Burningbird

Barb Shelly has another excellent run down of what’s happening in Jefferson City this session, not only about Proposition B, but so many of our other votes. In Silly Lawmakers aren’t just in DC, she writes:

Only the all-knowing, all-powerful Missouri General Assembly can be counted on to do the right thing.

Thank heavens for legislative sessions. Besides warming a cold planet with five months’ worth of hot air, they provide a chance for lawmakers to undo the damage caused by the meddlesome federal government, hapless local governments and clueless voters.

Puppies aren’t the only thing being kicked in Jeff City this year. Add to this workers, unions, civil rights, as well as the young, and we’re really showing the world what a warm and caring place our state is—not to mention how much the people we elect respect our vote once they’re in office.

And Mike, the Mad Biologist over at the famous ScienceBlogs network, weighs in on the Senate vote on SB 113 with Missouri GOP Hates Puppies (And schoolchildren. And the elderly.) No, Really, They Do:

And why wouldn’t you want to keep puppies between 45 – 85 degrees? The Honorable Sen. Parsons explains:

“We don’t do that for our senior citizen facilities, we don’t do that for our schools, we don’t do that for the state Capitol,” Parson said.

That sound you just heard is my jaw hitting the floor. In Missouri, it’s legal to house the elderly or children in facilities that aren’t at least 45 degrees? Because that’s pretty damn cold. I realize the founders froze their asses off at Valley Forge, so who are we to complain about 45 degrees, but, seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you?

You don’t house puppies or people at 45 degrees. If it’s not illegal, make it illegal.

But then, Mike is a biologist, so what does he know about what organisms need to survive and thrive?

However, Senator Parson is inaccurate in his statement, as we do have regulations that govern nursing homes and senior centers in our state, as well as schools (and other government centers). So not all of us in Missouri are callous—just some who call themselves our representatives.

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Missourinet has a short story on the House plan to adopt SB 113 rather than pursue HB 131. Are the two bills similar? Yes, in that they both gut Proposition B, but no in the particulars of how they do it.

However, the faster the representatives can gut Proposition B, the happier the agribusiness interests will be.

Missourinet does have inaccuracies in its coverage of the story, though. One is that there are four inspections per year. There are not.

If the breeder is licensed by both the USDA and the Department of Agriculture, they may have two separate inspections, one from each. However, I have found both Dept. of Agriculture inspector names along with USDA inspector names on USDA inspection reports, which leads me to believe they are sharing some inspection responsibilities. The only way to verify this is to compare Dept. of Agriculture inspection records, side by side, with USDA inspection records. Unfortunately, the Dept. of Agriculture records are not easily accessible.

In addition, many Missouri breeders are not licensed by the USDA, which means they only have the one Department of Agriculture inspection.

Lastly, the two “veterinarian” site visits are not inspections. The vets are hired directly by the breeders. As we’ve seen at too many breeders, not all kennel veterinarians have the dogs welfare at heart. Point of fact, many of them seem to be more concerned about the breeders than the dogs.

This type of misinformation is common about Proposition B and SB 113. The misinformation is fostered by Senator Parson, and now Representative Cox seems to have taken on this rather dubious mantle in the House of Representatives.

update

SB 113 is listed as first read in the House, and will most likely be pursued in the House rather than HB 131. That’s so the move to override the voters of Missouri can happen that much more quickly.

After all–can’t take a chance that dogs in large scale commercial breeding operations in this state might actually have a good life. They might get uppity. Just like the workers in Missouri getting paid a decent wage—we might get uppity, too.

—

The next battle for the dogs, and our votes, is the debate over HB 131 in the House. I hope there might actually be more than one or two people actually standing up for the voters of this state in that debate. I would like to think that the Missouri legislature will rise above its slavish devotion to big business just once, and actually vote to support the people. Just once, in all of the votes against the people that have occurred this shameful session.

Then there’s the governor’s veto, but no idea what he’ll do. No idea at all.

I’m thinking about what I’ll do if Proposition B is repealed—and it is a repeal, don’t allow yourself to be fooled into thinking this is some form of “fix”.

One thing I plan on doing is the day after the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act would have gone into law, I’ll start to feature commercial LICENSED breeders who would have been shut down under Proposition B, but are allowed to continue. And with each story I publish on one of these breeders, I plan on listing the names of every Senator and House Representative who voted to gut Proposition B. And Governor Nixon if he does not veto any bill that overrides Proposition B.

I’m not going to allow the actions of our leadership be forgotten. I said the reps who go against the will of the people will “own” every bad breeder from this time forward, and I meant it. I will also find, and document, every bad breeder that’s allowed to operate under the weak, ineffectual laws just blessed by Mike Parson et al. No more dirty little secrets, no more hiding in shadows.

I’ll start right now, by listing Senators Rupp, Schaaf, Dixon, and Callahan, who betrayed the people of their districts and voted to gut Proposition B.