies last week wouldn’t be allowed. Not without first going to the prosecutor and then the prosecutor going in front of a judge.

The dogs, all of them, would be dead by then.

These representatives…have they no shame?

Legal, Laws, and Regs

Public hearing on Freedom in Agriculture Act

A public hearing will be held on HJR 17, the so-called Freedom in Agriculture Act on February 15th, at 8 am in House Hearing Room 7.

As the Sheriden Express newspaper recently noted, this is also another indirect attack on Proposition B. What this Act states is that the citizens could no longer bring about any initiative related to animals. This includes anything related to hunting, fishing, livestock, and even domestic pets, such as cats and dogs.

I love how the agricultural committees want to deem themselves the only people fit in the state to determine what is best for animals in this state. Considering the absolute bias in the committees, and the fact that the group is openly disdainful of Missouri voters, I shudder to think at what abuses they would bully through the state legislature—all based on scientific findings of course.

Not only would the Freedom in Agriculture Act render Proposition B unconstitutional, it would also render past laws related to animals passed by citizen initiative as unconstitutional. That means we would also see the return of dog and cock fighting—also outlawed by citizen initiative almost two decades ago.

This would also mean we could no longer bring about a citizen initiative in the future that is even remotely related to animals. No other industry or category of law is so encumbered in our state Constitution.

Again, a reminder: the meeting on HJR 17 is a public meeting: all are welcome to attend and express their views on this latest excrement to come out of Jefferson City.