Category: Political

Compromise is in the air about Proposition B/SB 113. Before now, the only parts of Proposition B I was willing to compromise on are associated with the sex of the breeding dog and breeding cycle, and the definition of “pet”.

However, I am willing to make another compromise. I am willing to give up every last part of Proposition B—the 50 dog limit, the rest period, the vet visits, the space considerations, everything—for one thing: transparency.

We’ve heard from the defenders of SB 113 that most of the licensed breeders in the state have great places. Representative Loehner stated on the House Floor this week that most kennels are better than many childcare facilities. Well, then, showing these kennels to the world shouldn’t cause any discomfort to the kennel owners. In fact, they should welcome this compromise, as it won’t cost them a cent.

Here’s how my compromise solution would work:

Governor Nixon would form a board from representatives of all the major shelters, pounds, and rescues in the state. This board would recruit and vet volunteers, who would then accompany the Department of Agriculture on their inspections.

The volunteers would be silent observers, only. They’d be allowed to take some photos, as long as doing so doesn’t distract from the inspection duties. They would not be allowed to talk to the breeder, unless the breeder talks to them. They’ll be civil, polite, and non-disruptive.

The observers will be able to publish their observations. In addition, the Department of Agriculture will also provide a publicly accessible database of all inspection reports, similar to what the USDA has with its APHIS system. All of the data that would be exposed is publicly accessible data. What the system would provide is easier public access—especially over the internet.

The observer would be under strict requirements: they must be quiet and non-disruptive. If they fail, not only would they not be able to observe again, they would be fined the cost for a re-inspection. In addition, the breeder would be guaranteed that no observer would accompany the inspector again for two years.

However, the breeder would also have to maintain decorum with the observer: no abusive behavior or language, or the inspector will cite them for non-cooperation.

In addition, every kennel that sells puppies online will need to include photos of its entire operation—kennel builders, dog cages, exercise areas, and any other facilities related to the kennel business. Right now, most large scale kennel operations post photos of puppies with cute little kids, but nothing showing the kennel facilities. I believe that every potential consumer has a right to know more about the operation, and the photos should provide the additional information.

The inspector will have to verify that the person has posted the photos along with the photos of the puppies. The inspector will also ensure that the photos posted are truly representative of the kennel business.

The kennels must also allow potential new puppy buyers to visit their operation. Right now, for most operations, the buyer is told to meet with the breeder at some remote location and exchange the puppy for the money—like the dog is an illicit drug. Potential buyers should be allowed to visit and see not only the puppy, but the puppy’s parents, and the kennel in which the puppy was raised.

Too often when potential buyers ask to pick up the puppy directly at the kennel, they’re told that they can’t because of germs (which as any shelter and rescue will tell you, is hogwash); people have even been told that state or USDA law prohibits outside visitors to the kennel. This is not only inaccurate, it might also be considered consumer fraud.

We’re told that the breeders must be protected. Well, the consumers have a right to be protected, too. They have a right to see for themselves the operation behind the puppy they’re purchasing. They definitely have a right to know whether they’re buying a puppy from a small show breeder, or a large scale dog farm.

To ensure against gawkers, the breeders could ask for a $100.00 deposit on the puppy, first, to ensure that the potential buyer is legitimate.

Lastly, the state must acknowledge the industry. Anytime the Department of Agriculture posts a report detailing the state of agriculture, it must include a reference to the fact that Missouri has the most large scale commercial dog breeding operations in the country. It must provide photos of the operations. When the Governor talks about us being the 5th largest seller of this product or that, he must also mention that we’re the number one provider of puppies, both online and to pet stores.

Anytime the Department of Agriculture has public events celebrating Missouri agricultural industries, it must include material related to the large scale commercial dog breeding operations.

If the industry is so good, then our officials should tout it, every chance they get.

The Department of Agriculture must also provide better access to data, including how many people are employed by breeders in the state, and how much revenue do the breeders generate. The Department of Agriculture does this for egg farmers, so it shouldn’t be difficult to do the same thing for large scale commercial dog breeders.

That’s my compromise. It’s simple and uncomplicated. It does require some changes in the law, including removing the statute that states representatives from animal welfare organizations may not accompany inspectors on their inspections. But in return, the breeders won’t have to downsize or expand their cages.

All I’m asking for, is no more secrets.

KSDK has a story today on Governor Nixon proposing a budget extension of 1.1 million in funding for the Department of Agriculture. This amount should be enough to ensure there is sufficient personnel to fully regulate the dog breeding industry.

The proposed budget amendment would apply whether SB 113 passes, or Proposition B is left alone.

It’s the first time someone in the Missouri government has come out and stated, truthfully, that SB 113 does not provide sufficient money for enforcement. The amount looks to be enough to really ramp the department up to a desperately needed level of personnel—not like the faux funding in SB 113.

I hope that some of the money is used to put better systems put in place that allow for greater accountability. I’m quite alarmed at how difficult it is to access inspection reports, or even the data behind the Bark Alert page’s numbers. Receiving responses from the Department of Agriculture that the material we need is archived and will be difficult to access is no longer acceptable in the year 2011.

Regardless, this is a good move. It’s an honest move, with honest numbers. Now, let’s get rid of SB 113 and then we can finally get rid of that damn title of Puppy Mill Capital of the US.

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.