Missouri House approves HB 131 - what happens next? #MoPropB

Yesterday, the Missouri House of Representatives passed HB 131 85-71.  There were several attempts to add amendments to HB 131, however, all failed, which isn't terribly surprising, as HB 131 mirrored SB 113 -- so any changes would have had to go back to the Senate for revisions.

Now the bill goes to Gov. Jay Nixon's office for signature -- and he is expected to sign it.  These bills make changes to Missouri's Prop B, which passed in November by a vote of 52% to 48%.

There are a few positives from the changes in HB 131/SB 113.

-- The bill raises the limit to the cost of licensing a breeding operation -- which will help provide funding for enforcing the laws (this is a specific recommendation made by both the state auditor and the Better Business Bureau).

-- The bill gives the attorney general power to close down frequent violators of current laws - so it is no longer necessary for local law enforcement to shut down these operations where the good ol' boy's network often caused county leaders to turn the other cheek like "that's just Billy Bob, that's how he's always done things."  This is also a specific recommendation from the state auditor and the BBB.

-- Has a set funding mechanism for Operation Bark Alert -- which has led to 364 unlicensed facilities being closed down and more than 4300 dogs rescued in just 2 years.

-- In addition, raised awareness and concern about the problems in Jefferson city has led the Senate Budget committee to add $1.1 million to the Department of Agriculture that would be dedicated to hiring 10 more staff and operating expenses for better enforcement of current regulations on the dog breeding industry. The Senate has said that they intend to tie this increased funding to the Gov. Nixon's signature on the changes to Missouri's Prop B.  Increased enforcement was also among the recommendations by the state auditor and the BBB.

The changes, and increased funding, all will have a positive impact on the welfare of breeding dogs in the state. These changes were badly needed, and I'm thrilled to see them going through.

There are many other elements of Prop B that were removed -- some for the better, some for reasons that don't make sense.

- Gone are provisions that limit the number of breeding dogs to no more than 50 -- a clause that I have long contended was very problematic for a host of reasons and the primary reason I didn't support the law.

-- Gone are a couple of provisions that mandated punishment for failed compliance -- which word from people that are very close to this would have been VERY problematic on a number of fronts.

-- Gone also are provisions for "unfettered outside access" -- which wasn't great, and mandatory rest between breeding cycles (which is debated among the veterinary community).

-- Also gone are laws requiring "fresh water" and larger kennel sizes - -which are a shame to have lost - and the water element seems petty that it would have been removed as it is implied in the current law, but more clearly written in Prop B. 

Supporters of Prop B are upset with the decisions. Many of these organizations have been spending the past four months declaring it unfair to change the "will of the voters" instead of actually acknowledging some of the problems with Prop B and working on positive changes (some were made, but some other good things were lost). 

The response from HSUS (who has been primarily bankrolling the $6 million+ campaign for Prop B) is probably even worse than I would have expected. HSUS has apparently created/joined a coalition that now seeks to pursue a Constitutional Amendment to the Missouri State Constitution that would make it harder for the state legislature to overturn citizen initiatives requiring a 3/4 majority of both houses vs a simple majority there is now.  How much exactly can a 501c3 organization spend on lobbying in my state? 

Meanwhile, I think this is exactly the wrong approach to solving the problem.

HSUS seeks to create a Constitutional Amendment that will allow them more ability to push through initiatives without the support of the breeding community (and most likely, the rest of the agricultural community as well).

Meanwhile, in Minnesota, Mike Fry has a really great blog post about how in Minnesota the largest no kill animal shelter in the state, sat down with the Purebred Dog Breeder's Association and created a law that both sides agree upon. With both sides supporting the law, there is little opposition, and thus, and a likely passing of the law this year.

In my opinion, for too long the rescue community has been way too eager to cast anyone who breeds a dog as being a puppy miller. Meanwhile, the breeding community has been prone to casting all animal welfare advocates as animal rights nazis who want to end all pet ownership.

Meanwhile, most people I've met exist in the middle of those two extremes. And yet the polarization has created a stalemate in Jefferson City and the dogs have been left as the victims of the political stalemate.

And at this point, I don't think HSUS can lead the talks. The breeding community doesn't see HSUS as trustworthy and willing to compromise, and HSUS continues to reinforce this opinion by trying to bully their way through the state legislative system by spending millions of dollars their donars think is going for the care of animals. I think it's time for the animal welfare community to step up and meet the breeding community in the middle (and for those responsible breeders out there to reach out and do the same) -- and create something that is truly viable -- that all parties can agree on. It is not ok to say "we have a great law, we should do nothing".  It is also not ok to treat every breeder as if they are a money-grubbing, animal hater. 

It's time we move the ridiculous outliers  on both sides of this equation to the fringes and let those in the middle talk about honest changes to the laws that need to be made. I have no doubt that the current changes with SB 113 and HB 131 will help -- especially with the increased enforcement resources and better ability to shut down problem breeders. But there is little doubt we can do better -- but it will take collaboration to do so. 

Comments

[EmilyS]

is common sense allowed?
Very good post explaining the whole picture

[dogedog]

WOW !

I have been saying this for quite sometime that the breeders and the animal shelters need to unite.

Our shelter admirers responsible breeders. We have had dogs surrendered that were 10 years old and the original breeders have come and reclaimed them. We respect dogs bred for health and temperament. A shelter dog is one choice, but not the only choice, I of course suggest that someone looking for a pet start at the shelter first, but I am biased.

[kmk]

As one of my club members said, I am all in favor of that constitutional amendment requiring a 3/4 majority in both houses to overturn a ballot initiative - provided, of course, that it takes a 75% majority to pass it when it's on the ballot in the first place. :-)

I have NEVER seen such a bunch of sore losers. Why doesn't HSUS just head someplace where they're welcome? There are any number of states that welcome the snake oil they're selling and delight in micromanaging the populace. Oh yea - it's the states with NO MONEY that can't afford more regulation. How does that happen?

I am just giddy! HSUS did NOT have a good day yesterday. Missouri passed SB113 in the House, the governor of Nebraska told HSUS they were NOT welcome in his state, and their stupid breeder bill in Texas (HB1451 - similar to Prop B) was removed from the consent calendar - the consent calendar is where you normally see non-controversial bills like appropriating money to buy new toilet seats for the governor's mansion.

The cherry on top of this sundae was this:

(Columbus) – Federal Judge James S. Gwin has ruled in favor of sportsmen by denying a lawsuit aimed at closing hunting on dozens of units of the 100 million acre National Wildlife Refuge System.

This long running case began in 2003 when the Fund for Animals, which later merged with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), filed a lawsuit to stop hunting on 39 refuges. The U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation (USSAF), along with other organizations, intervened on behalf of sportsmen. Anti hunting groups later expanded the lawsuit to include more 50 refuges.

Judge Gwin’s ruling stops HSUS’ attempt at using the National Environmental Policy Act to close hunting on these refuges. In making the decision the judge noted that “Plaintiffs, however, are not entitled to an inviolate sanctuary for their preferred uses – Congress has determined that, to the extent possible, hunters, fishers, observers, photographers, and educators must share the refuges.”

[Brent]

I'd support a 2/3 vote to overturn a citizen's initiative. But I'm not sure you could get 3/4 of the legislature to agree that the earth is flat....

[Amused to death]

Of course, KMK left off he/she is one of those breeders effecfted by this law but that's a minor point.

[kmk]

Hey, Amused to death, your ignorance is showing. Please don't post things you can't prove. I have a very good attorney that can find your true identity.

I've never bred a litter of dogs, cats, or anything else in my life and that includes when I was a kid and we had (gasp!) INTACT dogs.

By the way, why are you here if you don't want to learn the truth about Prop B?

At the current time all of my dogs are altered so it would be fairly difficult for me to breed anything.

[kmk]

What I found particularly amusing about the entire Proposition B/SB113 thing was the legislators that were resting on "the will of the people" as an argument to not change Prop B. Many of them were the SAME legislators that voted to change 2008's Prop C, and Prop C passed by a margin of 75%, FAR in excess of Prop B's 51.4% margin. Luann Ridgeway (R-Smithville), said she had to respect "The Will of the People" on Prop B but lead the charge to change Prop C. I like Luann a lot, but can we say "hypocrite"?

Anyone remember Prop C? Anyone...anyone? Buehler? Buehler? Hey, all your ARs out there, did you vote for THAT turkey (Prop C)? My husband and I were certainly in the 25% on that vote. Where was the outrage about Prop C? Why didn't the legislators care about the "Will of the People" on Prop C, particularly since there was a considerably larger percentage of "will" at stake?

At least one Rep was called on the carpet by SB113 sponsor Tom Loehner (R-Koeltztown) during the floor debate the other day. We listened to the live streaming on our computers. It's difficult to tell who is addressing the chamber because no one is identified by name - that's a solid rule at the Capitol. So, unless you recognize a voice, or you're sitting there with a House or Senate roster and can figure out who's speaking based on the county, it's a mystery, but I believe it was a female Rep from either St. Charles or West County (St. Louis).

When she touted "The Will of the People" he immediately smacked her down and pointed out she had voted to change Prop C. I cracked up.

Anyone remember Prop C? Any of you one-issue animal rights activists remember Prop C? It's only been two and a half years ago.

Didn't think so. ;-)

[kmk]

This is for dogedog - to some extent the breeders and shelters have united in the Kansas City metro area. My own breed club recently held a fund-raiser for the local breed rescue. I know a lot of purebred dog folks that also do rescue and serve on the board of local shelters.

The purebred dog owners are finally on board with the commercial industry and reasonable regulation, the truth about "pet overpopulation", no-kill, and a host of other animal related topics.

Unfortunately much of the rescue and shelter community is living in the past, refuses to look at the current situation about the commercial industry and pet populations, and was in favor of Prop B. Not only that but I'm increasingly getting the idea that the shelter/rescue community in our area is on a power trip and I question the motive of their actions. I'm beginning to think it's more about a power trip than what's best for the animals.

then there are the shelters that are in this for the money! That's a whole 'nuther story. For those fanciers that breed and show their dogs, this is merely a hobby. their motives are more pure than the shelters that are raking in the bucks!

I went to a funeral visitation the other night and there were envelopes for two charities - the American Lung Association and the Humane Society of Greater Kansas City. The attendant immediately recognized me and handed me a HSGKC envelope. I replied, "I'll take the lung association envelope, thank you". She asked if I'd given enough to the HSGKC and I told her no, and I wasn't giving them a dime! She asked me why and I told her we didn't have enough time to discuss my reasons.

The HSGKC has been a perpetual example of being part of the problem, not part of the solution. they are sucking up enough community resources and they don't need my money!

[kmk]

Brent, at your suggestion I went to Mike Fry's blog to read about creating a law that both breeders and shelter people agreed upon.

And here was the heading....

"Why Animal Welfare Advocates Need to Work With Breeders to Pass Puppy Mill Legislation"

I didn't bother reading any further after I saw the words "puppy mill".

[Arrowhead]

"In my opinion, for too long the rescue community has been way too eager to cast anyone who breeds a dog as being a puppy miller. Meanwhile, the breeding community has been prone to casting all animal welfare advocates as animal rights nazis who want to end all pet ownership."

hah! always the optimist, i see. i dunno, though... it might be a better idea if the warring factions WITHIN both the rescue and breeding community learned to coexist and work together first before reaching out to the "other side."

though you are right that most people are somewhere in the middle (some of the best rescue people i've known are also breeders, in fact. it's possible to do both!) - it's just the noisy, extreme ones doing all the talking. don't they have day jobs?

[Brent]

KMK -- you should read Mike Fry's blog...and set petty stuff aside. It's really a solid blog.

Arrowhead, you may be right, but honestly, I think the two sides in the middle are way closer together than the fringes within each group.

And no -- they don't have day jobs. It seems that most of them live their lives through the animaals and as such, have lost any sense of perspective -- on both sides.

[Selma]

The HSUS should lose its charitable status, as it is a political lobby group, not an animal charity.

I'm glad this Bill passed and great post explaining a complex issue, Brent.

Missouri needed to do something, as it is known far and wide as a place where substandard dog breeding facilities flourish.

Hopefully this new law will help. And I say that as a dog fancier, not a 'rescue' person.

[MichelleD]

All the people who want to WIN more than actually help dogs are throwing a hissy fit. I hope the Gov does what is right and signs this amendment into law ASAP. The 1.1 mil is a Godsend but so many people believe H$U$ and A$PCA (and MAAL's) lies about the bill being "gutted" and prop b being so "enforcable". We probably could have gotten an even stronger law AND the money if anyone wanted to be rational about it. But no, they are willing to sacrifice 1.1 mil and 10 new inspectors and shutting down all the unlicensed kennels just to take a stab at shutting down breeding entirely.

[MichelleD]

" We probably could have gotten an even stronger law AND the money if anyone wanted to be rational about it. " - wow, look what happened when people quit listening to H$U$ and started being rational.