Fight over Missouri's puppy mills continues -- and learning from the experiences of others

The fight over Missouri's puppy mills continues.

Last month, the residents in the state of Missouri voted in favor of a ballot initiative sponsored by HSUS (and others) that put harsher restrictions on 'puppy mills' in the state.

However, at least some members of the legislature appear to be primed to repeal the initiative. According to Sen. Bill Stouffer (a Republican), said of Prop B, "It does nothing to solve the problem of dog abuse. It only targets licensed dealers, and people that are ignoring the law now are not affected by this."

Another Senator, Democrat Tom Shively thinks the repeal will pass, stating that he thinks there are things the assembly can do to make the situation better for animals. "We need to stiffen the penalties and increase the fines" on breeders who fly under the radar and don't get licensed.

Meanwhile, the Missourians for the Protection of Dogs organization that promoted Prop B has purchased 6 billboards around the state capitol with a picture of a puppy and message "Missouri voters have spoken, will you listen?"

I've written a lot about the problems with Prop B -- that it doesn't focus on the core problem of lack of enforcement (nearly half of the state's estimated commercial breeding opearations are not licensed, and only about 60% of the license operations are inspected annually, even though the state requires an annual inspection).

Prop B never addressed the enforcement issues. The problem could have been addressed by having higher fines for unlicensed operations (which right now are only brought up to compliance vs fined) and by making it easier to heavily fine (and eventually shut down) habitually negligent offenders of laws and funneling all of the money to more enforcement.  Like most states, Missouri is looking at cutting tens of millions of dollars from the budget - -not ADD programs, which causes a problem when the financing problem was never addressed.

So while the fight goes on in Jefferson City about the future of Prop B, the state is looking for revenue streams for enforcement.

Retaliation?

In what seems like was probably a response to the proposal and passage of Prop B, the state legislature passed a new law. The law was simple, but has caused a bit of a stir recently in the animal welfare community. Essentially, the bill removed the exemption for paying licensing fees to the state for rescue organizations. So while all rescues used to not have to pay to be licensed, without the exemption, the rescue groups now have to pay $100 per year for a license -- with an additional $1 per saved dog fee. The purpose of the extra $1 fee is to be able to charge larger rescues more than small ones -- which makes sense (and is how the licensing works for breeders).  However, while I don't have a major problem with the $100 license fee (because it's minimal and wil go toward enforcement), I don't like disincenting people from adopting out animals.  It doesn't make sense for it to be free to KILL a dog, but a fee to save one.

Many in the rescue community (rightfully?) see this as a "gotcha" by the state legislature in a sort of retaliation for their support of Prop B.  But the response is actually sadly predictable.

Learning from Others

A couple of years ago, Washington state passed a similar law to Prop B that targeted commercial breeders with, among other things, minimum kennel size requirements (this proposed bill was nearly identical to Missouri's Prop B, but had some changes made to it along the way).  Then, two years later, the legislature looked at a law that would put the same kennel size requirements on the all dogs in the state - so in essence, making all rescues, shelters and even individual owners, have minimum kennel sizes if their dogs were kenneled "for the majority of the day". 

While the law would have been very difficult for most shelters and rescues to comply with, it could also have impacted even individual owners who kenneled their dogs while at work -- depending on how "majority of the day" was defined. 

So while losing the exemption was seen by some in Missouri as a "gotcha", losing exemptions is almost exactly what you'd expect if you followed the passage of the same law in Washington only a year earlier.

Pennsylvania

A couple of years ago, the state of Pennsylvania also passed a law targeting 'puppy mills'.  Their law also did not include a funding source.  However, realizing that enforcement was an issue, the state allowed for non-profit groups to be "initiate criminal proceedings" in the state -- including being able to get search warrants.

The results, sadly, have been not very good.

As the state has cut funding toward enforcement, the entire burden of enforcing these cruelty laws is falling almost entirely on the non-profits.  Not only that, but the state has also quit funding the educational component for the non-profits.  So now, numerous criminal cases are being botched by inexperienced non-profit workers, leading to few prosecutions and the organizations and leading to them not being reimbursed for the substantial costs of holding these animals during the criminal proceedings.

So the end result, according to animal welfare people in Pennsylvania, is tha they are getting fewer prosecutions.

Learning from others (2) and next steps

If we're going to make progress in Missouri, it seems like we're going to have to find some middle ground and find a way to increase enforcement.  This may mean scrapping many of the components of Prop B and starting from scratch -- with higher licensing fees for breeders and higher fines (and punishiment) for people operating outside of the current laws.  All of this money should then be funneled (mandated by law) to law enforcement for these laws (all of these, BTW, are recommendations from the State Auditor's report or the Better Business Bureau recommendations).

Without the funding piece, any law wil fail, because given our government financial woes right now, there is no way animal welfare will get prioritized over other social programs that are being significantly cut.

This may also involve small licensing fees for shelters and rescues (who also benefit from better enforcement).

We have to come up with a workable solution that both the breeding community and the rescue community can somewhat agree on. The continual political "gotcha" game between the two sides will no doubt leave animals dead in the crossfire.

Comments

[kmk]

Brent, I think you're referring to HB2102 in Missouri, which repealed and modified parts of RSMo 273. The bill was sponsored by Rep. Munzlinger, and Rep. Viebrock was one of the co-sponsors. I don't know about "retaliation", but I think it's safe to say they've both had it up to here with animal rights activists. I know I have!

As I read the bill, animal "shelters" were no longer exempt from paying the fee, but dog pounds were still exempt and rescues were not mentioned (don't ask me the difference between a "shelter" and a "pound" - I'm sure it can be found in the definitions in the original RSMo 273).

So, unless something changed, I wasn't aware that licensed rescues had to now pay the fee. I suppose it could have fallen into that "Law of unintended consequences" category. However, keep in mind we have rescues in Missouri that go to auctions, buy pregnant bitches, and sell the puppies for $600 to $800 each. It's not always a completely altruistic endeavor.

This is also the bill that prohibits the state from contracting with any non-profit agency to inspect kennels, shelters, etc.

[PAMM - People Against Mad MAAL.org]

Well, well, well - where the hell was MAAL on this one? Can't find ANYTHING about HB2102 on their website or newsletter. From what I hear they "said" they notified the rescue community...

[kmk]

Never heard anything from MAAL, but the Missouri Humane Society sent out email notices that rescues would be affected by HB2102. A friend that does Vizsla rescue received the email and forwarded it to me. At that time I said I did not interpret HB2102 as affecting rescues, only "shelters".

"Dog Pounds" and "pounds" are still specifically exempted. Need to find out the difference between a pound and a shelter.

[Roberta Beach]

Brent, you have voiced my concerns with both Prop B and the new law very clearly and succinctly. Thank you! We do need to be sure to put the ANIMALS first - we do need funding to do that. Ach....I have received a letter from a coalition of HSUS (?!), HSMO, Best Friends, and ASPCA voicing their understanding of the concern of the shelters & rescues in the state being inundated by puppy mill dogs due to Prop B. They indicate, with HSMO being the point organization, that they are willing to help with various means to enable us to move dogs along safely. This is encouraging....

[Brent]

Roberta, can you email me the letter sent by these groups? My email address can be found under my picture in the upper left. This has been a huge concern of mine all along and I hope they have a better gameplan than HSUS has shown in some recent other situations.

[kmk]

I find it interesting that the Misouri Humane Society, et al are operating under the assumption that shelters and rescues are going to be "innundated" with dogs due to Prop B.

Why do they assume this will happen? I'm sure they have dollar signs in their eyes. The only thing that makes sense to me is they think because this happened in other states it will happen here. Besides, it doesn't take affect until November 2011.

If these "humane" groups were so darned concerned about the dogs, WHY did they push for Prop B in the first place? That smacks of the logic harbored by public servants that pass BSL, only to allow rescues to come in and take the confiscated dogs out of the shelter. Why? If "pit bulls" are inherently dangerous and natural born killers, why is it okay for rescues to take them and place them someplace else? Is it okay for pit bulls to kill children someplace else?

I do know MHS and Wayside sent a letter to a major auction house, offering to take dogs off of their hands. The Auction house replied thanks but no thanks - but if MHS and Wayside wanted to follow current regulations, show up with a photo ID, proof of licensing (as is required by ACFA), etc., etc., they were welcome to bid on dogs AND PAY MONEY FOR THEM just like anyone else.

Gee, and everyone wonders why Munzlinger and everyone else has had it up to their eyeballs with these "humane" groups. They push for laws that are Part Of The Problem.

[kmk]

I posted this elsewhere on this blog - Per the "definitions" in the Missouri Revised Statutes, Chapter 273, Dogs/Cats, Section 273.325, rescues fall under the "shelter" definition. I remembered them being defined separately, which is what I get for relying on memory.

Dog pounds are exempt, as they are defined as "shelters" operated by a government entity (city, county, etc.).

that's the Cliff Notes version. I sent Brent the details.

[MichelleD]

OF COURSE city shelters are exempt - they are exempt from animal cruelty laws as well (maybe not by law but definitely by practice). I've always wondered why no outrage for the cruelty, the pit bulls mercilessly killed, the needlessly killed dogs/cats in our shelters?

Even the ASPCA sent out a newsletter praising themselves for taking in "midwest puppy mill" dogs and calling them "highly disireable".

WW refuses to take in hardly any KCMO dogs but is frothing at the mouth for these? (In there defense KCMO is a trough of diseased pit bulls - what animal welfare org wants to help those? 8-(

I've been so woefully naive about how much koolaid has been drunk by what I previously considered mainstream animal welfare groups.

[kmk]

Wayside Waifs had a bunch of crates all lined up in anticipation of taking 'puppy mill dogs'. Yay! There was a story on one of the local news stations.

Regarding the city (taxpayer funded) shelters being exempt, I wonder how that's going to work for places like, say, Grandview, Missouri, which contracts to (private) Wayside Waifs for shelter services? I assume Wayside will add that fee to the contract.