Animal welfare groups hope to make lawmakers sit up
ST. LOUIS, Mo. (KMOX) – Animal welfare groups are barking back at efforts to repeal Prop B — the state’s voter-approved crack-down on puppy mills.
The Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation is taking some supporters to Jefferson City today to meet legislators in person. Executive Director Bob Baker is asking anyone else to call or e-mail.
Baker says some proposals would completely scrap the new rules for dog breeders while others would gut the most important provisions. “You know this passed in the majority of legislative districts in the state. So if every legislator would listen to their constituents, Proposition B will be left alone and it will stand and dogs will have protection.”
Opponents have expressed concerns the law will impact other agricultural industries in the state. Supporters have repeatedly denied those claims.
The measure approved by voters in November would require breeding kennels to limit their animals and provide minimum standards for exercise and veterinary care.
Copyright KMOX Radio
© 2013 CBS Radio Stations, Inc. All rights reserved. |
Terry Ward
January 19, 2011 5:38 am
Can’t wait to see the inevitable BOGUS comments from the puppy-mill huggers.
ANYTHING the anti- Prop B folks claim is either gross misinformation or outright lies.
These are people who think ‘Humane’ is a dirty word.
These are people who think companion animals are nothing but their personal ‘property’, like a house or a truck.
These are the people call you a ‘terrorist’ and a ‘communist’ and a ‘socialist’ if you voted for Proposition B.
These are the people who say you are ‘anti-american’ if you question ANYTHING they do to animals.
These are the people who protect the animal abusers, no matter what they say.
Please don’t buy into their lies..
Please ask your legislators to keep Proposition B.
denise edgar
January 19, 2011 8:49 am
The people Of Missouri Have spoken .The opposition has no rights .This is what the [people of Missouri want. I will not stand by and let them repeal a human act in Missouri.The year is 2011.
Ruth K
January 20, 2011 4:49 pm
What our legislators are doing is just part of the process of making laws. If you don’t like how it works, feel free to find a state that has no safeguards for its citizens and move there.
Anne
January 19, 2011 9:18 am
Prop B – which applies to breeding dogs only – was voted in by the majority and it should stand. Missourians want better treatment and more humane standards for breeding dogs.
ptbamdb
January 19, 2011 10:07 am
Anne, we don’t need HSUS paid puppets telling us MISSOURIANS what MISSOURI wants! We have 22 pages of state laws regarding dog breeding, and Prop B does NOT make anything more humane for breeding dogs. Legal licensed dog breeders already doing a great job will be forced out of business by ignorant (expensive) changes that do NOT help dogs, while the illegal puppymills (the ones the voters THOUGHT they were voting against) will thrive. The only ones who will be happy if Prop B is enacted is HSUS and other animal rights’ activists who want the legal breeding of dogs (and every other animal) to stop.
Shelley
January 19, 2011 10:48 am
And the majority of Missourians don’t need their representatives disregarding our vote because of demands from special interests.
ptbamdb
January 19, 2011 9:50 am
Terry, Missourians didn’t interfere with Pennsylvania’s dog laws, and we would appreciate if you didn’t interfere with ours. Stay in Pennsylvania and allow Missourians to post their comments on this MISSOURI issue, without unwarranted attacks from outsiders who ‘have no dog in this fight’.
Thanks to our legislators for addressing the repeal of or modification of this bill that will financially devastate the entire legal, licensed dog breeding and other related industries in Missouri. Do we really need to lose thousands of jobs and lose millions in tax revenues? Of course, the illegal, unlicensed puppymills that this bill pretended to target will continue to thrive until found and shut down by laws already on the books long before Prop B..
Shelley
January 19, 2011 10:54 am
Perhaps you want people from outside of Missouri not to visit our state and spend their dollars here, either. Remember that every time stories about our puppy mills hit the national press, Missourians lose.
Thousands of jobs? Millions in tax revenue? You have evidence to back up your rather outlandish claims?
Commercial dog breeding employs many fewer people and generates much less revenue than the adult entertainment business, and the state representatives had no trouble imposing business regulations on this industry.
I’ve heard from one representative who was a co-sponsor of one of the bills and has pulled their support. I expect the same lack of interest in modifying Prop B to apply to any representative from a Yes on B district. Since the majority of districts voted Yes on Proposition B, I don’t expect these bills to advance.
marq
January 19, 2011 11:17 am
Excuse me Shelley but wasn’t it Barbara Schmitz who stated publicly that there were over 3,000 so-called mills? You people can’t keep it straight. That is 3,000 jobs not to mention the extra employees that they do hire. It is a ripple effect into the economy. People do come from other states to buy puppies and they often comment on how nice the kennel are and how stringent Missouri rules are for licensed kennels. So Shelley, how many adult porn stars reside in Missouri? I just had a conversation with a new Senator who is changing his opinion in favor of repealing or at least changing prop b and he is from one of those big districts.
ptbamdb
January 19, 2011 11:47 am
Tourists are not avoiding Missouri because HSUS and you keep calling us names. If the tourists live outside our state, they have no vote here and certainly won’t plan their vacations around whether Prop B survives. How ridiculous your arguments are becoming!
Since you have never even seen a commercial kennel, nor realize the huge financial impact the dog industry has on this state, your arguments are pretty lame.
If you think Missouri’s dog breeding industry is so insignificant, why are you wasting your time? And why is Wayne Pacelle still invading our state regularly to ‘sweet-talk’ or threaten our elected officials?
marq
January 19, 2011 10:22 am
My veterinarian showed me the early results of proposition B at her veterinary clinic. It was a dumpster full of dogs. Yep the euthanasias have started folks and the voters are responsible for it. Why? Because several kennels had relationships with shelters and rescues. Now those benevolent folks are backing out of those agreements to take retirement dogs because donations are dwindling and they know that major fall out is just down the road. Our vet specialized in kennels and has already lost 8 clients. Get ready to see your veterinary fees go throught the roof is what she told me.
csmyser
January 19, 2011 10:27 am
nice vet. dumpster full of dogs. these breeders don’t take the unwanted dogs to vets to be put down. these knock them in the head, dump them down a dirt road, or if we’re lucky call a rescue.
Shelley
January 19, 2011 11:01 am
Bluntly: I question the truthfulness of your comment.
Which veterinarian? Where was the dumpster? If you can’t support such outlandish claims with anything we can corroborate, then you only demonstrate that most claims from the anti-puppy mill legislation folks should be considered suspect, at best.
As for rescues taking dogs, I do have corroboration:
http://militaryworkingdogs.chipin.com/bullieball-2010-rescue-of-25-english-bulldogs
http://www.coloradoconnection.com/news/story.aspx?id=548196
IowaJohn
January 19, 2011 11:05 am
So I’m guessing that you work for H$U$ Terry…Misinformation??? Really? So you think its okay that your thoughts and “opinions” can control the lives and interests of others? Well, if so- that pretty much makes you a communist terrorist, which of course IS anti-American. Companion animals are just that, animals. Which are property. They are bought and sold every minute in America. It is legal, the government will tell you that, they actually like it because the get something called tax revenue from it. People, however are not property, they are not bought and sold every day. Adoption is the same as purchasing a companion animal with a warmer, fuzzier name. Anyone with a rational mind knows this. Prostitution B is NOT just aimed at dog kennels. Have you read it?? It talks about ANIMALS, not DOGS. Bogus comments would be from those who this affects on a daily basis, I’m guessing. And genuine comments would be from people who do not have a real grasp of reality, clinging onto the fact that their emotions control their thoughts and opinions, not logic. Well, I don’t buy your lies Terry, and I’m an American, not a communist or a terrorist.. The dictionary defines a terrorist as one who participates in terrorism and terrorism is defined as the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes. So by the DICTIONARY’S definition H$U$ and you are terrorists! People who are concerned about animal welfare should contact their legislators and ask them to enforce the existing laws and get rid of Prostitution B, because it is un-American and restricts the rights of Missouri’s citizens to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness…
bunny
January 19, 2011 11:10 am
I fail to understand why these people cannot tell “animal rights” from animal welfare, so I will tell you.
Animal rights- want all animals freed. They care nothing about the animals, and want them to die, actually. They are the ones supporing Prop B, as a portion of their ultimate agenda-the distruction of all animals belonging to mankind. They believe animals should not be bred, eaten, pets, or used as clothing. Examples: The Humane Society of the United States and PETA.
Animal welfare-people who actually care about animals and wish to see them treated as kindly and compassionately as possible.
Please get this right on your next fluff piece. Those of us in ANIMAL WELFARE would thank you.
ptbamdb
January 19, 2011 11:16 am
Shelley, demands from ‘special interests’ OUTSIDE OF MISSOURI is what put Prop B on the ballot in the first place. HSUS bought Missouri urban voters to the tune of over 4 million dollars. Now Missouri’s legislators need to put things right again. People were duped. HSUS lied. Jobs and revenues are at stake. And you expect Missouri’s elected officials not to do something to counteract this mess Prop B created?
Shelley
January 19, 2011 11:20 am
No, what put Proposition B on the ballot was signatures from 190,000 Missourians. What placed the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act into the books was a majority of Missouri voters.
Now, please stop insulting us by implying that we didn’t know what we were voting for.
Now Missouri state representatives need to support this vote, and the will of the people, and stop letting special interests dictate our laws.
marq
January 19, 2011 11:24 am
Who got paid what to garner those signatures? We know what you and Barbara Schmitz are made of!
ptbamdb
January 19, 2011 11:56 am
I repeat, HSUS wrote and put Prop B on the ballot. The signatures were the result of the manipulations of HSUS. Who wouldn’t sign to do away with puppymills?
The voters were deceived, manipulated, fooled, duped, lied to, or in your case just too ignorant to understand the end result to the state of Missouri. I suppose there were some who really don’t want any more dogs born (like Wayne Pacelle), but they are a minority.
HSUS, THE special interest, is the one who needs to stop dictating to our state with their millions of illgotten dollars.
marq
January 19, 2011 11:23 am
Alot of folks realized after the election that they had been lied to. I know several who have officially cancelled their donations to HSUS and other activist organizations. The Governor of Nebraska has officially declared war on HSUS. The tide is turning folks!
Shelley
January 19, 2011 11:33 am
Facts, marq. Facts.
Do you have anything to corroborate what you’re saying?
Or are you another HumaneWatch paid commenter?
Shelley
January 19, 2011 11:31 am
marq, it was the Department of Agriculture that estimated 3000 commercial dog breeders, over half of which are illegal.
The large scale commercial dog breeders do not allow potential puppy buyers to visit their establishments. At most, they’ll meet the potential puppy buyer at a nearby location. Most sell to puppy brokers, or if online, ship the dogs.
Unless you can prove otherwise, by giving specifics or some form of corroborating information, I have to question the veracity of your statement.
You must also be completely unaware of the so-called Adult Entertainment law passed in 2010 to make the statement you made.
marq
January 19, 2011 11:40 am
Shelley you and Barbara keep making the same mistakes over and over again. You come up with a concept and apply it to everyone. I know several breeders who welcome the public into their kennels. There are several kennels in this state who specialize and do not ship to pet stores or sell to brokers. You make the blank cover statement that all breeders are bad and have zero concern over what occurs in pet stores. Your theory is that it is always the breeders fault when anything happens. You are a part of today’s society that takes no responsibilty for their actions especially if the owner is responsible themselves for a sick or injured puppy.
Shelley
January 19, 2011 12:54 pm
Which breeders, marq. Which ones? None of the ones I’ve checked out, and I’ve checked out many, allow outsiders into their establishments. And this includes potential puppy buyers.,
The only breeders I know that welcome people are the show breeders, not the large scale commercial breeders.
And again, I ask you: are you connected in any way with HumaneWatch?
marq
January 19, 2011 11:47 am
Wrong again Shelley, try in the neighbor hood of a little over 1400 licensed kennels. Prop B does nothing to illegal breeders.
Shelley
January 19, 2011 11:37 am
I cover several of the oft repeated misinformations about Proposition B in an article at the Columbia Missourian. I hope this site does not mind me linking the article here:
http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2011/01/14/guest-commentary-separating-myths-and-facts-prop-b/
What people need to remember when it comes to reading all of these comments is that if a person makes an outlandish claim, chances are the claim lacks basis in fact.
Commonsense can frequently work to filter out the outlandish claims.
marq
January 19, 2011 11:45 am
The sad thing Shelley is that there is zero common sense in the mandates of Prop B. Look at the MVMA opinions. I have to wonder how many dogs you and your fellow stooges have ever raised in your lifetime and if you’ve ever managed a commercial kennel. It was a carefully conceived plan to destroy the kennel industry and everyone with a brain knows it. More and more people are now over the emotion and are thinking clearly. They don’t want to have to pay $3,000 for a puppy.
ptbamdb
January 19, 2011 12:14 pm
Sorry, your little article was a joke. YOU were attempting to set everyone straight? LOL. YOU, who have never been to a kennel……? What you see as outlandish claims are no doubt absolute FACTS, because you have never experienced anything remotely connected to raising dogs in a professional, licensed kennel. I don’t know why people who DO NOT KNOW WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, keep talking about it!
kate
January 19, 2011 12:25 pm
I am a single mother with 2 teenage sons. I employ people from town to help me with our kennel. I’ve never been written up and have been commended on the care that my dogs receive. I want to thank Shelley and her cronies for ruining not only my life but the lives of my children who would like to go to college. I hope one day that someone pulls the rug out from under you and if I were not a Christian I would wish a catastrophic disease on you.
Shelley
January 19, 2011 12:59 pm
Then tell me which is the statements I made are inaccurate? You and marq use a lot of caps locks and make a lot of outlandish claims, but you don’t back anything up with information we can verify.
I provide information so people can verify my statements. I sign my name to my statements, so people know who they’re dealing with. Unless you and marq are willing to do the same, I no longer going to waste time with either of you.
IowaJohn
January 20, 2011 10:56 pm
I have read all of your posts here Shelley and I am struggling to find and sense in what you are saying, let alone commonsense… The problem is that your paradigm is so narrow and self centered that you can not see the flaws of it… How sad it must be to be so full of bitterness and hatred for other humans.
Have you read Prob B? (maybe you helped write it)?? There is much concern on the legal deffinitions of most of what is in it… When dealing with official laws things must be exact… The bill repeatedly uses the term “ANIMAL” not dog… if it were only aimed at dogs why wouldn’t it say “DOG”?? it in fact says domestic animals. Your outlandish claims say that the people concerned are making things up. Really? I think everyone that reads this should go read Prop B if they haven’t, and they should read it again if they have. How is it that only dogs in kennels are the ones that have to comply to these regulations? Why not the uncounted number of dogs in shelters, pounds, rescues and foster homes? Could it be that they don’t want to or couldn’t comply either? Could it be that they wouldn’t have the funds to build new specific buildings just because someone else thinks that the way they are taking care of thier dogs isn’t right? Commomsense should tell you and everyone who voted in favor of PropB that ALL of the dogs in Missouri should be treated the same, and should fall under the same rules and regulations that protect them from harm…
Pam Fretwell
January 19, 2011 11:43 am
I definately feel that it should be repealed. People misunderstood what they were voting for.
JIM COTTRELL
January 19, 2011 12:35 pm
WHY IS IT THAT THESE PEOPLE THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY HOW PEOPLE MAKE A LIVING. THERE ARE A LOT OF US SMALL BREEDERS THAT DO IT FOR THE LOVE OF THE BREEDS THAT THEY RAISE. I BELIEVE IN DOING THINGS THE RIGHT WAY BY GIVING MY DOGS PLENTY OF ATTENTION & SPACE TO PLAY.I ALSO ENJOY THE IDEA THAT WHEN PEOPLE BUY A PUPPY OF MINE THAT IT GOES TO PEOPLE THAT WANT & WILL LOVE THIER PUPPY. I HAVE A CLAUSE IN MY CONTRACT THAT IF FOR SOME REASON THEY CAN NO LONGER THAKE CARE ARE WANT THE DOG TO RETURN IT TO ME. NO SHELTERS FOR MY DOGS..
I ALSO BELIEVE THAT IF WE MEET INSPECTIONS & KEEP OUR DOGS VET CHECKED WE SHOULD BE LEFT ALONE.
IF THEY KEEP GETTING THESE THINGS FROM DOG BREEDERS IT WILL SOON TURN TO OTHER PEOPLE RAISING OTHER ANIMALS. EVEN MY INSPECTORS HAVE SAID THIS TO ME.
WHAT REALLY GETS MY ATTENTION IS THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY COLLECT THAT ACTUALLY GOES TO THE CARE OF TAKING CARE OF UNWANTED & NEGLECTED DOGS & CATS. MOST OF IT IS SPENT ON TRYING TO HARM US BREEDERS. PLEASE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS AT STAKE HERE. THE RIGHTS OF PEOPLE TRYING TO DO THINGS THE RIGHT WAY, BY RAISEING QUALTY PUPPIES TO PEOPLE THAT WANT THEM. GO AFTER THE PEOPLE THAT ARE REALLY NEGLECTING THIER ANIMALS. THERE IS NO REASON TO KEEP PILEING ON RULES & REGULATIONS ON THE PEOPLE THAT FALLOW THE RULES THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.