My Photo

Categories

follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Aurora looks to become ADA compliant while city councilman misleads about the stats | Main | Elderly woman killed by dogs in South Carolina »

February 16, 2011

Comments

YesBiscuit!

HSUS manages to advocate for chickens without making criminals out of people who would keep chickens as pets or farmers who care for their chickens humanely. Why are they so backwards on dogs?

Brent

I'm not sure what the deal is here YB - the law is very poorly written (especially in comparison to the current law) -- but worse, HSUS's unwillingness to compromise and their grandstanding and cries of ruining democracy (even though they are quite aware that this is the political process here - -they've been down this road before) are really wearing thin....

EmilyS

great commentary. I find the problem with animal advocates is that they do not think critically. And they certainly don't read the laws they advocate for. They truly believe that if a law is "meant" to do something good, then it must "be" good.

That, and of course, a chilling groupthink and eagerness to denigrate anyone who challenges them.

Shelley

My opinion of the $25.00 fee

http://puppies.burningbird.net/article/raise-fee-2500-will-take-care-all-problems

Brent

Shelley,

I would agree that the $25 fee isn't enough -- but at least it's making a step in the right direction and addressing the real problem.

It doesn't seem like you're in much of a situation to have a beef with any of it as you have been one of the loudest supporters of the "no compromises" approach -- to the point of calling compromise "foolish"...which is leading to a hole of nothing.

Meanwhile -- you're also on record there calling out Dr. Herzog with the question "how many commercial kennels do you service?" even though you clearly don't know Dr. Herzog or even who he serves. Instead of accusing everyone of having some type of puppy-hating motive behind their belief that there are flaws in Prop B, maybe you could start by listening to their concernes and working toward a legitimate solution... because belligerence isn't helping.

MichelleD

If $25 wasn't enough why did H$U$ put in a bigger fee increase in the first place? They had the chance to right whatever they wanted - its obvious that they do not want to solve the "puppy mill" problem or that they actually care about the dogs of this state in any way.

I 100% agree with Emily on the critical thinking piece. Its embarrassing. I actually found myself explaining to a candidate last night that I was not an "animal lover" but someone concerned with effective policy and efficient use of tax dollars. (Get those two things right you save lives by default.)

And shelters/pounds should NOT be exempt from any laws pertaining to cruelty.

Dianne Rhodes

I can tell you what happens to some of those dogs, because they are being dumped. We took in 13 at the Rescue League and they were in pretty bad shpae. A pretty 5 yo cocker who lost her left eye because it went untreated. All of them matted. A surprising little min pin who is 15 yo!

Shelley

There was never any intention of compromise. The talk of compromise is purely to mislead Missouri voters -- to try and shove in a repeal, but not call it a repeal.

And what do we compromise one? Decent cage space? Cages without wire floors? That it's ok to not provide continuous access to water for dogs? Dogs being sick and injured without vet care?

When you talk about "compromise" what you're saying is compromise on the care these dogs are given. No, of course I won't compromise.

The only "flaw" in Proposition B, according to the agribusiness folks, is that the people of Missouri actually dared vote on something they didn't dictate. How dare we.

Brent

Shelley -- you know there is a lot more in the bill than that (and that having water is already a law).

This is what I'm talking about with belligerence....

I don't think the agri-business people are necessarily right on this either....and think there is a WORLD of compromise position in between where they are, and where Prop B stands.

But if you are unwilling to even have the discussion of the middle ground, and Pacelle is unwilling to discuss the middle ground, then I guess I wouldn't expect them to either.


And maybe if you were at the table to talk about compromise you could be a part of the discussion that $25 a year isn't enough to solve the problem....but if you need something from them, you can't just ask and ask -- especially when it's your group that wrote the law.

This is why I badly think that the animal welfare community needs to make their own voice for the better care for dogs -- instead of letting people like you and Wayne Pacelle be the loudest voices.

Rita

Sensible article. If better care of dogs was actually the goal, there would be compromise. Since the HSUS INTENDED to destroy the legitimate dog breeding industry, they cannot compromise. I could see some changes being made in this industry, and they would not be opposed by the majority of breeders, but Prop B demands unreasonable, illogical, and outrageous changes that no one can live with. Prop B MUST be changed and MUST include shelters and rescues.

Edward

Shelly, If prop B should not be fixed by our very intelligent legislators, explain what domestic means, and what solid flooring means. This is a HSUS attempt to kill off all dogs. Do you think anywone can afford to build a building the size of ten homes to house 50 dogs? Do you think that the 'bill writers' really do not know what domestic means? In this state of Missouri we have very good and smart legislators. Why would the so called humane shelters want to be exempt from a animal cruelty law? We all know why. Hope you can figure this out on your own, spelling it out does not seem to work for you.

dorris

How mny of the people who think Prop b is wonderful and will save all the dogs have read it and know that it will take away protection from all "hunting dogs", that includes about 70 AKc reconized breeds!!! READ IT do you relly want someone to start raising 500 golden retrievers and not be affected by this law?? Just another "little" loop hole.

Edward

Dianne Rhodes, Are you sure that these are the notorious puppymills dumpings? 15 Year old min pin needs superb care to become 15 years old. How do you know that this cocker's eye problem is from neglect?? sure it wasn't a nail or playing with his friends? Not very convincing. But go ahead and slam something that you really know nothing about. You need to back up the bs. People could blatently make accusations against you as they do the kennels. You don't want to be among the wrongly accused do you? It has happened to many good people courtesy of your Humane radicals.

Rita

I have never seen a 'matted' min pin. They have very short hair that doesn't tangle. Me thinks the lady lies......

Rita

At any rate, just hold that hard line, Shelley. You and HSUS will be responsible for further alienating the legislators and could even sway your own reps from siding with their rigid, stubborn voters. I think they will learn that the voters really didn't want Prop B as is, and the true supporters of B are just a handful of rabid animal rights radicals and the HSUS.

Clark

IMO most of the rabid followers of Prop B are not deep thinkers and have depended on the rhetoric of others to do their thinking for them.
I have been in rescue for over 20 years. I see too much in this whole
movement that can only hurt rescue. I also view Prop B as Gateway Legislation, way to easy to make worse as time marches on. I understand the frustration but that is not a reason to glam on to the first Anti Mill Legislation that comes down the pipes. You need clarity and easy enforceability. Pro B is neither. I am very disapointed with
the Prop B followers who feel if you are not for Prop B believer "you is agan em"

Edward

Clark, All appreciate your efforts in rescue. I have a kennel and have had abandoned animals brought to me and I have taken them in, and I actually fed and watered them! I do not appreciate being called terrible names from people who know nothing about me. They remind me how they have my name and address. What an awakening if these radicals did make their way to my home. Retired marines live here that are not amused at the radical animal hating HSUS. Rescue will be hurt in this mess. It is ashame that it could not really be for the animal, instead of the slaughter they have waiting for them. At this point all I can do is to be confident that they will not get one of mine. The animal cruelty title should be placed where it really belongs.Keep up your good work, God bless.

Brent

Edward,

I appreciate the passion with which you write. However, I think it is equally important for breeders who really do care about the animals to step up and also push for important changes that will lead to improvements (or shutting down) facilities that are not doing it right. This may include tweaking some of the current laws and increasing fees in order to fund better enforcement. But my hope is that the responsible breeder out there will come forward with help and solutions to help solve some of the problems that are out there.

Edward

Brent, We have turned in the only bad breeder that i have ever witnessed. It was a chicken coop thing with crowded animals in small chicken cages. maybe 2x2 foot size. This woman was not licensed, and it was a filthy mess. It haunted me until I could get ahold of my state inspector. I did not follow up afterwards because it was not any of my business what happened. To be honest, I did not want to know what happened to the dogs. It was in the state's hands. I felt I did my part, and they handled it. That is the best I can offer as a breeder.I do not have time to look around for nasty holes. My kennel keeps me busy over 15 hours a day, not including the surprise whelping hours. I do not want the job of looking at those places, it is not pleasant. I will not hesitate to make the state aware if i do find out about one. I have no problem with increased fees to help, but I am not responsible for these unlicensed, greedy, nasty, breeders. I will not take blame for some that I do not even know, would you?? I am not affiliated with them. If you mean tweaking the laws that I have to build the empire state building for a few dogs, common sense just went out the window. I do not make a living with the dogs, I am not rich, but I love my dogs and fully intend to keep them.

Brent

Edward, I do not think that people who care about their dogs should be punished for those who don't.

I also think there are ways to "tweek" the law that are legitimate tweeks that would improve things, but be very reasonable. And yes, I am afraid that there are too many unreasonable people on both sides of this equation....and people in the middle have to be more vocal in their support of responsible alternatives to either side of crazy.

kmk

Good job as usual, Brent.

Just as the legislators in Jeff City are showing a modicum of good sense, the city of St. Joseph is giving new meaning to the term "St. Joe Number Four". That was what we used to call the state's insane asylum that was located in St. Joe. I thought it was closed, but NOOOOOOOoooooo, it is open for business, and business is booming. Except now it's called "City Hell".

Animal control in St. Joe is pushing their own special brand of crazy on the city and has pushed for a municipal version of Prop B for the city of St. Joe, but this version actually DOES make Prop B appear "common sense" and reasonable. St. Joe is a charter city and can enact ordinances more stringent than state law, within reason.

In the St. Joe version hobby breeders, rescues, and boarding kennels have to comply with the Prop B regulations. A hobby breeder is someone that has more than three intact animals (cats included) for breedings OR EXHIBITION purposes. That's the cliff notes version. And you must have "unfettered access to the outdoors" to an outdoor space the size of Yellowstone Park for each animal. Oh, and then there's that part about giving animal control access to your home for inspections so they can check the dog's water dish for debris.

This ordinance has already had a first reading! Wow, private citizens must provide "Shangri-La" for their pets while the city's shelter looks like Dante's Seven Circles of Hell.

there are two licensed commercial breeders in St. Joe and my understanding is the women on the City Council are going to vote for this because they can't stand the thought of those dogs in cages. Gee, I wonder if the thought of the dogs in the city's incinerator suits them better?

The cherry on top of this sundae is the city's fund to provide low cost speutering is about out of money. the press release reads, and I am not making this up, that it's good that they can speuter all these animals because it keeps them from having to euthanize their offspring.

Okay, show me the way to St. Joe number four so I can check in. I can't take it anymore.

kmk

Oh, Shelley, if you think Missouri is so bad, MOVE! Planes leave daily. I'll help you pack. Why are you hanging around if it's so horrible here?

And if you don't live here, you don't have a dog in this fight so just go bother your own state.

Rita

If the powers that be in St. Joe follow through with their version of Prop B, we may see what kind of a disaster it would have been in the entire state. Maybe they will even outlaw dogs entirely in their little anti-animal paradise next year.

kmk

I guarantee you the City Council in St. Joe has not read the ordinance, and if they have, they've not digested the content. They're being sold a bill of goods by city staff with an agenda (which, by the way, violates the city's charter).

I was aware Animal control was making noise about convincing St. Joe to pass a municipal version of Prop B. I did not realize this ridiculous idea had any legs with city government. Out of nowhere there was an ordinance drafted, and it was getting a first reading before the full council.


We've seen second, third, and fourth class cities pass BSL in one meeting, with two readings of the ordinance at the one meeting and no prior discussion (Grandview, MO and Kearney, MO come to mind), but for a charter city to get something this egregious on the agenda with no prior committee discussion or work session discussion in unprecedented in my lifetime. Ordinances that affect people's livelihood and personal lives and interests are usually given more consideration in first class cities.

I have no idea how anyone earns degrees in Public Policy. Yuck.

Hopefully Brent will write one of his fabulous blog pieces about St. Joe! (*hint*)

hey, Shelley, are you packed yet, girlfriend?

Edward

Shelley can go to St Joe and live happily ever after. Missouri is her state by choice. She should not have to leave. We should not have to either.

The comments to this entry are closed.