Burningbird

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

I wanted to send a thank you to State Senators and Representatives who tried to protect Proposition B:

Senate

Thank you to Senator Jolie Justus, not only for her spirited defense of Proposition B, and our vote, but also for attempting to add an amendment to send SB 113 to the people for a vote.

Thank you, also, to Senator Jane Cunningham, who asked a very relevant question during the Senate debate on SB 113: what about Proposition B was left unchanged? Senator Parsons could not answer this question.

A personal thank you to my own state senator, Senator Eric Schmitt—not only for supporting Proposition B, but also for kindly letting me know how the vote went as soon as it happened.

Thanks to the other State Senators who voted against SB 113 and for Proposition B and the voters of this state:

Senator Maria Chappelle-Nadal
Senator John T. Lamping
Senator Jim Lembke
Senator S. Kiki Curls
Senator Ryan McKenna
Senator Tom Dempsey
Senator Luann Ridgeway
Senator Timothy P. Green
Senator Robin Wright-Jones
Senator Joseph Keaveny
Senator Will Kraus

House of Representatives

I wanted to give special thanks to those who tried to add amendments to SB 113. They were treated with great disrespect by the SB 113 supporters, and were barely allowed to speak on the House floor. Both Representative Loehner and Representative Tilley displayed bias in their handing of SB 113, and several SB 113 supporters demonstrated lack of decorum.

Thank you to Representative Scott Sifton, who tried to add Amendment 1, returning the words “The animal’s enclosure shall be cleaned of waste of waste at least once a day”. Evidently, Representative Loehner felt this would be an undue burden on the breeders.

Thank you to Representative Jill Schupp, who tried to add Amendment 2. I couldn’t quite tell what this was, and it was declared out of bounds, so it wasn’t printed up in the House Journal. I’ll try to decipher what it was from the recording.

Thank you to Margo MacNeil, for attempting to add the space requirements back in with Amendment 3. Representative MacNeil also raised a spirited defense of the voters in her district, and in the state.

Many thanks to Representative Eileen McGeoghegan, who attempted to add Amendment 4, which would add back in the breeding cycle restriction. Loehner et al actually laughed her down when she was trying to explain her amendment. There was more than a hint of sexism with Loehner and his cronies in how they responded to the women representatives. I’ve noticed this with the debate on other bills, too.

A personal thank you to my own Representative, Jeanne Kirkton, not only for her vote and original support for Proposition B, but also for her help with trying to get information out of the Department of Agriculture’s antiquated and barricaded paper-and-box filing system.

Finally, my deep gratitude for the other Representatives who voted against SB 113:

Representative Sue Allen
Representative Ira Anders
Representative Bert Akins
Representative Cloria Brown
Representative Susan Carlson
Representative Chris Carter
Representative Pat Conway
Representative Gary L. Cross
Representative Rory Ellinger
Representative Sally Faith
Representative Gary Fuhr
Representative Don Gosen
Representative Marsha Haefner
Representative Ben Harris
Representative Jason Holsman
Representative Penny Hubbard
Representative Leonard Huges IV
Representative Jacob Hummel
Representative Timothy Jones
Representative Tishaura Jones
Representative Jason Kander
Representative Chris Kelly
Representative Andrew Koenig
Representative Michele Kratky
Representative Sara Lampke
Representative Brent Lasater
Representative Jeanie Lauer
Representative Mike Leara
Representative Nick Marshall
Representative Karla May
Representative Gail McCann Beatty
Representative Tom McDonald
Representative Eileen McGeoghegan
Representative Kevin McManus
Representative Cole McNary
Representative Margo McNeil
Representative Tim Meadows
Representative Chris Malendorp
Representative Genise Montecillo
Representative Myron Neth
Representative Stacey Newman
Representative Mary Nichols
Representative Jeanette Mott Oxford
Representative Sharon Pace
Representative Mark Parkinson
Representative Jean Peters-Baker
Representative Tommie Pierson
Representative John Rizzo
Representative Ronald Schieber
Representative Vicki Schneider
Representative Jill Schupp
Representative Scott Sifton
Representative Ryan Silvey
Representative Clem Smith
Representative Sheila Solon
Representative Churie Spreng
Representative Mary Still
Representative Rick Stream
Representative Jay Swearingen
Representative Mike Talboy
Representative Sylvester Taylor
Representative Rochelle Walton Gray
Representative Stephen Webber
Representative Anne Zerr
Representative Jake Zimmerman

Senate Journal Entry on day of SB 113 vote (pdf)

House Journal Entry on day of SB 113 vote (pdf)

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Interesting. The primary group against Proposition B, then and now, is MOFED: Missouri Federation of Pet Owners.

Evidently they violated Missouri Ethics laws regarding recording of campaign contributions. It does seem as if the group didn’t report expenditures in a timely manner. Normally, this is something I wouldn’t bring up except this violation touches on one of the major anti-Proposition B campaign arguments: that HSUS spent so much money and the other side spent hardly any at all.

Well, we now know the “other side” didn’t include the $350,000 paid by Forrest Lucas directly on advertising. And the “other side” seems to have missed additional money spent on the campaign against Proposition B.

Not necessarily a biggie, but if we have to do Proposition B all over again (via citizen referendum) because Governor Nixon signs SB 113, we need to be more wary of the “other side” and their haphazard campaign financial reporting, and their campaign contribution claims.

Missouri Ethics Commissions Consent Order

MOFED or an associated organization, filed an ethics complaint against Missourians for Protection for Dogs, the main Proposition B organization. This complaint was found to be unsubstantiated and unfounded, and was dismissed.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

In 101 Damnations: Missouri Lawmakers choose politics over puppies. Veto the bill., the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board does recommend that Governor Nixon veto SB 113, which I appreciate. But they also suggest that Nixon send the bill back to the lawmakers and the Prop B supporters to find a compromise to end this “childish fight”.

This “childish fight”, to repeat the phrase the P-D used, is a fight to ensure respect for the vote as much as it is to try to eliminate a known, extremely ugly problem in Missouri. If we, who support Proposition B, seem to balk at any discussion on “compromise”, it’s because most of the Proposition B folks have been working for this initiative for several years—only to have some representatives completely disregard it because, as was quoted in Fox News tonight, “We’re going to set the agenda to what we want to get accomplished.”

In addition, where do we compromise? The P-D editorial mentioned the 50 dog limit, so let’s look at that.

Our rescue infrastructure is groaning under the number of dogs rescued from dog breeders. When breeders, especially larger ones, no longer need dogs they either dump them at auction where they might go for a buck or two, or they just plain kill them. The only option to give these dogs a decent life is to rescue them, but every year, we’re drowned in a flood of misery covered in fur. We have too many damn dogs to take care of and having breeders with 200, 300, even up to a 1,000 dogs does nothing more than continually dump more and more dogs into services already overwhelmed.

(You know what’s ironic is that the shelters and rescues are charged the same one dollar license fee per dog rescued, as commercial breeders are charged for selling a puppy. This little jewel was tacked on the last time people tried to get better conditions for dogs passed in the Missouri legislature. So the organizations most impacted by the increased ceiling fee from SB 113 are the shelters and rescues.)

What about the dogs that are still useful? Does the editorial staff at the P-D really believe the dogs get exercised every day? Get a breath of fresh air if they’re housed in indoor kennels? Actually get looked at in a single day?

If the dogs in the larger commercial concerns are lucky, they have access to an automatic feeder and an automatic water dispenser that dispenses water when they lick a little metal ball. They may or may not have a small indoor kennel and a small outdoor kennel area with a door and flap between the two. Their bed will be on a solid surface, typically a piece of plastic or carpet, but the rest of the kennel is wire.

The breeders will shovel or hose out the feces and urine every day…if the dogs are lucky. If not, well, imagine the dogs’ strong sense of smell and the overwhelming odor of ammonia—thick enough to send inspectors running from the kennels.

The dogs are bored because they have nothing to do, so they’ll chew at the wires and boards of their cages, until their teeth deteriorate. The most common ailment for rescue dogs is rotten teeth. Many rescue dogs loose most or all of their teeth. I imagine the pain gets to be so bad that the dogs stop eating, which leaves them emaciated and prone to even more illness.

Speaking of which, if the dogs get ill, someone may or may not notice. If they’re hurt, because their paw falls through the wire and gets broken, or they get poked in the eye with a loose wire, or maybe another dog in the same enclosure snaps and attacks it, someone may or may not notice. If the place is substandard, as many licensed places are, the breeder may have some left over ointment from when he was a hog farmer that he’ll use. They always have ointment, and they always use ointment for any problem. Doesn’t matter what ointment is, and doesn’t matter for what problem.

What happens if the dog isn’t noticed?

In inspection reports, you can read about inspectors pointing out dead dogs among the living and the breeder hadn’t noticed because they had too many damn dogs.

So, if we’re reluctant to compromise on the number of dogs, where else should we compromise? On the space?

Right now dogs can be in wire cages only 6 inches longer than they are. If two or more are housed together in a space that is the sum of their individual cage sizes, they don’t even need to have a pretense of an exercise plan. Think of your kitchen cabinets and pick one in your mind that’s just bigger than your dog. Now think of your dog living in that kitchen cabinet their entire lives—does this sound reasonable?

Should we compromise on the outdoor exercise area? The problem with the “exercise plan” in SB 113 and existing laws is that the inspectors can’t verify that it is being followed. Seriously, how many people with hundreds of dogs are going to ensure they’re exercised daily? However, when dogs have access to an outdoor exercise area, they can get fresh air, a change of scene, a little room to move about. Think about it: dogs with a little fresh air, and room to move about a little—does this sound unreasonable?

Perhaps the compromise is in the requirement for an indoor kennel area for every dog. No more outdoor-only dogs, living in thin plastic “dogloos” with a bit of straw for warmth. I wonder if the P-D has read any of the inspection reports where the inspector has noted that the weather was below freezing, and dogs were huddled and shivering. They note the same thing the next winter, and they note the same thing the winter after that.

I try to imagine what it’s like for those dogs. They’re in wire enclosures with a dogloo or half plastic barrel and, hopefully, some straw bedding. The dogloo or barrel is supposed to have a flap to keep the rain and snow out, but many don’t. There might be a light at night, or not, and they lie there in the dark, and the cold. They’ll be in this cage, in this plastic container on the straw, huddled into as small a ball as they can to conserve heat. If the straw is sufficient, they might be able to sleep through the night. If the straw isn’t, they’ll sleep fitfully, restlessly, shivering almost continuously.

Image from Tenderheart kennel, owned by Hubert and Sharon Lavy, from Columbia Missourian.

I have a hard time compromising on access to a warm indoor sleeping area for the dogs.

Oh, I have no problem with changing the wording on the sex of the dog for the breeding cycle, to ensure that it applies to females only. I have no problems with removing the existing definition about pets and replacing it with one for dogs only. But we’re being asked to compromise on level of misery for dogs.

We’re being asked to pick which level of misery is OK.

There was a Humane Day at the state capital yesterday. I should have posted a note before the event, but I got caught up in the fooflah surrounding Governor Nixon’s “generosity”.

As noted in the news story, SB 113 not only guts Proposition B but also undermines existing enforcement. The bill uses tricky wording to make it seem as if it is improving enforcement, when what it is doing is adding additional layers of complexity.

I love the comment by Representative Loehner:

“I understand this is a very emotional issue on both sides,” Loehner said pointing to the lengthy hearings his Agriculture Committee had on House legislation and the Senate bill. He has six or seven dog breeders in his district some of whom were forced out of the hog business by slumping pork prices. “They are animal people; they know how to take care of them,” he said.

Yes, because there’s absolutely no difference between a hog raised for meat and a dog raised to produce puppies as pets. And these people call themselves experts in animals? If they failed at hog farming, that demonstrates they’ll do well as dog breeders?

So much for people who say they love dogs, but see them as nothing more than produce: minimize costs, maximize profits. This is the definition of a puppy mill.

(I also have recordings of Loehner and others as they argue on the House floor for Constitutional Amendment ballot items that basically seek to deny us the right to bring about initiatives such as Proposition B. More on these later.)

The rest of the story also highlights something we suspected: that urban representatives are trading away the vote of the people in their districts in order to get something they want from the rural representatives. This kind of political mechanization is inherently dishonest. Worse, most of the deal making is probably to support corporate interests, rather than the interests of the voters. Neither voters, nor dogs, really seem to matter to most of the elected officials in this state.

There is another story, though, that came out yesterday and that should give us some hope: the announcement of Voter Protection Alliance. This is an effort to put an initiative on the 2012 ballot that will add a Constitutional Amendment stating that citizen initiative bills can only be modified by a 3/4 vote of the General Assembly. No longer could a simple majority of representatives overturn the will of the people with ease, as Missouri representatives have done this legislative session. Perhaps, for once, the voice of the people can be heard over the dropping of coins into campaign coffers from big business.

I’ve already signed up to gather signatures. I hope others join me, because we have a long road to walk to ensure a decent life for animals—and voters—in Missouri.