38 replies to this topic

[Tommy Coyote]

The Proposition B puppy mill law was passed by 52% of the voters. It passed in the urban areas and failed in the rural areas. The bill allowed only 50 dogs, larger spaces for the dogs - they had to be able to stand up and turn around and stretch, more access to the outside, more veterinary care.

So the rural people got support in the state legislature and managed to get the legislature to completely dismantle the bill - without going back to the voters. The new, revamped bill has gone to the governor for signing. They claim that their new bill protects the commercial dog breeders but still goes after the illegal puppy mills.

And boy are people here hot about the whole thing. Its not just that most Missourians are not crazy about being the puppy Mill Capitol of the US. It's that the bill was passed by a majority vote. And then the rural folk - out where all the commercial dog kennels are - managed to circumvent the whole thing. They claim that thousands of people will lose their jobs. And that this is just the first step in waging a war for an all out ban on animal agriculture. (The KC Star calls that argument preposterous).

I don't get where the thousands of jobs are. One big breeder here got shut down not too long ago and I think they had a total of 10 people working there.

A friend of mine called the governor's office yesterday and was told that their office has been swamped by calls from unhappy voters.

So, we shall see what happens now.

http://www.kansascit...y-mill-law.html

http://voices.kansas...puppy-mill-law/

[Pam Wolf]

The problem as I understand it is it was not just geared towards dogs, it could be interpreted to be ALL domestic animals. That would mean it would affect farmers as well as PM's and hence the problem. If the wording changes then I think it would be OK.

[Tommy Coyote]

The problem as I understand it is it was not just geared towards dogs, it could be interpreted to be ALL domestic animals. That would mean it would affect farmers as well as PM's and hence the problem. If the wording changes then I think it would be OK.

I don'
I think that is the case. The bill very specifically states "dogs". But I think that is the argument that the other side used to get everyone in an uproar. I haven't read it in a while but I remember thinking at the time that the bill was very specific about "dogs" and not any other kind of animal. The KC Star even mentioned that in their coverage - that that argument was preposterous.

[Lewis Moon]

The problem as I understand it is it was not just geared towards dogs, it could be interpreted to be ALL domestic animals. That would mean it would affect farmers as well as PM's and hence the problem. If the wording changes then I think it would be OK.

As someone who has had some experience writing rules in state government, if MO is anything like my state, the law is (necessarily) relatively vague. The actual rules that will be used to implement the law will need to be written and go through legislative approval. This is where I would focus. There also should be a Concise Explanatory Document and possibly an implementation guidance that will further explain the fine detail of the intent of the rules. These rules (once again if MO is like AZ) will go through a LOT of mandated public scrutiny and input.
And then there's the budget.....

[Debbie Meier]

As I understand it Tommy, the thousands of jobs are not just those directly employed by the breeders but also all the businesses that rely on their revenue, vets, vet supply companies, dog food companies, equipment manufacturers and such. It's a trickle down type of deal.

We are very very small scale breeder, we produce demonstrations and buy and sell our sheep and calves through the breeding/kennel business, last year our operation took in about $12,000 all of the money went right back into the economy, we spent all $12,000 and then some on supplies, equipment and to live.

Our operation is nothing like what would have been closed down with the 50 dog limit or the ones that would have shuttered their dogs due to not being able to comply with the housing requirements that were presented with Prop B. Many are trying to generate enough to support their families in place of a outside saleried job, while others are using it as supplimental income or as a part time job, but it does show how the money in turns into money out which is what keeps others working.

[Pam Wolf]

Tommy unless the bill changed after the vote it said domestic animals which would give it governance over livestock. While it was aimed at dogs and perhaps cats it apparently covered more.

Just glad we hashed this crap out years ago in KS

[Eileen Stein]

Tommy unless the bill changed after the vote it said domestic animals which would give it governance over livestock. While it was aimed at dogs and perhaps cats it apparently covered more.

http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp

As I understand it Tommy, the thousands of jobs are not just those directly employed by the breeders but also all the businesses that rely on their revenue, vets, vet supply companies, dog food companies, equipment manufacturers and such. It's a trickle down type of deal.

Same could be said for dogfighting operations, I guess -- shutting them down is bad for business. And it's a good argument for breeding even MORE dogs -- enhance the income of all those vets and dog food companies. Create new jobs. Bring our economy roaring back!

Democracy -- it's what's for speeches.

[Debbie Meier]

Same could be said for dogfighting operations, I guess

No, dog fighting is a illegal activity, dog breeding or the sale of dogs are not.

[Eileen Stein]

No, dog fighting is a illegal activity, dog breeding or the sale of dogs are not.

Yes, but keeping more than 50 dogs for breeding and keeping them in prohibited conditions is also an illegal activity under the law the voters adopted. And dogfighting was not an illegal activity until a "bad-for-the-economy" law was passed outlawing it.

[Sue R]

Just think of all the trickle-down we have now - shelter employees, sales of the blue juice, shelter supplies and food. Who ever would want to reduce that amount of money moving through the economy by shutting down the mass or rather random production of pups for sale to anyone with the money, no follow-up, no returns, no spay-neuter, nothing to avoid or discourage those buyers from producing their own pups...

All that producing pups "for whatever reason" (and I'm not talking well-bred pups because mills and BYBs aren't concerned with producing good pups, just saleable pups) just means another youngster or dog that's already "on the ground and in the pound", is going to get the blue juice for lack of a home.

JMO.

[Pippin's person]

No, dog fighting is a illegal activity, dog breeding or the sale of dogs are not.

Wasn't your argument above that the bill hurts people's ability to support their families/generate income and provide the "trickle". So, how is the legality or illegality of the activity relevant to that argument?

[Debbie Meier]

Wasn't your argument above

I didn't make an argument, I stated my understanding of where the employment numbers are coming from after Tommy asked.

A few years back I was told that the dog breeding industry was MO number one agriculture industry from a revenue standpoint, I've not looked for any support to that claim, but regardless, shut it down it will hurt the states economy, especially in the rural areas, plain and simple.

[Debbie Meier]

Yes, but keeping more than 50 dogs for breeding and keeping them in prohibited conditions is also an illegal activity under the law the voters adopted

The second part was illegal before the passage of the new bill, MO is like IA, over X number of dogs and you are subject to inspections and oversite, the biggest change that Prop B did as I understand it is limit the numbers to 50 and clarify what a domestic animal is

[Eileen Stein]

The second part was illegal before the passage of the new bill,

There were some requirements in existing law. The new bill set additional requirements, and hence created some new "prohibited conditions."

the biggest change that Prop B did as I understand it is limit the numbers to 50 and clarify what a domestic animal is

If there's anything in Prop B that clarifies what a domestic animal is, I sure haven't been able to find it.

[Debbie Meier]

If there's anything in Prop B that clarifies what a domestic animal is, I sure haven't been able to find it.

I mis-spoke, the fact sheet that was sent out with the overview of prop B along with definitions based on MO law was coming to mind. The Prop B deal is close to us, we've been informed that the regulations that Prop B puts on dog breeders is going to be attempted here in Iowa, though we been reassured that it will not gain any traction or support.

[juliepoudrier]

Yeah, because it would be a bad thing to prevent people from having 50+ breeding dogs.

[Debbie Meier]

http://chrischinn.wo...0-initiative-2/

[Eileen Stein]

Deb, I stopped reading your link after paragraph 1. It is either dishonest or misinformed to say that Prop B applies to animals other than dogs. The bill plainly states:

The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs in puppy mills by requiring large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with basic food and water, adequate shelter from the elements, necessary veterinary care, adequate space to turn around and stretch his or her limbs, and regular exercise.

Section 3 provides that "any person having custody or ownership of more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet shall provide each covered dog" a specified list of care and living conditions.

Section 4 provides that "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person may have custody of more than fifty covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet."

Those are the only provisions of the bill that impose any requirements or outlaw any conduct. The only ones. There is just no room for confusion on this point. It doesn't matter in the slightest how "pet" is defined because the bill only places restrictions/requirements on the maintainance and treatment of dogs.

[Debbie Meier]

But will Prop B's definition of pet be limited to dogs and prop B? Livestock is considered to be domesticated animals

(9) ”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.

[juliepoudrier]

I believe that "livestock" and "pet" do not have the same meaning, though both are domesticated. Where the line seems to blur is with horses, which some consider livestock and others consider pets (which feeds into the whole horse slaughter controversy). At any rate, I find it hard to believe that someone would consider the domesticated angus bull who lives in a pasture next to his owner's house as a pet, since livestock generally aren't considered companion animals.

But then scare tactics are one of the best ways to rally folks to a cause, so it's no wonder the "antis" are claiming that a "domesticated animal living in or near the household thereof" could include livestock.

J.