Categories
Legal, Laws, and Regs Political

Politics

The bill we fought so hard for, Proposition B, was killed today. It was killed by the state legislature, and it was killed by Governor Nixon. It had the honor of dying in a bi-partisan fashion, killed by Democrat and Republican alike.

I have found there is one thing that can bring both parties together: the vote of the people. All we have to do is enact direct democracy at the national level, and politicos from both parties will bond tightly, in a mutual shared horror of “we the people”.

Governor Nixon manufactured a “compromise” that was supposed to be an improvement of the bill the legislature began, but as I’m writing over at Puppies at Burningbird, it was a simple matter to discover the gaps and loopholes the breeders can easily find in this new “improved” law. Not only was Proposition B ripped to shreds today, but it was done so with compliance by a couple of major players in the animal welfare movement in Missouri: the Humane Society of Missouri and the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation. Some would say they meant well; I will be charitable and just call them foolish.

Betrayed. I feel betrayed. But I don’t matter. What does matter is that the dogs were betrayed. In the end, even the most progressive of people on Twitter were implying that, after all, they’re just dogs.

Categories
Legal, Laws, and Regs Political

I can only imagine

Susan Redden in the Joplin Globe on Governor Nixon’s “solution”:

I can only imagine how the lawmakers must feel after passing legislation and then seeing the governor turn around and propose his own plan. They must feel like the voters who passed Proposition B.

Categories
Political

Outsiders

Rumor has it that Governor Nixon will sign SB 113 based on a demand by the Tilley, Loehner, and Parson that they won’t consider his “compromise” bill unless he does so.

Leaving aside this being a politically stupid move, the demand for a signature on SB 113 is nothing more than a way for the SB 113 supporters to gloat about their control—over the state, over the state leadership, and over the will of the people of Missouri.

If Governor Nixon vetoes SB 113, these same leaders would hustle their butts in order to ensure the “compromise” is passed. So the question is: is Nixon as politically astute as some people claim him to be? Not if Department of Agriculture’s Jon Hagler’s appearance at the pro-SB 113 rally is any indication.

In his speech to the SB 113 supporters, Hagler stated that “Missourians, not outside state interests, control our state’s future”. I have to wonder who Hagler think voted for Proposition B last November. Last I heard, you had to be a resident of this state in order to vote in Missouri.

By his statement, does Dr. Hagler consider St. Louis, Kansas City, and all the urban centers that voted for Proposition B to be “outside state interests”? How about the people in his wife, Representative Linda Black’s, district? They voted for Proposition B—does that mean the people in Representative Black’s district are somehow “outside state interests”, too?

We assume that Dr. Hagler meant HSUS with his little quip. I guess a national organization is an “outside interest”. Does this mean, then, that lobbyists from the NRA will also be shown the door in Jefferson City? After all, it was lobbyists from NRA, another national organization, and hence an “outside interest”, who helped overturn the voter-approved measure on conceal carry.

Let’s be blunt, gentlemen: what you’re saying with your actions and your speeches is that you’re not interested in representing the people of the state— not if it means going against powerful agribusiness interests. The bottom line is that the people of Missouri voted for Proposition B. To not support the people of this state is nothing more than pandering to special interests for the purposes of political expediency.

By the way, I joined the HSUS today. Since I also live in St. Louis, I guess that makes me a double-outsider to the folks in Jefferson City.

Psst, Gov. Nixon: Best to hold off on the bow

Future of Nixon Prop B compromise uncertain

Going to the Dogs: Nixon’s compromise on Prop B fraying

Republican Legislators will compromise Only After Governor Signs Bill to Kill Puppy Mill Act

Nixon might sign Prop B rollback as step toward compromise

Categories
Critters Government Legal, Laws, and Regs

Nixon’s Agreement

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Governor Nixon just came out with an “agreement” supposedly between animal welfare people and the agricultural groups.

Press release

Letter of Agreement (PDF)

Legislative Text (PDF)

I’ll have more to say on these later.

Categories
Critters Political

A compromise

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.