Burningbird

Recovered from the Wayback machine.

The current Proposition B debate in the state legislature has not been a demonstration of openness in government. As I highlighted earlier, the Missouri Senate Agricultural committee has passed a bill to send to the Senate floor that states it’s only a modification, when in actually it completely guts Proposition B. It would have been more honest and straight forward just to come to the floor with a repeal.

Now it’s the House turn, and I don’t hold out hope for openness in this part of the General Assembly. Of the bills proposed, one grandfathers all existing breeders, whether they’re bad or not; others seek to repeal Proposition B—either openly, or in the same underhanded manner displayed so blatantly by the Missouri Senate.

One representative, Chris Kelly (24th District) has published a couple of opinion pieces about seeking compromise on Proposition B. If you look at all of his writings, though, his version of compromise is to eliminate Proposition B entirely and put something else in its place. What that something is won’t be what the people voted for last November.

In a December guest column at the Columbia Missourian, Representative Kelly wrote:

As with virtually all voter petitions, Prop B, being written by only those on one side of the issue, is unbalanced and fatally flawed. Among its several problems, the most glaring is the lack of a funding mechanism. In today’s economic climate no reasonable legislator can justify funding new animal protection over state services like education. Yet this is what we would have to do to actually activate Prop B.

As I pointed out in another guest column at the same publication:

Proposition B is an amendment to Chapter 273 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. When enacted, it will be labeled as section 273.345. An existing Chapter 273 section, section 273.357, reads:

“273.357. All fees collected by the director from licenses issued under sections 273.325 to 273.357 shall be used to administer the provisions of sections 273.325 to 273.357, and shall be deposited in the state treasury to the credit of the “Animal Care Reserve Fund,” which is hereby created. All moneys deposited in the animal care reserve fund shall be subject to appropriation for the use and benefit of the department of agriculture to administer the provisions of sections 273.325 to 273.357. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 33.080 to the contrary, moneys in the animal care reserve fund shall not be transferred to the general revenue fund at the end of the biennium.”

Proposition B is added as 273.345, including it within the range given above. Therefore Proposition B’s funding is already mandated by law.

If existing funding is inadequate for Proposition B, it is inadequate for the existing regulations without Proposition B. Proposition B refines existing inspection criteria; it doesn’t add to the criteria. If anything, Proposition B should lessen the burden on inspectors as it sets an upper limit for breeding dogs, requiring less of the inspector’s time. In addition, we should see a decrease in bad breeders, who take up the majority of inspector time.

This week, Representative Kelly came out with another guest column, Unlicensed breeders at heart of Prop B problem, at the Missourian. Right off the bat, he’s framed the discussion so that the “real” problem is with unlicensed breeders.

Prop B, as passed by the voters, applies only to licensed breeders. Left unaddressed is how to finance the enforcement of licensing requirements. If unlicensed breeders are a major contributor to the conditions that motivated Prop B supporters, and Prop B opponents likewise see a problem with them, shouldn’t we then address the issue of unlicensed breeders?

He then goes on to detail a scheme for catching unlicensed breeders that doesn’t seem to take into account any of the existing laws regarding unlicensed breeders.

More importantly, by redefining the framework for Proposition B—that it’s only for licensed breeders, and the “real” problem is unlicensed breeders—he seems to dismiss Proposition B’s usefulness with all bad breeders, regardless of license. Yet there’s nothing, nothing at all, in Proposition B that states it is only for licensed breeders.

Representative Kelly talks of compromise, but I’ve not once seen him actively support one provision of Proposition B. Not once. I’ve not seen him write, “Well, the provision to ensure continuous access to fresh, clean water is reasonable”, or “dogs should be treated by a veterinarian when they’re sick or injured”, or even, “Heck, it’s -15 degree wind chill temperatures tonight: those dogs need a warm place to sleep”.

Instead, we hear about a “compromise” that consists of a repeal of Proposition B—but beribboned, and covered in sparkles and tinsel to make the act look prettier.

In the last several months, one thing I’ve said, again and again, is that if commercial dog breeders really want to undercut Proposition B, all they have to do is open their doors to us. All they need to do is invite the public in to verify what they have assured us: that the vast majority of licensed dog breeders in this state provide a wonderful environment for their dogs, and how Proposition B isn’t needed. We’re the show-me state; if the operations are that wonderful, show us.

Yet in all that time, a scant handful out of the 1400+ licensed breeders have invited the press to their establishments. A handful. Balance that with the thousands of pages of violations one can read at the USDA APHIS database: violations among current, licensed breeders.

We did not see openness from the breeders, and now we’re not seeing any openness among the state representatives who seek to revoke the people’s vote in order to preserve commercial dog breeding in its current state.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

A friend pointed out a new documentary, Madonna of the Mills. It’s about Laura Flynn Amato’s mission to save dogs from puppy mills.

The trailer demonstrates the problems associated with large scale commercial dog breeding. At one point in the movie, the camera shows a poor retriever, who turns and looks at the camera, and then turns away in an attitude of despair and dejection.

I noticed this same thing in a video made of a former Missouri blue ribbon kennel, just before the kennel closed down its business. In the video, you can see that the dogs have room in their cages, for the most part. And food and water and the place is clean. But the place is also large (over 500 dogs and puppies), and as the person holding the camera moves past the cages, many of the dogs look up and then away. All except for those who strain at the cages in a desperate attempt for attention.

Hopefully once the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act takes effect, the puppy millers who took up dog breeding to make a buck will get out of the business and the only people remaining are those who genuinely like working with dogs.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Tomorrow is going to be a nasty day, weather wise and in the state legislature.

Two bills are doing to be discussed in public meetings: hJR 3 and HB 100.

HJR 3 wants to put a bill on the ballot to vote on a Constitutional amendment to ensure that no other citizen initiative that’s related to animal breeding be allowed in the future.

HB 100 adds a new statue that reads:

262.005. 1. Agriculture which provides food, energy, and security is the foundation and stabilizing force of Missouri’s economy. To protect this vital sector of Missouri’s economy, it shall be the right of citizens to raise livestock in a humane manner without the state imposing an undue economic burden on livestock owners.

2. As used in this section, the following terms shall mean:

(1) “Generally accepted scientific principles”, agricultural standards and practices established by the University of Missouri, and the most current industry standards and practices;

(2) “Humane manner”, care of livestock regarding the livestock’s health and environment in compliance with generally accepted scientific principles;

(3) “Undue economic burden”, expenses incurred resulting from changes in agricultural practices deemed legal under current state or local laws or ordinances.

Actually, agriculture is Missouri’s 4th largest industry, not it’s primary industry.

What’s disingenuous about this bill is that a newly enacted law, such as Proposition B’s Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, could be discarded because enforcement of the law could be considered an “undue economic burden” on the dog breeders. Point of fact, it could be used to undermine any reform or regulation of the agricultural industry in this state.

No other type of business is offered this form of legislative sanctuary.

Between these and all the bills to overturn Proposition B, little is getting done in this legislative session. It’s as if the cities and towns that primarily foot the bill for this state, don’t even exist. It is the tyranny of the many by the few.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

FiredUpMissouri has links to two different political cartoons related to the recent Proposition B legislative activity. I thought I would provide a long description for these cartoons for my friends using screen readers.

The first cartoon is from RJ Matson for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. It features a dog, standing in a puddle and chained to a beat up dog house, with rain pouring down and lightning in the background. The dog is labeled “Puppy Mill Legislation”, and the dog house is labeled “The will of the voters”. The pole the dog is chained to has the word, “Repeal” on it. A bone lying on the ground by the dog has a label of “Prop B”. A sinister house is on a hill above the dog, labeled with “State Legislature”and in a bubble next to the house the words, “City Voters just don’t understand why we have to treat them like dogs out here.”

In the face of the dog, Matson has done an amazing job of capturing the look of hopelessness and despair of too many dogs in currently licensed commercial dog breeders. We’re heading into below zero temperatures this week, and I can’t stop thinking of the dogs that are forced to stay in outdoor kennels, 24×7, with no more than a little plastic igloo and maybe some straw or a blanket to keep them warm.

The second cartoon is from John Darkow in the Columbia Tribune and features a slick seeming politician in a shiny suit with the label “Missouri House”, tearing a ballot into pieces and telling an older, but savvy looking woman, “Sorry, lady…You didn’t know what you were doing when you voted for Prop B. We’ll do the thinking for ya! We’re sophisticates, you know!” The woman is labeled with “Voters”, as you would expect, and she has a leash in her hand, and a small dog at her side. On her other side, is a big doofus looking hayseed type of guy, with a suitcase and “Missouri House” print on its side. All the way to the right is a bold arrow with the word “Vote” above it.

Darkow did a good job mocking so many of the representative claims made this week that those of us who voted for Proposition B didn’t know what we were doing; that we in the urban settings can’t possibly know about dogs, as they live their lives at commercial breeders. After all, a dog at a breeder isn’t the same thing as a dog elsewhere. At least that’s what we’re told.

One of the commercial breeders, in fact one that keeps many of his dogs permanently in outdoor kennels (“They like it”, I remember him telling one reporter in an earlier interview), was quoted as saying, “Whoever wrote (Proposition B) has never raised an animal”.

Well, whoever is against Proposition B has never had a pet..