Some thoughts on Missouri's Prop B

On Tuesday, the state of Missouri will vote on several state offices and initiatives -- including Proposition B.

Prop B, The "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act" is a bill that would put more strict policies on commercial dog breeders in the state, including:

-- Require food, water, necessary vet care and housing protected from the elements

-- Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely and lie down

-- "Unfettered" access to the outdoors for animals, and minimum and maximum temperature requirements for dogs

-- Regular exercise and rest between breeding cycles

-- And limits ownership to no more than 50 breeding dogs

You can read the proposition in the entirety here.

The initiative seems like a no-brain er when taken on the face-value of the ballot-language -- which is why a recent poll shows that 69% of Missourians support Prop B. But unfortunately, not everything is as simple as it seems. 

To set the record straight, I am writing this as someone who is actively involved in animal welfare issues -- and actively work with rescue groups. I've never bred a dog or made a penny off of breeding dogs. And yes, I acknowledge that many commercial breeders take horrible care of their animals and that the mess does need to be cleaned up. Unfortunately, Prop B is not the solution.

Yes, much of the ballot language (feeding, watering, vet care) are complete no-brainers -- which is why they have been a part of the current state law for nearly 2 decades.  Much of the initiative is already included in the current law that governs commercial breeders, The Animal Care Facilities Act, in fact many of the initiatives in Prop B actually weaken the current law (including requiring feeding only once a day and having the requirement affect only those operations with 10+ breeding animals when the ACFA impacts those facilities with 3+ breeding animals).

The Missouri Vet Medical Association (which has come out opposed to Prop B) has a detailed overview comparing the two proposals so you can see the side by side comparison between the two laws that I think is definitely worth taking a look at.

As you can see, the changes in the actual care for the animals are actually quite minimal.

Prop B appears to be kind of an off-the-shelf approach to solving Missouri's puppy mill issues (the law is amazingly similar to a law that was passed in Washington 2 years ago), yet doesn't seem to solve the real problem with Missouri's commercial breeders.

The real problem stems from a long-term complete lack of enforcement of the current laws that has led us to get into this mess.

According to the ASPCA (who support Prop B), there are 3,000 commercial breeders in the state.  However, according to USDA number, there are only 1525 breeders that are licensed in the state.  With so many unlicensed breeders, and so many breeders altogether for only 13 inspectors, it isn't a huge surprise that enforcement of the current law might be an issue.  And in fact, it is.

According to the most recent state audit of the Missouri Department of Ag, in 2007, only 60% of all licensed breeding facilities were even inspected (even though the state law requires each facility to be inspected). This failure to even do basic services like inspections, was mirrored in a USDA audit  that highlighted their own ineptness.

Fortunately, the recent state audit inspired the start of Operation Bark Alert -- that led to the closing down of 164 breeding facilities and saving 3500 dogs in its first year of operation (2009) -- and 180 breeding facilities being closed down so far in 2010.

The problem in the state of Missouri doesn't appear to be the lack of laws -- clearly under Operation Bark Alert, many of the worst-of-the-worst breeding facilities have been closed down already -- it is the overall lack of enforcement that has been driving the majority of the state's "puppy mill" problem.

Prop B could actually make problems worse. The 50 breeding dog limit creates several scenarios that may make the situation worse. With the limited number of breeding dogs, many of the large breeding facilities will put their "excess" breeding dogs up for auction -- likely leading to one of two scenarios a) many of the dogs ending up at state rescues and shelters where they will likely end up "euthanized" at the area shelters or b) many very large breeding operations being broken into several smaller breeding operations that will make the state's enforcement issues worse, not better.

The end result could be making the enforcement problems worse, or the deaths of thousands of dogs.

Prop. B seems like an off-the-shelf solution to the state's problems that not only are not addressing the state's enforcement issues, but may be making it worse.  This may be why the spokespersons from Prop B are largely out-of-state spokespeople - -Betty White as a part of the robocalls in favor of the bill, Bob Barker doing radio interviews,Tony La Russa (who lives in California in spite of his job as the coach of the St. Louis Cardinals) doing TV commercials, and Wayne Pacelle, of the Humane Society of the United States also on the spokesperson front. 

While on the surface, Prop B seems like a "no brain er" type of law -- it isn't. It actually mirrors a lot of what is in the current laws, has dramatic unintended consequences for some new areas of the law, and doesn't even begin to deal with the primary issue of poor enforcement that has led to this problem in the first place. 

A vote against Prop B is not a vote in favor of Puppy Mills. In no way, shape or form should anyone support the cruel treatment of animals. And Missouri DOES have a problem with puppy mills. But Prop B is not the solution we've all been waiting for.

 

Comments

[Mark Stuppy]

I have been flip-flopping daily on my support of Prop B for many of the same reasons you bring up. On the one hand, I think it is a redundant piece of legislation. However, on the other, what does voting NO mean for the already limited budget the 13 inspectors have to work with? Seems to me that voting NO sends the message that we think things are fine the way they are now (which is not the message I want to send). If it all comes down to a lack of enforcement (ie, lack of money), wouldn't Prop B be a catalyst for a larger budget? Are there any other options available to get more funding for more inspectors?

[Brent]

Mark -- I don't discount your thought about what message a "no" vote sends...but I do think that it could easily be overcome if everyone that felt this way voted no, and then swiftly sent a note to their state representatives telling them that they voted no, but enforcement badly needs to be upped and to provide more support Operation Bark Alert and enforcement officers. I think ideally they would increase fines for unlicensed operations, increase licensing fees (which haven't been increased in 20 years) and make sure all of that money was mandated to be channeled back into enforcement.

I guess I don't see there being only two options in either voting yes or no -- I just see voting no as an opportunity to create the conversation for a 3rd option.

[Slicey]

Considering the small margin the vote passed by, it seems like it still sends a message of indifference.

[Brent]

I think the wide discepency in support between urban areas and rural areas speaks volumes here about the suspicion rural america has with the animal rights movement.

[Cheri Church]

You're missing a few key points! Not all state licensed kennels need to be USDA licensed; that accounts for those not inspected by USDA. USDA licensing is only required when commercial breeders sell puppies/dogs to brokers; if the commercial breeders sells to individuals, a USDA license is not required, but a STATE of Missouri license IS required. Prop. B. is a farce! The care items are already addressed in MO law and adhered to by the MO licensed dog kennels. The puppy mills are NOT licensed, are NOT inspected, and that's where the problem lies. Why not resolve the problem? This is yet another half-baked idea that will not solve any problem, it does however add to the problem of the STATE LICENSED commerical breeders, as it adds a few regulations such as limiting the number of breeding dogs. What next? Cattle? Hogs? Chickens? Horses? Where will it end? The REAL problem is the puppy mill breeders who ARE NOT licensed and ARE NOT inspected. State licensed kennels ARE inspected; USDA licensed kennels ARE inspected and do meet minimum requirements or are fined, shut down, etc. By imposing limits on state licensed dog breeders, who are already taking excellent care of their animals, NOTHING is done to resolve puppy mills. BRILLIANT state of Missouri voters, you accomplished nothing but in giving more control to the state to limit the number of animals a farm may have. The law reads DOMESTIC animals....think about it, not a good thing to hand that control over. WHO is going to feed America when we limit other domestic animals....cattle, pigs, chickens, turkeys...????

[Sue]

If those who urged a no vote actually DID care about the dogs' welfare, they could have done something about the appalling abuses in the state, reported for years now, and short-circuited Prop B before it became an issue. But not doing anything except complaining that someone else is trying to do something doesn't exactly demonstrate having the dogs' well-being at heart.

[MichelleD]

I voted No because I care - the ridiculous accusations that those of us that don't support bad policy hate puppies won't win you any debate awards. Enforcment of current laws (which were put in place with the help of the breeding community) is the job of the state. Heard of Operation Bark? The 4.5 million spent on passing this redundant law could have been put into this program and solved the ENTIRE problem. But "people who care" decided to pass another law that will be largely unenforced as it did NOTHING to address the lack of funding.

[Chris J]

I agree that the real problem stems from a long-term complete lack of enforcement of the current laws that has led us to get into this mess.