My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Tragic death of an infant near Jacksonville, FL | Main | Two more great resources on Prop B »

October 28, 2010

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451f90869e201348888b5d4970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some final thoughts on Missouri's Prop B:

Comments

PetDocsOnCall09

FANTASTIC synopsis! Thanks for all of the links and I hope people will take the time to educate themselves before going to the polls.

Shared at PetDocsOnCall.com: http://forums.petdocsoncall.com/entry.php?121-Proposition-B-Looms-in-Missouri

gale

Wonderful blog. Thank you for pulling all the pieces together and stating the facts without emotion or calling folks names. I am a rescue person against Prop B, uncomfortable with the author of the bill and their true purpose, and want to see our Dept of Ag funded so they can do their jobs.

MichelleD

Voting NO. I will not have the blood of these dogs (more likely the dogs in the shelters "cleared out" to make room for the "highly desirable", profitable puppy mill dogs) on my hands when we could enact an actual SOLUTION to this problem.

4 million could hire 16 inspectors for 5 years to work soley on the currently successful Operation Bark program. With current resources they shut down around 300 operations in less than two years. Holy crap can you imagine what that 4 million could have done! I'm literally sick to my stomach over this...

YesBiscuit!

ugh - scrolling through that list of donors is sickening when you think of the real GOOD all that money might have done had it been applied to ACTUALLY HELPING DOGS IN NEED.

Rick

I don't live in MO, but agree with what I've read on the subject. It appears that, once again, our government is throwing another bill at a problem when legislature already exists that can't be enforced due to lack of funding. Kudo's to you for pointing out the facts!

kmk

As usual, very good job, Brent. Many stars in your crown for this comprehensive post to your blog.

kmk

I just read Rick's comment - Rick, this is not a bill, it's a ballot initiative. Missouri's legislature isn't behind this. Animal Rights activists are behind this ballot initiative.

When Missouri's Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA) was passed in 1992 the ARAs saw it as a "good start" and have tried to chip away at the law for 18 years with no luck. That's why HSUS came in with their big old suitcase full of money and they're using the initiative petition route, as allowed by our constitution, to take the vote directly to the people, complete with misleading, horrible TV commercials.

HSUS financed petition carriers to come in and collect signatures. Just for the record there was a lawsuit filed against Robyn Carnahan, Missouri's Secretary of State who approved the language on the petitions, challenging the initiative petition. There were seven specific points in the lawsuit challenging the ballot initiative, one of which was the title, "The Puppy Mill Protection Act". The term "puppy mill" is not statutory language and is nowhere to be found in the state's ACFA law. The lawsuit also challenged the fiscal note - it's funny how the ARAs always contend additional enforcement won't cost anything.

We only needed the judge to rule in our favor on one of the seven points. The judge ruled against us on all seven points and the ballot initiative was allowed to go forward.

This is actually good to know, as I find those attorney ads on TV highly irritating. I figure there's nothing stopping me from initiating an initiative petition called, "The Ambulance Chasers Media Advertising Regulation Act". :-)

David

Neuter the breeders. And then throw them off a bridge. And then run them over. Just to be sure. That is about how much compassion they have for the dogs they "employ".

kmk

David, I think you're in the wrong company here. We also have compassion for people.

Crystal

I will be voting NO...use the laws we have now! If the HSUS really wanted to some good then they should have tried to get the laws enforced or made harsher punishments for the "puppy mill" breeders. Not all breeders are bad! Some care very much for their pets and they are part of their family.

kmk

Crystal, I agree, but keep in mind many of the "puppy mills" they show on the news aren't breeders, but "hoarders" or "collectors". That's truly a mental condition and they need help, not punishment. In their minds they believe they are helping or saving the animals.

I"m not quite sure how unlicensed kennels would sell their puppies since the chain of custody is pretty regulated. I'm sure there's a way to do it - I'm just not smart enough to figure it out.

Mcrhymer

Thanks for the info. It was very helpful.

Becky

I am actually thankful that I live in KS and do not have to (nor permitted to!) vote on this prop. Because of this, I have done some of my homework and have read many different views, however, have not researched as much as I would have, had I been able to vote on this legislation.

I already understand that there is plenty of legislation regulating and closing down 'puppy mills' -- and that this has never properly been enforced.

I also understand that there are no provisions in this legislation to protect the lives and well being of animals over the limit, as well as animals seized from puppy mills.

In my limited research, I have read Winograd's thoughts on this proposition and he has stated that he would (unfortunately and relunctantly) have to vote 'Yes'.

I am a huge Winograd fan and try to follow his views on all our animal issues. ie; I trust that he knows more than I about these issues.

However, it is, for me, the same with you,Brent and Michelle, I am positive that you both have read more from Winograd as I have.

Brent, you linked to two pieces by Winograd that I have read. I understand his need to vote FOR animals in every case. Howver, given the fact that we have no provisions (in this prop) for properly caring for the animals mixed up in this Prop, I thus do not understand Winograd's support.

Do you believe Winograd's musings on this Prop are well thought thru? I think I recall that he mentioned the fact that there are no provisions for dogs (& cats) who are confiscated.

Sheesh, I am in KS and I am confused! And I will point out that this is a popular and winning vote because of peoples' love and respect for animals. It is just that simple to them.

Brent

Becky,

Here's my take on Prop B. It has become really easy and popular for out-of-staters to see the language of Prop B and think it to be a no-brainer.

But I think once you dive into the real issues here (ie complete lack of enforcement) and study the current law, it becomes a little less clear on what to do. I would suspect (and I don't know this for sure) that Winograd's initial support for the ordinance came before he had read all of the background and his opinion seemed to soften a bit later on.

I think it's easy to get caught up in the "it's either yes or no" answer on this -- but I see a whole lot of opportunity in between that can be attained with a no vote...but a lot of problems with a yes vote. That said, it can be very difficult for someone in animal welfare to side with the breeding community. I just don't think this is an all or nothing vote (unless it passes).

kmk

Becky, Kansas has about 350 USDA licensed breeders. They are also licensed and regulated by the Kansas Animal Health Department, http://www.kansas.gov/kahd/. I've had the occasion to speak to Debra Duncan with KAHD a couple of times and she's always been very pleasant and helpful. I've called a couple of times on behalf of show breeders, because the Kansas law isn't as clear cut as Missouri's when it comes to hobby vs. commercial breeders and licensing. Either that or I'm dense (don't comment!)

Kansas passed their state law regulating commercial breeders at about the same time Missouri did (about 1992 or so). But, Kansas' day is coming. I can't believe the ARs have totally ignored Kansas, where the majority of the residents appear to be asleep at the wheel. It will be like Hitler walking into The Sudetenland!

We don't have "complete lack of enforcement" in Missouri. It's easier to get a day care license than a kennel license in Missouri. I've had to call my state inspector a couple of times and, lo and behold, he responded. One time it was because a couple that bred "show dogs" had their dogs confiscated, and he was a lot of help getting the dogs back.

Besides, the Little Missy Brain Trust behind Prop B said the new law will apply to both licensed and unlicensed breeders (think about it!) so that should solve all of our enforcement problems.

Enforcement could be better, I'm sure, but the folks that investigate child abuse, nursing home abuse, and elder abuse probably feel the same way. Right now most state budgets are pinched.

Re: the language on the ballot - it was approved by Robyn Carnahan, our Secretary of State. A lot of people in the Ag community know her and grew up with her. They have close ties with her family and feel betrayed by her aligning herself with the animal rights movement in a state where agriculture is so important. I think it's our number one industry, followed by tourism.

It's fine to love animals, but Prop B is about destroying people, not helping animals. And that's certainly not good!

MichelleD

What's funny Kim, is the biggest "animal lovers" are the ones that refuse to even entertain the idea there are problems with Prop B. And they often support the 50 pet limit the most and rail most often against breeding - as opposed to the "alleged" abuses dogs suffer. And I say alleged not because I don't believe abuse exists, but these people think BY DEFINITION breeding is equal to abuse. So its not really about stopping abuse, its about stopping breeding. And if dogs suffer in the meantime that suffering will be worth precluding the "abuse" of breeding.

kmk

Yes, it's about stopping breeding. We all knew that. Several of the commercial breeders debated some of the Prop B supporters and every debate ended in a one way screaming match with the Prop B supporter screeching, "You're just a BREEDER! What do you know? You profit off of your dogs". Hmmm....No mention of "abuse" or unsatisfactory living conditions? Or less than perfect enforcement?

The first rule of debate is, of course, never ask a question unless you already know the answer. My personal second rule is don't attempt to defend an indefensible position with emotional rhetoric. That's when the screeching meltdowns enter the picture - including my favorite rebuttal, "Well you're just STUPID", which kind of applies in these cases, LOL.

My husband went into a local pet supply store prior to the election and a rescue group was there. All the dogs were wearing "Vote Yes on Prop B" bandanas. He tends to be more diplomatic than me and made an effort to talk calmly with The Big Missy in Charge (a woman about 50-ish)about some of the problems with Prop B and the money spent on the campaign by the ARs and wealthy people. He asked her if it bothered her that the HSUS, ASPCA, etc. didn't give the money directly to rescues and shelters, where it could really do some good. Nope. Didn't bother her at all. She said she didn't care. He was relaying the message to me on his cell phone and I could hear her laughing in the background.

So, there you go. It's not about helping animals. When I looked at that list of donations I practically wanted to cry, and I'm not the crying type.

Lotta Chien


One of the problems with this law is that it is going to shut down the inspected kennels without doing a thing about the illegal breeding kennels where the outrageous conditions may exist (I say may as without inspections who knows?).
There were no allocations of funding for more inspectors, so no more inspections will be done. So no improvements will be seen there.
The next thing this law will do is condemn the majority of the dogs in the legal and inspected kennels to be sold to another location.
There is no way these kennel owners can afford to give their investments to humane societies or rescues and I doubt they have any kind feelings towards either of those groups that banded with others to eliminate their livelihood simply because they followed the laws! Giving the dogs to such a ‘rescue’ group to sell for their profits really isn’t going to be high on the list of choices for a business person who is seeing their life and livelihood destroyed all because they chose to follow the rules and obeyed the laws instead of operating illegally.
So where will all these 'extra' dogs go? Illegal kennels? off to the auctions? out of state to other areas? I really feel the dogs are going to end up in far worse situations because of this law being passed.
The demand to ‘rest dogs’ between litters may increase the discard rate of breeding dogs or may kill them if they are kept, as not breeding intact females leads to serious health issues in many cases.
They dropped the care requirements for the dogs. How is that helping any of these animals?
The demand for dogs is not going to go away. The illegal kennels can provide them, as can other breeders out of state. I think this law is going to make the entire situation worse by putting out of business the very people who were the most responsible in running their breeding kennels.
Too bad the outside groups that funded the campaign for this law to the tune of millions of dollars didn’t instead use that money to fund more inspections, provide free spay neuter for pets, and to aid in the enforcement of the laws that were on the books.

chiflatAlgommaSleeno

actually

might

expensively

their

The partnership recently awarded nearly one hundred seventy million dollars in grants to seven countries. These were the first grants since the organization changed its name a few months ago from the Fast Track Initiative. Fast Track was founded in two thousand two.

Charles Tapp is an adviser to the partnership.

CHARLES TAPP: "There had been a lot of evolution of the old Fast Track Initiative, which was essentially something of a donors club, I think. And what was clear from our perspective [was] that we were not just a funding entity. This was indeed a partnership."

The partnership includes almost fifty developing countries, as well as donors, civil society groups and teacher organizations. It also includes private companies, international development banks and United Nations agencies.

The latest grants were awarded to Afghanistan, Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau, Mali, Moldova, Mongolia and Timor-Leste. Mr. Tapp says the grant to Afghanistan is worth almost fifty-six million dollars.

CHARLES TAPP: "[The] Afghanistan government has made a very strong commitment of allocating as much of its own resources as it can for education. Historically, Afghanistan has had some very, very well-educated people. [They] tend to come from sort of the urban centers. But obviously given the recent troubles and problems in Afghanistan over the last twenty years or so, the quality of education has plummeted."

Mr. Tapp says Ivory Coast received forty-one million dollars to help in its recovery from recent political violence.

CHARLES TAPP: "One of the key areas that we're actually providing support for under this program is actually looking to build and also repair classrooms, provision of textbooks. And another thing that we're looking at has been working with the government to try and get school feeding programs in place. You get a number of areas of Cote d'Ivoire with very, very poor nutritional standards."

More countries are now looking for help from the partnership.

CHARLES TAPP: "Unfortunately, given the current global financial climate and the fact that there are still sixty-seven million kids out of school around the world, demand for our financing seems to be increasing rather than decreasing."

But many donor countries are reducing their spending. So Mr. Tapp says the global partnership must show them that their money is being well-spent.

CHARLES TAPP: "I think the fundamental thing that is important to do is actually to be able to show people who are providing financing that their funds are achieving success. And it's very clear that in the Global Partnership partner countries that you're seeing more kids getting to school for longer and for a better education. "

And as education improves, he says, so does the health of a country.

The Global Partnership for Education plans to make more grants in twenty-twelve -- first in May or June and then in November.

And that's the VOA Special English Education Report. We have captioned videos of our reports and other programs at the VOA Learning English channel on YouTube. I'm June Simms.


skin

xkuhdcsa

kqzfyjoy

liaercyr

mike keller

Prop B .. why to vote NO ...
simply put in layman terms -- the state gives schools 4 quarters for their budget. If Prop B passes it give schools another quarter.. so that means schools get 5 quarters and that's a good thing right? ... NOT SO FAST ... the state says .. hey now we can cut school funding by 1 quarter...
That leaves schools with 4 quarters or what they had in the first place .. then if prop B revenues decrease for any reason school funding decreases as well...
That's what happened with the casino tax a few years back .. everyone thought that was great so the state cut school funding and then the recession cut casino revenue and schools took a big hit,,,, Don't fall for this again.

Brent

Mike -- wrong Prop B. This was written in response to Prop B in 2011, not the one in 2012.

The comments to this entry are closed.