Interestingly, tonight I printed out all of the ballot language for the elections tomorrow because there a lot of local ballot issues and a couple I wanted to read up a little about tonight. In the process, I was looking over the ballot language for Proposition B (which I've never actually seen published anywhere). Well, I think I now know why I haven't seen it published anywhere. Anyway, here's the ballot language as it will read on your ballot tomorrow if you are in Missouri. You can read it for yourself here.
*****
Shall the Missouri law be amended to:
* require large-scale dog breeding operatios to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles;
* prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and
* create a misdemeanor crime of "puppy mill cruelty" for violations?
It is estimated that government entities will incur costs of $654,768 (on-going costs of $521,356 and one time costs of $133,412). Some local governmental entities may experience costs related to enforcement activities and savings related to reduced animal care activities.
*****
This is almost embarassingly the first time I've ever seen estimated costs associated with Prop B. It seems that when the state is already struggling to balance the budget, that these costs will likely be absorbed out of the budget used for current enforcement....which would take resources away from current enforcement activities.
I'm actually a little more fascinated that neither side of this debate has made this cost well known.
Thanks Brent...I guess this just goes to confirm what some of us already suspected...increased costs with no way of addressing those costs in the language of the proposition.
Posted by: PetDocsOnCall09 | November 02, 2010 at 08:43 AM
Thanks Brent...I guess this just goes to confirm what some of us already suspected...increased costs with no way of addressing those costs in the language of the proposition.
Posted by: PetDocsOnCall09 | November 02, 2010 at 08:43 AM
Hmmm, looks like this little tidbit might be how they can use the Hancock Amend to get this repealed. You can't pass illegal laws just because its a ballot initiative.
Posted by: MichelleD | November 02, 2010 at 10:13 AM
The Hancock amendment won't apply because there is no enforcement mandate. All it does is make certain activities misdemeanors. It doesn't mandate that anyone be prosecuted for those offenses. The decision to file charges is discretionary, so I can't see how Hancock can begin to come into the picture.
What I don't know is how those numbers were calculated. Court costs? Law enforcement officers? Agriculture regulators? I'd love to know.
Posted by: Nathan | November 04, 2010 at 03:07 PM
I'd like to know too Nathan. Unless it's court costs (which may happen), I can see the increased enforcement allocation being zero.
Posted by: Brent | November 04, 2010 at 03:09 PM