HSUS & Animal Welfare Groups set to make political money rain against Missouri Puppy Mills

  According to the organization Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, the "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act" will appear on the Missouri ballot in November.

The citizen initiative recieved more than enough signatures to make it on the ballot, however, ther was an existing lawsuit challenging the ballot language stating that the term "puppy mill" was a purposely derogetory term used to intentionally sway voters. The Secretary of State's office ruled in favor of the ballot initiative.

As the November election draws near, I expect opposition to this ordinance to spend quite a bit of money against it (the very strong agricultural community in the state has opposed this). This is problematic, as it will then also require the animal welfare/rights groups who support the bill to have to spend mightily to combat it. HSUS has already spent $450,000 on getting the ballot initiative onto the ballot -- so I expect them to throw a lot more money (probably to the tune of a couple of million dollars) to attempt to get the initiative passed.

I wouldn't normally wouldn't be opposed to spending money to stop the problem with puppy mills in the state if I thought it would solve the problem.

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that it will.

The Missouri Better Business Bureau, a statement by the Missouri Vet Medical Association, admittance by the USDA that they are failing at enforcement, and a 2008  Audit by the State Department of Agriculture have all indicated that it hasn't been Missouri's lack of laws that have caused our problems here -- but the complete failure by the state to enforce current legislation.

The ballot initiative doesn't address the problem with enforcement. It doesn't create a mode of financing more inspectors. It doesn't mandate that the inspectors do a better job of doing their jobs. It doesn't mandate that the state funds more inspectors out of their general fund. None of that.

It mostly mirrors the USDA guidelines that aren't currently being enforced and adds a couple of other stipulations that a) won't be affective and b) won't be enforced.

So instead of addressing the real problem, HSUS and some of the other animal welfare organizations plan to throw money at the problem -- money that animal advocates want to go to actually help animals -- and try to pass through new legislation that doesn't even address what everyone is saying the actual problem is -- enforcement.

If the bill somehow provided funding for more enforcement officers I would be inclined to support it, but in its current form, there seems to be no way it can succeed -- at a huge cost to animal advocates.

And yet, come election time, we'll get to watch the money rain....

Comments

[YesBiscuit!]

Meanwhile shelter pets and staff throughout the southern half of the US continue to operate without air conditioning under a heat advisory because they can't afford it. Just think how many shelters could be air conditioned - and quality of life improved - for $450,000. But yeah, let's pile more laws on top of the unenforced existing ones - that's a better way to spend donor money.

[Sanaug1205]

STOP PUPPY MILLS EVERYWHERE!

[Brent]

Sanaug,

Of course we need to put an end to people who are cruelly treating large quantities of pets -- but we need to be at least somewhat smart about this and if the problem is enforcement (which everyone unanimously agrees it is), not spend millions of dollars passing a law that will not solve the problem.

YB, I can't help but think how many USDA officers they could afford for $450,000 who could go in and do a 2 year crackdown on unlicensed operations (which is estimated at around 1500 unlicensed operations in Missouri). Close them all down with the payment for officers and you're set.

This is going to end up costing a couple of million dollars and we'll be no better off than when we started.

[Charlies]

I will be voting for the Prop. B, in spite of the agreed upon point of lack of enforcement. There is value in getting this issue marketed in front of residents. Missouri is number one in the sheer number of mills! I view the initiative, and the money that will be spent as humane education to the largest audience. Perhaps by doing nothing more than focusing attention, doors to additional help will be opened (enforcement, etc.)

[Brent]

Charlies -- I do have some reservations about the bill itself. The 50 breeding dog limit has a major loophole that would allow two partners in a business to have up to 100 breeding dogs if they just split the business licenses -- and citizens initiatives are VERY hard to change once they become laws -- so it's something to think about.

The rest of the law is virtually the same as the Animal Welfare Act regulations -- so they really don't change anything. It's just a shame that so much money is going to be spent by animal welfare advocacy groups to pass something that won't solve the problem when the money could have been used to actually make a positive impact.

[MichelleD]

"50 breeding dog limit has a major loophole" - no, its not a loop hole its a BS provision that does nothing to ensure proper care of the animals. Its just as arbitrary and useless as pet limits imposed on regular citizens. I won't be surprised when Animals Rights wingnuts will try to get this 50 animal limit imposed on shelters as well. Its already happened in other states that "puppy mill" provisions get expanded to the general public.

The animal welfare community is just continuing its proven track record of pushing for useless laws that don't address the problem and will only effect the people that are ALREADY abiding by current laws.

But the best part for commercial breeders at least is now it will always be legal to commercially breed in the state of MO. This law will only be able to be changed or altered by another citizen's petition. And with H$U$ days numbered they probably won't be around to fund the next round.

All this money spent on "education" could have been spent on shutting down ALREADY ILLEGAL operations in the state.

[kmk]

I had a rather interesting conversation with a rescuer from the Springfield area in southern Missouri. I asked her how the ballot initiative differed from the ACFA law already on the books, and of course she had no idea but then I'm sure neither did 99% of the people that signed the petition, so I tried not to hold that against her.

She accused me of doing nothing for dogs that need homes. Not so. I told her while she's busy trying to clean up the mess that's the result of almost NO low cost speutering and municipal support in her area (NOT puppy mills!), I spend my time trying to prevent pets that actually have a home from being confiscated and killed due to stupid municipal policy, among other things. She's busy mopping the floor due to the leaky faucet while I'd like repair the leaky faucet permanently with good municipal laws, no-kill policies, and low cost spuetering. Commerical breeders are not a blip on my radar. Sorry.

The 450K wasn't the only donation. DDAL also donated 30K and they are now part of the HSUS. I suggested to the rescuer it would have been better for the HSUS to donate 480K to rescues, shelters, and vet clinics to provide low cost speutering in the southwest Missouri area than to worry about dogs that already have care, homes, air conditioning, and regulation.

As far as the HSUS donating the money for enforcement, nope, don't think so. We can't have NGOs dictating government policy. That's dangerous.

The rescuer to whom I spoke cited several "puppy mill busts" but not one of them was a legal, licensed, inspected kennel. Licensed commercial breeders are more heavily regulated and inspected than day cares in Missouri. It's also easier to get a day care license. Many people find it difficult to believe there was a time when breeding dogs was not considered criminal activity but leaving your infant with a total stranger was kind of frowned upon.

We don't need more regulation. "It's the enforcement, stupid".