Two more great resources on Prop B

The Mike Ferguson Show on KSSZ Radio in Columbia, MO has had some great interviews discussing both sides of the issue on Prop B. He's posted most of the clips from his radio show on his personal website and the clips are worth the listen.  He has clips from Yes on Prop B spokesperson and animal rights activist Bob Barker (I still scratch my head as to why all of the Yes on Prop B experts are out-of-staters) .  U.S. Senator Kit Bond and Veternarian Dr. Alan Wessler were on the show speaking in opposition.

I think Mike does a great job on the interviews of providing a balanced and informed perspective on the issues as they relate to Prop B and I do think listening to the radio clips is well worth the time.

Here is the link to the radio program.  Links to the entirety of both the interview with Bob Barker and Dr. Wessler can be found at the bottom of the link.

Meanwhile, our friends at Paw Prints Radio had both sides of the issue on their radio program on earlier today -- so listen, enjoy, and decide who's side you're on.  The Prop B section starts at the 36 minute mark of the radiocast.  It's essentially just Stacy and Dale talking about all of the issues regarding Prop B and do a pretty solid job of covering the issue.

Comments

[kmk]

Brent - if you want to know why all the "experts" in favor of Prop B are from out of state, listen to this debate on KMOX out of St. Louis between Barbara Schmitz, Missouri's HSUS State Director, and Jim Foster DVM, a veterinarian from Shelbina. It's a refreshing change to hear a host/moderator that forces one of these emotionally driven animal rights activists to stay on-topic, and listen closely when she effortlessly dismisses her totally inaccurate statements. Facts are not important to these people.

After this train wreck the Vote Yes on Prop B camp started bringing in the "Big Guns" from out of state, including Wayne Pacelle himself, for interviews.

Once you click on the link scroll down to the link for The Mark Reardon Show on 10/25/10 for the link to the audio on the debate:

http://kmox.cbslocal.com/shows/mark-reardon/

There's also information here and links to the radio debate/interview on Humane Watch.org

http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/barbara-schmitz-has-foot-in-mouth-disease/

By the way, are you familiar with my husband's definition of an out-of-town expert? Not sure if this is his original idea, but..."The out of town expert is like a seagull. They fly into town, make a lot of noise, eat everyone's food, crap all over everyone, and then fly home".

:-)

[Jerry Bane]

There are a lot of problems (abuse) with our domestic animals, Puppy Mills is one of them but like mentioned here, the problem is enforcement. I am voting No on Proposition B, as it's a bill which is vague and frankly, written and (generally) backed by those with extremist views and their fringe viewpoints do not end with animals, they go way beyond the animal sphere. Too bad they cannot direct their emotions towards the agencies involved in enforcement. State Dept of Ag and all the local Animal Control agencies would be a start. Sorry, I'm an animal lover but I know the types (emotion driven irrationality) whom are involved in this proposition and would never support their caus, likewise, I will stop donating any money to organizations such as the HSUS and any so called "Rescue Organizations" without fully knowing their agenda and what they are doing with my money.

[MDog]

It's funny, many of the people I know who are anti-Prop B are citing Joe the Plumber and the Tea Party's opposition to the bill as reasons to vote against it and are slinging insults at proponents, like calling them "emotional" and "radical" and "sheep." I consider these *opponents* to be radical and emotionally driven, but I guess it all depends on your point of view!

Brent, you have done a good job of sticking to the facts. I appreciate that. I do see legitimate arguments against Prop B - too bad for the con side that more opponents couldn't focus on those rather than emotional appeals and insults.

[Brent]

That's funny -- I guess I haven't seen anyone side with Joe the Plummer on this...I'm fascinated that anyone would listen to what he had to say, but that's just me.

I think in many ways you're right in that this has become a very emotional issue -- I think on one side the conversation has been very "puppy mills are bad, anything against them is good" vs "HSUS is trying to take all animals with this bill" on the other.

I think, like many political issues, it has become so polarized that there hasn't been much room for intelligent conversation on the issue -- which I've tried to provide (although I too, have my bias). I think there is a LOT of room in the middle on this one between the spokespeople on the two sides.

[MDog]

Brent, you are always a voice of reason. I always respect your opinion and attempts to stick to the facts and keep the discussion rational even when I end up disagreeing with what you said, which isn't too often.

Re: Joe the Plumber, several people I generally like and usually respect have been posting on Facebook about his & the Tea Party's opposition to Prop B, citing it as support for why people should vote against it, I swear. I can't make this stuff up. Of course, proponents have been getting a little emotional and strident about it too. You're right. It's both sides.

[kmk]

I don't doubt there's room for improvement in the ACFA law. Naturally, more resources for enforcement would be optimum. But if Prop B passes the supporters have stated, in writing on their fact sheet, "Prop B will apply to all large-scale puppy mills, including both licensed AND UNLICENSED FACILITIES (emphasis mine), and will establish common-sense standards for the proper care of dogs throughout the state".

So, there you have it. The unlicensed facilities will have to comply with "common sense standards" for the proper care of dogs...etc. I almost typed that without laughing (my head hurts!).

Everyone should take a look at the MODA web site, the information about dogs and cats, resources available for reporting problem breeders or kennels, the licensing application, and the paperwork breeders must fill out to remain in compliance. There's nothing secretive there!

http://mda.mo.gov/animals/ACFA/

[MichelleD]

I do think its funny that "say no to big govt" is part of the opposition to this bill but the govt had nothing to do with it. "Say no to Big Animal Rights" would be more accurate. H$U$ wasted millions on a bill that could have been used to solve the problem instead of adding more conflicting laws.

This law will be applied to unlicensed breeders - wow, the fact they use that kind of logic just shows you how naive their target market is.

What I don't understand is why the opposition didn't promote Operation Bark more - this is a HUGELY successfull program with CURRENT LAWS (that will not result in the mass killing of dogs).

Out of all the parts of this debate that are frustrating, the one that sickens me to the point I want to completely get out of AW, are how many people are almost GLEEFUL at the thought of these dogs being taken from the "evil breeders" and killed. They claim to be against cruelty and yet think killing them is just peachy as long as they can get back at breeders using ridiculous excuses like "well if we kill them now we'll have to kill less later" - when we don't have to kill them EVER.

Its really floored how much of the AR extremists / PETA's attitude ("Better Dead than Bred") has seeped into what most would consider mainstream animal welfare.

[Aly]

Brent - a couple of weeks ago the fine source of news we call The Huffington Post actually ran a piece called "Do Republicans Hate Puppies?" How sad it that???

[Brent]

I'm not sure what happened to the Huffington Post -- but it went from seemingly being a fairly legitimate news source to being just ridiculous in a very short amount of time.