Missouri's Prop B

Hey everyone, and especially my fellow Missourians… In my last blog post I promised a post dedicated to the discussion of Missouri’s Proposition B, an initiative to place restrictions and further regulations on the care of dogs in breeding facilities in Missouri. My state is a nationally acclaimed hot-spot for puppy mills (nothing to be proud of, really) and according to the US Department of Agriculture, Missouri contains 30% of the nation’s licensed dog breeders. I want to dedicate this blog to uncovering both sides of the argument over Yes or No on Prop B, explore some of the future ramifications of this law, and of course, provide my two cents.

The Initiative is rather long, so I’ll provide the link and a brief summary. http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp

This “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act” states, in general, “The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs in puppy mills by requiring large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with basic food and water, adequate shelter from the elements, necessary veterinary care, adequate space to turn around and stretch his or her limbs and regular exercise.” This act also limits the number of dogs that any breeder can have to 50 dogs, regardless of the quality of the facility.

At first I didn’t think much of this when I first heard about it; I love dogs.My family has never been without a dog, and our current dog was rescued from the streets of Saint Louis, and we love him dearly. I think puppy mills are about the sickest and most horrible beginning of life for any dog. When I heard the limit on 50 dogs to any breeder, though, it got me thinking of how this amendment will affect breeding operations in this state.

Let me also remind you that Missouri already has legislation regulating the treatment of dogs in breeding operations and other facilities in the state, passed in 1992 called the Animal Care Facility Act. This act regulates breeders, pet stores, and other facilities and sends out inspectors (there are a total of 12 throughout the state) to make sure operations are meeting state standards in the areas of “feed, water, veterinary care, shelter, building maintenance, socialization, identification, and record keeping requirements” http://mda.mo.gov/animals/ACFA/) Read more on the Animal Care Facility Act of 1992 here... http://extension.missouri.edu/publications/DisplayPub.aspx?P=G9902

It is common knowledge that the MO Department of Agriculture does not have enough inspectors to meet the needs of the state. According to a News-Leader article, “Two audits, in 2004 and 2008, found inspectors weren’t reaching all the animal care facilities they were required to inspect.” They estimate they would need to hire about seven more inspectors to keep up with the demands of the state. There is no doubt that the employee resources of the US Dept. of Agriculture in Missouri are limited.

Now that I’ve given a little background info, I’ll get down to my thoughts. First of all, this act is more government intervention. These are regulations put on top of already in place regulations that are not being enforced. In addition, it attempts to stifle the growth of businesses that may be extremely competent in the care of their animals.

The Animal Care Facility Act is already in place with state standards to the care of animals for retail. This proposed Puppy Mill initiative is estimated to cost, within the first year alone, $654, 768 and each year after that, $521, 356. I’m not good with numbers, but it seems to me that several more state inspectors could easily be hired and paid a decent salary to enforce the CURRENT legislation.

I just don’t understand…why more interference in private life? Yes, puppy mills are horrible, horrible operations, but with the Animal Care Facility Act even more strictly enforced, I feel this would crack down on irresponsible breeders while not stifling business for the responsible ones. Also, why punish operations that sincerely care for the well-being of their animals but seek to expand business by limiting the number of dogs to 50? And further, what’s the next stage of this campaign for regulations on the handling of animals? I have to wonder, being as greatly involved with horses and the horse world as I am, what division of agriculture will be the next to be affected by regulations and limits such as these.

It is pertinent, also, to know where the funds for the campaign in favor of Prop B are coming from. So far, nearly $3 million has been raised to support this campaign. Out of 250 donors, merely one tenth of the funds have come from donors WITHIN THE STATE OF MISSOURI. The United States Human Society, based in Maryland, has contributed $1 million. I have a problem with so many out of state donors; it makes me question the reality of this act being in the STATE’S best interests, or in the best interests of the agendas of special interest groups.

There are irresponsible and sick people out to make a quick dime EVERYWHERE. And it’s disgusting that these people take advantage of animals the way they do in the form of puppy mills. But not EVERY dog breeder is running an overcrowded, cruel puppy mill. Just as with every other facet of life, there are responsible people out there who really care about what they do and the lives and well being of their animals. However, I feel it is the responsible who will be punished should this act pass. I know this post will earn me the title of “animal-hater!” but...believe what you want; I don’t think an animal hater owns three horses, a dog and two cats and thoroughly enjoys their company. :) Anyway...Before you vote “yes” on Missouri's Prop B… think of future ramifications of this act and if it’s intentions are REALLY what they appear to be.

Two informative articles from Springfield, Missouri's News-Leader....
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20101017/OPINIONS01/10170319/Proposition-B-well-intentioned-but-not-in-state-s-best-interests
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=201010240384


Tomorrow is the day, people! I hope ALL of you will get out there and VOTE! I'll leave you with a great quote by General Douglas MacArthur...

"No Man is entitled to the blessings of freedom unless he be vigilant in its preservation."