Just 2 days after Missouri's Prop B narrowly passed in a state-wide vote -- garnering just 51% of the votes - apparently some in our state's capital appear to be looking at either repealing the law entirely, or at least scaling back the restrictions.
There are a lot of legal problems with the law. While it is supposed to simultaneously exist with the existing Animal Care Facilities Act, there are several elements (such as the cage size) that have contradictory requirements. Two existing laws with contradictory requirements is pretty problematic. Meanwhile, it also sets different requirements for breeding operations with 3-9 breeding dogs (covered under the ACFA) than ones with 10-50 dogs, causing some confusion and creating difficulties in enforcement. Also, the limit in the number of breeding dogs also is a government limit on how big a business can grow -- which won't play well to the Republican-run state congress, especially when many of these areas are already struggling.
The 50 dog limit has always been a major sticking point for me as it is the point that may have the most negative unintended consequences, and is the part that is focused solely on limiting breeding operations instead of focusing on how the animals are actually cared for.
There appears to be plenty of support for changes in Jefferson City -- which woudn't be a suprise with 103 of the state's 114 counties voting against Prop B. So a large number of state legislators represent areas in the state that opposed this ordinance.
This could be interesting.
So what now?
Honestly, this could, at least in theory, work nicely for everyone.
On the Pro Prop B side, they have a new law as things stand. But much of the problem with the current laws are that there is poor enforcement. For the new law to have any positive impact, there is going to have to be better enforcement -- unfortunately, without political support in Jefferson City, getting the resources to enforce the new law will be nearly impossible (it seems incomprehensible to me that the writers of the law didn't provide any avenue for enforcement of it).
For the Opponents of B, there are obviously a lot of reasons to push for changes.
So, in theory, this could open up things up to a really nice compromise. We COULD get rid of a couple of the sticking points in the law (the unfetter outside access and the 50 dog limit) and replace them with things that will help with enforcement (like increases in licensing fees) and harsher penalties for repeat offenders with fines that go to enforcement. (I confess, I can't take much credit for those recommendations as they come great from the Better Business Bureau recommendations).
If the folks in Jefferson City want to make legitimate changes to the ordinance then they should look to make some legitimate compromises that can help get rid of the problem puppy mills, but not put unreasonable limitations on people who legitimately are trying to run responsible breeding operations. It could end up being good for both sides.
It will be popular for many on the pro-Prop B side will complain that this will be a violation of the democratic process. I want to be clear here -- the United States, by and large, is not a Democracy. It's a Republic. And the reason it is is to protect people from the tyranny of the majority. So some checks and balances were put in to prevent the majority from always getting their way at the expense of others (which is why the legislature has the power to adjust the wording of citizens initiatives).
But if the folks in Jefferson City just want to get rid of regulations and not take any responsibility for the problems that are out there, then this will get tied up in the courts for awhile...and everyone, including the dogs, will come out losers. This is a great opportunity. But it could be a great disaster also.
Recent Comments