Some final thoughts on Missouri's Prop B

On Tuesday, Missourian's will vote on Proposition B -- a bill that will target Missouri's commercial breeding industry.

I've spoken a lot about the Proposition, and still think it's an ill-advised proposition that does nothing to solve the problem of lack of enforcement resources that have put us in the current mess we're in with abusive breeding operations.  I'll be voting against Prop B -- but not because I support abusive breeding operations. I just see way too many loopholes in this law that give the potential to a) make the lack of enforcement issue even worse and b) to cause a lot of dogs to die in our shelters in the aftermath.

Earlier this week, I wrote a blog posting about people who are deliberately uninformed.  I don't want you to be that person on election day, so I'm going to provide a few links that I think everyone should read before they go to the polls.  And please don't take this as me saying that everyone who is voting for Prop B is deliberately uniformed. I think that it is possible to read all of the information, look at the good and the bad, and decide that the potential downside is worth a yes vote. It's not to me because I think we should really take the time to create a solution that actually solves the problem of too little enforcement and in a way that won't lead to the likely deaths of thousands of shelter dogs.

But I want everyone to be informed and make their own decisions. That's the best I can ask.

So with that, there are several things I think everyone should read before heading to the polls:

First of all, read the act itself. Note that regardless of what other "agreements" that someone says exist, nothing is guaranteed outside of what is written in the law.  The law makes no mention of crackdowns on unlicensed breeding operations, no mentions of increased enforcement, and no mentions of a safety net that will keep all of the animals "saved" from these breeding operations from being killed.

Next, I think everyone should be familiar with what the current law says.  Many things included in Prop B seem like "no brainers" -- and they are, which is why they exist in the current law, the Animal Care and Facilities Act.  That act is 22 pages long and much more thorough than Prop B.  And while it does make some significant changes to the Animal Care Facilities Act, not all of them are stricter guidelines for the animals.  The MVMA put together a nice comparison chart of Prop B compared to the Animal Care Facilities Act that I think every person should read. It notes that the food and water requirements have gone from needed twice per day, to once. And that Prop B applies to only facilites with 10 or more breeding dogs, while the ACFA applies to all facilities with 3 or more breeding dogs.

I also think everyone should read the most read the most recent state auditor's report on the State Department of Ag's enforcement of the Animal Care Facilities Act. It paints a very clear picture of the lack of enforcement that has gone on in the state for the past decade -- even noting that only 60% of the licensed breeders were even inspected in 2007 even though state law requires it.

I still think that increasing enforcement is the primary issue - so that we can shut down more unlicensed facilities (HSUS estimates that there are 3,000 'puppy mills' in the state even though there are only 1525 licensed breeders) and to close down those that are currently treating animals poorly. The founding of Operation Bark Alert has helped -- as in 2009 (the first year of Operation Bark Alert) they closed down 164 breeding facilities and rescued 3500 dogs.  In 2010, 180 commercial breeders have already closed down. More work is obviously needed -- but it appears as if enforcement resources is the issue, which unfortunately is never addressed in the current law.

Prop B continues to have strong support -- with a recent poll showing 69% of people are in favor of the law -- but I hope that people will read up a lot on the law before Tuesday's election so we can focus resources on solving the actual enforcement issues. 

********

If you have time for more reading, here are a few other resources that you should check out.

The Columbia Missourian Editorial: Prop B is not the right answer to the problem -- noting that our existing laws are better than what is written in Prop B.

The Devil is in the Details -- from St. Louis Today

Prop B or not Prop B -- a pretty balanced article from the Independence/Blue Springs Examiner

Springfield, MO News Leader Editorial - Prop B Well-Intentioned but not in the State's Best Interests

Kansas City Star - Ballot Issue breeds contempt between dog breeders and aninmal rights activists -- instead of the two sides working together for the benefit of all pets, the wedge has been further driven between the groups.

The Columbia Missourian - A comparison of current and proposed dog breeding laws

The Vote Yes on Prop B people note that the state can't enforce a law that prevents unlawful dumping of dead animals by 'puppy mills' in the state and think that supports why Prop B should be passed -- but instead, continues to highlight the state's complete inability to enforce the current legislation.

HSUS vs Puppy Mills - from Dog Kinetics

Pet Overpopulation, Puppy Mills and Lessons frm Prop B - Winograd

Thinking Out Loud About Prop B - Winograd

Also of interest -- here's a list of where all of the donations of more than $250 have come from to support Prop B. You notice a lot of out-of-state folks (who I wonder are really very familiar with the situation here) and a lot of money coming in from the ASPCA, HSUS, Best Friends and a lot of HSUS employees (Wayne Pacelle donated $2000 personally for this). There is also $100,000 that was donated by the wife of one of the founders of Google.  This list is as of October 18 -- a lot more has come in sense then. In total, about $4 million has come in to support the legislation, and it just makes me sad to think about how much good could have been done such a large sum of money if it had been used for free/low cost spay/nueters,  for more inspections officers or for more promotion of Operation Bark Alert (which is never mentioned by the vote yes folks in spite of its success).

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.