« Historic Hyde Park Homes Tour is Oct 2 | Main | The widening gap between urban and rural Missouri »

October 31, 2010

Comments

Mark Stuppy

I have been flip-flopping daily on my support of Prop B for many of the same reasons you bring up. On the one hand, I think it is a redundant piece of legislation. However, on the other, what does voting NO mean for the already limited budget the 13 inspectors have to work with? Seems to me that voting NO sends the message that we think things are fine the way they are now (which is not the message I want to send). If it all comes down to a lack of enforcement (ie, lack of money), wouldn't Prop B be a catalyst for a larger budget? Are there any other options available to get more funding for more inspectors?

Brent

Mark -- I don't discount your thought about what message a "no" vote sends...but I do think that it could easily be overcome if everyone that felt this way voted no, and then swiftly sent a note to their state representatives telling them that they voted no, but enforcement badly needs to be upped and to provide more support Operation Bark Alert and enforcement officers. I think ideally they would increase fines for unlicensed operations, increase licensing fees (which haven't been increased in 20 years) and make sure all of that money was mandated to be channeled back into enforcement.

I guess I don't see there being only two options in either voting yes or no -- I just see voting no as an opportunity to create the conversation for a 3rd option.

Slicey

Considering the small margin the vote passed by, it seems like it still sends a message of indifference.

Brent

I think the wide discepency in support between urban areas and rural areas speaks volumes here about the suspicion rural america has with the animal rights movement.

Cheri Church

You're missing a few key points! Not all state licensed kennels need to be USDA licensed; that accounts for those not inspected by USDA. USDA licensing is only required when commercial breeders sell puppies/dogs to brokers; if the commercial breeders sells to individuals, a USDA license is not required, but a STATE of Missouri license IS required. Prop. B. is a farce! The care items are already addressed in MO law and adhered to by the MO licensed dog kennels. The puppy mills are NOT licensed, are NOT inspected, and that's where the problem lies. Why not resolve the problem? This is yet another half-baked idea that will not solve any problem, it does however add to the problem of the STATE LICENSED commerical breeders, as it adds a few regulations such as limiting the number of breeding dogs. What next? Cattle? Hogs? Chickens? Horses? Where will it end? The REAL problem is the puppy mill breeders who ARE NOT licensed and ARE NOT inspected. State licensed kennels ARE inspected; USDA licensed kennels ARE inspected and do meet minimum requirements or are fined, shut down, etc. By imposing limits on state licensed dog breeders, who are already taking excellent care of their animals, NOTHING is done to resolve puppy mills. BRILLIANT state of Missouri voters, you accomplished nothing but in giving more control to the state to limit the number of animals a farm may have. The law reads DOMESTIC animals....think about it, not a good thing to hand that control over. WHO is going to feed America when we limit other domestic animals....cattle, pigs, chickens, turkeys...????

Sue

If those who urged a no vote actually DID care about the dogs' welfare, they could have done something about the appalling abuses in the state, reported for years now, and short-circuited Prop B before it became an issue. But not doing anything except complaining that someone else is trying to do something doesn't exactly demonstrate having the dogs' well-being at heart.

MichelleD

I voted No because I care - the ridiculous accusations that those of us that don't support bad policy hate puppies won't win you any debate awards. Enforcment of current laws (which were put in place with the help of the breeding community) is the job of the state. Heard of Operation Bark? The 4.5 million spent on passing this redundant law could have been put into this program and solved the ENTIRE problem. But "people who care" decided to pass another law that will be largely unenforced as it did NOTHING to address the lack of funding.

Chris J

I agree that the real problem stems from a long-term complete lack of enforcement of the current laws that has led us to get into this mess.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad