Breeders I want your professional opinion on this Proposition. - Page 3 - YorkieTalk.com Forums

Teresamag · 10-26-2010, 01:17 PM

At the risk of being labeled a "puppymill lover" I have to say I am against Prop B. I absolutely hate breeders who do things wrong and I want something done about them as much as the next person. However as a resident of Missouri and a breeder in this state for many years I have seen very few "puppymills". (I have seen a couple). Most facilities that people call a "puppymill" are commercial breeders. They are not one and the same, please don't label all breeders in Missouri as "puppymills". Would I choose to raise my dogs this way? No, of course not but we really need to be very careful about laws that are passed.
Everyone intends to do the right thing for dogs but sometimes bills can have far-reaching effects, some that might not be what was intended. Remember that Missouri is a huge agriculture state, most areas are rural. We are the #2 beef producting state in the US so it stands to reason more breeders will live in Missouri than in another state like New York or Florida. Commercial breeders can't set their kennels up in large metropolitan areas and must live in rural areas to raise their dogs. Do I like living in a state known as the "puppymill capital"? Of course not, but my state is doing better and is improving.
As with most political arguments rhetoric, slandering, and fear-mongering will come from both sides, I certainly see this and it's only going to get worse in the next week. Am I sure if passed this bill will lead to affecting cattle production in Missouri? I don't think so but it's possible. Do I believe HSUS is only trying to help dogs in Missouri? No - I think they have an agenda here. Please watch the videos that are being posted and shown on TV, most of these puppymill rescues were actually from unlicensed breeders; the commercials don't tell you that. HSUS is using these to tug at the heartstrings of people who want to help and don't realize that these "breeders" were unlicensed and breaking the law already. These are the breeders who will not be affected by the new laws. They will continue to fly under the radar while licensed reputable breeders will be affected. Missouri is already trying to shut down unlicensed, sub-standard breeders by using Operation Bark Alert. This program is working! In 2009 it shut down 164 breeders, in 2010 it has already shut down 180 breeders. Instead of passing new laws (unfunded) why can't we pass a tax bill giving more money to our Dept of Agriculture? They could use more money to hire more inspectors to inspect kennels, use Operation Bark Alert, and enforce the regulations that we currently have. These regulations were put into place by a group that included vets, breeders, etc, not a bill created by HSUS who has their own agenda.
I just wonder why this bill only applies toward dog breeders. It doesn't apply to anyone else. Our local no-kill animal shelter houses 100+ dogs in small 3x6 foot runs - sometimes 2 large dogs or 3-4 small dogs to a run. These dogs are on concrete - they potty where they sleep and rarely get out to play. The odor in this shelter is horrible, I certainly would not let one of my dogs live there. Why does this bill not cover animal shelters, pet shops, hunting kennels, or anyone else? Why is humane care not the same for anyone housing any number of dogs?
Also, AKC and many other reputable agencies are against this bill. See the Columbia Missouri Kennel Club's website index and AKC's response to this bill American Kennel Club - AKC Opposes Missouri Proposition B
Again, please understand I do not support "puppymills" or unethical breeders. I have read this bill, compared it to the current laws, and have decided to vote NO. I always make my decisions based on what is best for my dogs and I have decided that this bill is bad for all breeders and it's bad for my dogs. For anyone who thinks I am only concerned about myself, please know that I have under 10 females and would not even be covered under this bill. (I have 5 breeding girls 1 who will be retired asap and 2 will be retired in the next year with one teenager and 2 puppies growing up that I may keep). I just know what is right and what I believe in and I have a strong conviction in my beliefs so I will speak out where I need to about this bill.
I respect other people's beliefs also and I really do think most people want to do the right thing. No one likes "puppymills" and we all want to prevent them. I just think this bill is not the way to go and plan on voting NO.
Teresa
Magnum Yorkies

Mardelin · 10-26-2010, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by megansmomma

I would like to see a specif post or link directing me to Wayne Pacelle making this statement. Other than the links to the radical group that is affiliated with the puppymills of this country I can not find this statement anywhere.

I cannot for the life of me understand why you would support milling in your state. You have 2 dogs that are both from poor breeding that have had numerous health issues.

I come to this forum every day and see the sick dogs purchased from Pet Store that come from the mills. Most come from~guess where~ Missouri.

Why are there so many mills in your state? Because there is no regulations or the current regulations are not strong enough to be enforceable to shut them down.

Rachel~I think you need to become more informed and take note of what is being said all around you in this forum regarding the disgraceful treatment and the number of puppy mills in YOUR STATE. It isn't know as the Puppy Mill Capital for nothing. Missouri=Misery when is comes to Puppy Mills.

Do you know understand these killers shoot, beat to death, perform c-sections without vets or anesthesia on their dogs. They are crowded into cages and attack and kill each other. They live in filthy and with own waste their entire lives only to die when they are no longer useful to these horrible millers.

This is going on all around you. There are more mills in Missouri than any other state in the USA. Dogs are not meant to be agriculture. You have been sucked in by misrepresentation by lobbyists who's job is to suck you in to their way of thinking. They get big bucks as mentioned above to sway the uniformed with misinformation to stoke their agendas. The AKC makes millions from the mills why would the support this legislation?

I firmly stand behind the HSUS and what they are trying to accomplish. If the USDA can't apply the current regulations to the epidemic that is going on them something more needs to be done.

Jodi,

You know how I support good breeding and would do anything to stop puppy mills. However, a multitude of bills hit each state constantly and most do not address the millers alone they encompass the reputable breeder.

I have a multitude of information on HSUS from YTCA that I would have to obtain their permission to let you have it. HSUS is not what it seems. Their financial records are available for everyone to see, very little of their income goes to actual care of those poor animals that require it. When you have salaries within their organization upward in the 200,000 range, one tends to wonder. The majority of their money is spent on lobbying for "animal rights" and yes there is a difference between "rights" & "welfare"

Elle · 10-26-2010, 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Teresamag

At the risk of being labeled a "puppymill lover" I have to say I am against Prop B. I absolutely hate breeders who do things wrong and I want something done about them as much as the next person. However as a resident of Missouri and a breeder in this state for many years I have seen very few "puppymills". (I have seen a couple). Most facilities that people call a "puppymill" are commercial breeders. They are not one and the same, please don't label all breeders in Missouri as "puppymills". Would I choose to raise my dogs this way? No, of course not but we really need to be very careful about laws that are passed.
Everyone intends to do the right thing for dogs but sometimes bills can have far-reaching effects, some that might not be what was intended. Remember that Missouri is a huge agriculture state, most areas are rural. We are the #2 beef producting state in the US so it stands to reason more breeders will live in Missouri than in another state like New York or Florida. Commercial breeders can't set their kennels up in large metropolitan areas and must live in rural areas to raise their dogs. Do I like living in a state known as the "puppymill capital"? Of course not, but my state is doing better and is improving.
As with most political arguments rhetoric, slandering, and fear-mongering will come from both sides, I certainly see this and it's only going to get worse in the next week. Am I sure if passed this bill will lead to affecting cattle production in Missouri? I don't think so but it's possible. Do I believe HSUS is only trying to help dogs in Missouri? No - I think they have an agenda here. Please watch the videos that are being posted and shown on TV, most of these puppymill rescues were actually from unlicensed breeders; the commercials don't tell you that. HSUS is using these to tug at the heartstrings of people who want to help and don't realize that these "breeders" were unlicensed and breaking the law already. These are the breeders who will not be affected by the new laws. They will continue to fly under the radar while licensed reputable breeders will be affected. Missouri is already trying to shut down unlicensed, sub-standard breeders by using Operation Bark Alert. This program is working! In 2009 it shut down 164 breeders, in 2010 it has already shut down 180 breeders. Instead of passing new laws (unfunded) why can't we pass a tax bill giving more money to our Dept of Agriculture? They could use more money to hire more inspectors to inspect kennels, use Operation Bark Alert, and enforce the regulations that we currently have. These regulations were put into place by a group that included vets, breeders, etc, not a bill created by HSUS who has their own agenda.
I just wonder why this bill only applies toward dog breeders. It doesn't apply to anyone else. Our local no-kill animal shelter houses 100+ dogs in small 3x6 foot runs - sometimes 2 large dogs or 3-4 small dogs to a run. These dogs are on concrete - they potty where they sleep and rarely get out to play. The odor in this shelter is horrible, I certainly would not let one of my dogs live there. Why does this bill not cover animal shelters, pet shops, hunting kennels, or anyone else? Why is humane care not the same for anyone housing any number of dogs?
Also, AKC and many other reputable agencies are against this bill. See the Columbia Missouri Kennel Club's website index and AKC's response to this bill American Kennel Club - AKC Opposes Missouri Proposition B
Again, please understand I do not support "puppymills" or unethical breeders. I have read this bill, compared it to the current laws, and have decided to vote NO. I always make my decisions based on what is best for my dogs and I have decided that this bill is bad for all breeders and it's bad for my dogs. For anyone who thinks I am only concerned about myself, please know that I have under 10 females and would not even be covered under this bill. (I have 5 breeding girls 1 who will be retired asap and 2 will be retired in the next year with one teenager and 2 puppies growing up that I may keep). I just know what is right and what I believe in and I have a strong conviction in my beliefs so I will speak out where I need to about this bill.
I respect other people's beliefs also and I really do think most people want to do the right thing. No one likes "puppymills" and we all want to prevent them. I just think this bill is not the way to go and plan on voting NO.
Teresa
Magnum Yorkies

I saw your website. I'm sorry, this doesn't fit my definition of someone honoring the breed. If it's not to the standard, it's using them and harms the future of the breed. I wish there were people in MO that well I guess I will say people that just loved dogs and didn't want to use them. Maybe not everyone is abusing them to the point that they are being physically harmed and mutilated. When I think of how dogs should be treated, ma'am I don't feel Missourian's have any idea where to even begin.

Elle · 10-26-2010, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mardelin

Jodi,

You know how I support good breeding and would do anything to stop puppy mills. However, a multitude of bills hit each state constantly and most do not address the millers alone they encompass the reputable breeder.

I have a multitude of information on HSUS from YTCA that I would have to obtain their permission to let you have it. HSUS is not what it seems. Their financial records are available for everyone to see, very little of their income goes to actual care of those poor animals that require it. When you have salaries within their organization upward in the 200,000 range, one tends to wonder. The majority of their money is spent on lobbying for "animal rights" and yes there is a difference between "rights" & "welfare"

I couldn't agree more with you. HSUS is an evil money empire hiding behind the face of a dear sweet puppy. Don't be fooled by the TV commercials and politicians folks. Who are they saying should breed? The very same people true animal lovers are against. It's a sneaky sick concluded bait and switch tactic to enable them to put more money in their pockets. We know they don't care about animals. If they cared about animals, would the euthanasia rate be what it is? Would it exist at all? Our government is powerful enough to stop it. They could stop the commercial breeding too.

We need a solution. We do not have one. Until then animals will suffer. Don't let the government prey on the weakness of your hearts. They know how much it pains us, what have they done thus far? Have you seen the penalty for when a person is found guilty of crimes as such? Puppymills, commercial breeders backyard breeders call them whatever you want; they are the problem and HSUS is not the solution.

yorkiegirl2 · 10-26-2010, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elle

I saw your website. I'm sorry, this doesn't fit my definition of someone honoring the breed. If it's not to the standard, it's using them and harms the future of the breed. I wish there were people in MO that well I guess I will say people that just loved dogs and didn't want to use them. Maybe not everyone is abusing them to the point that they are being physically harmed and mutilated. When I think of how dogs should be treated, ma'am I don't feel Missourian's have any idea where to even begin.

Elle this is a discussion about a bill called Prop B NOT about the ethics of breeding Parti’s.
Everyone has their opinions about the bill and I guess we will see how Missourians vote come election day.
If nothing else I think it has brought attention to the general public about the problems we face in our state. Those who otherwise were not aware of how bad substandard breeders are and hopefully people will be more cautious when buying their puppies.

Jaxx · 10-26-2010, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elle

I saw your website. I'm sorry, this doesn't fit my definition of someone honoring the breed. If it's not to the standard, it's using them and harms the future of the breed. I wish there were people in MO that well I guess I will say people that just loved dogs and didn't want to use them. Maybe not everyone is abusing them to the point that they are being physically harmed and mutilated. When I think of how dogs should be treated, ma'am I don't feel Missourian's have any idea where to even begin.

Everyone in this thread, until this post has been respectful of each other's opinions and their right to express them.

This thread is about Proposition B... not an opportunity for you to rudely attack a poster who has a different opinion than you do.

If you have any points to make..state them, there is no reason to badmouth a poster because she has researched and is able to explain the problems with Prop B, and no reason for you to make negative remarks about the people of Missouri.

Your statement that you don't feel Missourians have any idea where to even begin.. and that "Maybe not everyone (in MO) is abusing them to the point that they are being physically harmed and mutilated"s is insulting to every person in the state of Missouri.
Since you don't know all (any?) of the 5,987,580 people in Missouri your remark probably won't impress many people.

Teresamag · 10-29-2010, 06:44 PM

Here is an email I received today from AKC, please read below.

Tuesday is Election Day! AKC Opposes Missouri Proposition B

Dear AKC Clubs, Officers, and Breeders:

Please forward this to your club members in Missouri.

This Tuesday November 2nd is Election Day and your vote is important. The American Kennel Club (AKC) stands with responsible owners and breeders in opposing Proposition B.

The AKC recognizes and shares concerns about substandard kennels. Our mission includes working to protect the rights of all dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership. We support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of dogs without restricting the rights of owners or breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
The AKC strongly believes that ALL dogs – not just those who are part of a breeding program – deserve:
Sufficient food and clean water;
Necessary veterinary care;
Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;
Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down and extend his or her limbs;
Regular exercise; and
Adequate rest between breeding cycles.
However, the way in which some of these terms are defined in Missouri Proposition B do absolutely nothing to improve the wellbeing of animals; instead, it would add excessive expenses to responsible breeders who strive to produce well-bred family pets.

The proposal also seeks to limit the number of dogs an individual may own. This confuses the real issue of animal welfare, which focuses on the quality of care given to animals, not the number of animals an individual owns. Responsible breeders are not defined by the number of dogs kept, or whether they make a profit in selling dogs. Rather, responsible breeders are characterized by the quality of care and conditions that they provide their dogs and the quality (including health, temperament and breed type) of the puppies they produce.

Cruelty and negligence can occur regardless of the number of dogs a person has.

Furthermore, the AKC finds the term “puppy mill cruelty” used in Proposition B to be offensive to responsible breeders. Local responsible breeders should be viewed as assets to their communities. These breeders make serious commitments to their animals by raising healthy, well cared-for dogs and by working to ensure that puppies are placed with responsible owners. They are in a unique position to support new pet owners and exemplify responsible animal ownership.

Responsible dog breeders and owners are models for their communities and should not be penalized by being forced to comply with burdensome, unenforceable, expensive, and arbitrary regulations.

The American Kennel Club opposes Proposition B.

Click here for a printable version of this statement
Click here for a handout to print and distribute

blondschilli · 10-30-2010, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by yorkiegirl2

Elle this is a discussion about a bill called Prop B NOT about the ethics of breeding Parti’s.
Everyone has their opinions about the bill and I guess we will see how Missourians vote come election day.
If nothing else I think it has brought attention to the general public about the problems we face in our state. Those who otherwise were not aware of how bad substandard breeders are and hopefully people will be more cautious when buying their puppies.

AMEN!!!!!!!!! I still am voting Yes to prop B. This state is out of control, and the dogs are suffering we need change. Hopefully this helps, I will keep pushing till I see their is change. Yes not all breeders are bad but alot are. I am tired of being known as PuppyMill Capitol oh and yes the Meth capitol / MO WAKE UP AND LETS CLEAN ARE REPUTATION UP!!

chachi · 10-30-2010, 08:35 AM

I support anything my Humaine society is involved with. They are no kill and do have the animals best interest at heart. I donate to them as well

Amazing Yorkies · 10-30-2010, 02:42 PM

I'm voting NO this election. I wouldn't be that affected, because I am doing more than Prop B requires anyway.
Something needs to be done, but Prop B is not the answer, and if it is passed, the public will think all is well and the problems will continue.
I've seen some breeders with just 3 or 4 females that live in disgusting conditions, that will be unaffected. And what about Pet Stores not affected. How many sick pups are just thrown out and marked as a loss.
I refuse to support HSUS or anything about them. HSUS's agenda is not the welfare of the animals, they put down more animals than all the shelters combined. When the majority of the money donated is actually spent on the welfare of animals and not in their pockets, I may consider supporting them.
Since HSUS has no idea what good breeding is, I would really hate to have them tell me how to breed. I feel like it's the Devil telling me when to go to church.

Mardelin · 10-30-2010, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amazing Yorkies

I'm voting NO this election. I wouldn't be that affected, because I am doing more than Prop B requires anyway.
Something needs to be done, but Prop B is not the answer, and if it is passed, the public will think all is well and the problems will continue.
I've seen some breeders with just 3 or 4 females that live in disgusting conditions, that will be unaffected. And what about Pet Stores not affected. How many sick pups are just thrown out and marked as a loss.
I refuse to support HSUS or anything about them. HSUS's agenda is not the welfare of the animals, they put down more animals than all the shelters combined. When the majority of the money donated is actually spent on the welfare of animals and not in their pockets, I may consider supporting them.
Since HSUS has no idea what good breeding is, I would really hate to have them tell me how to breed. I feel like it's the Devil telling me when to go to church.

Keep in mind that HSUS is very different from the Humane Society that is found in our cities. By the way HSUS does not donate to HSUS, what they provide is pamphlets.

Amazing Yorkies · 10-30-2010, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mardelin

Keep in mind that HSUS is very different from the Humane Society that is found in our cities. By the way HSUS does not donate to HSUS, what they provide is pamphlets.

That is where the general public is being swindled by HSUS. They are NOT the local Humane Society down the road, who is concerned about animal welfare.

blondschilli · 10-30-2010, 07:54 PM

2010 Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation in Missouri

Statutory Amendment to Chapter 273, Relating to Dog Breeders

2010-085, Version 1

THE PROPOSED STATUTE

Be it enacted by the people of the State of Missouri:
Section A. One new section is enacted, to be known as section 273.345, to read as follows:
273.345. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the ”Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.”
2. 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.
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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:
(1) Sufficient food and clean water;
(2) Necessary veterinary care;
(3) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;
(4) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs;
(5) Regular exercise; and
(6) Adequate rest between breeding cycles.
4. 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.
5. For purposes of this section, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 273.325, the following terms have the following meanings:
(1) ”Covered dog” means any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids, that is over the age of six months and has intact sexual organs.
(2) ”Sufficient food and clean water” means access to appropriate nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health; and continuous access to potable water that is not frozen, and is free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants.
(3) ”Necessary veterinary care” means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed “Acceptable” by the American Veterinary Medical Association.
(4) ”Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements” means constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor; is not stacked or otherwise placed on top of or below another animal’s enclosure; is cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure; and does not fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit, or rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit.
(5) ”Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs” means having (1) sufficient indoor space for each dog to turn in a complete circle without any impediment (including a tether); (2) enough indoor space for each dog to lie down and fully extend his or her limbs and stretch freely without touching the side of an enclosure or another dog; (3) at least one foot of headroom above the head of the tallest dog in the enclosure; and (4) at least 12 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog up to 25 inches long; at least 20 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog between 25 and 35 inches long; and at least 30 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog for dogs 35 inches and longer (with the length of the dog measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail).
(6) ”Regular exercise” means constant and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area that is composed of a solid, ground level surface with adequate drainage; provides some protection against sun, wind, rain, and snow; and provides each dog at least twice the square footage of the indoor floor space provided to that dog.
(7) ”Adequate rest between breeding cycles” means, at minimum, ensuring that dogs are not bred to produce more than two litters in any 18 month period.
(8) ”Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or syndicate.
(9) ”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.
(10) ”Retail pet store” means a person or retail establishment open to the public where dogs are bought, sold, exchanged, or offered for retail sale directly to the public to be kept as pets, but that does not engage in any breeding of dogs for the purpose of selling any offspring for use as a pet.
6. A person is guilty of the crime of puppy mill cruelty when he or she knowingly violates any provision of this section. The crime of puppy mill cruelty is a class C misdemeanor, unless the defendant has previously pled guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case each such violation is a class A misdemeanor. Each violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense. If any violation of this section meets the definition of animal abuse in section 578.012, the defendant may be charged and penalized under that section instead.
7. The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare. This section shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulation protecting the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this section prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations in addition to this section. This section shall not be construed to place any numerical limits on the number of dogs a person may own or control when such dogs are not used for breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet. This section shall not apply to a dog during examination, testing, operation, recuperation, or other individual treatment for veterinary purposes; during lawful scientific research; during transportation; during cleaning of a dog’s enclosure; during supervised outdoor exercise; or during any emergency that places a dog’s life in imminent danger. This section shall not apply to any retail pet store; animal shelter as defined in section 273.325; hobby or show breeders who have custody of no more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those dogs and selling any offspring for use as a pet; or dog trainer who does not breed and sell any dogs for use as a pet. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise, or sell hunting dogs.
8. If any provision of this section, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this section are severable.
9. The provisions herewith shall become operative one year after passage of this Act.

Not one thing wrong with this PROP B Except to protect the animals. Nothing about cows or your home pets. Get real this is just a common sense Law for care of pets.!!!!!!!!!!! Vote Yes to Prop B

Teresamag · 10-31-2010, 09:39 AM

Here is the link to a copy of Proposition B - as it is written.

SOS, Missouri - Elections: 2010 Approved Initiative Petitions

What the ballot initiative says below is in black and my objections are in red

2010 Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation in Missouri
Statutory Amendment to Chapter 273, Relating to Dog Breeders 2010-085,

Version 1
THE PROPOSED STATUTE

Be it enacted by the people of the State of Missouri:

Section A. One new section is enacted, to be known as section 273.345, to read as follows:
273.345. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the ”Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.”
Naming this Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act is an inflammatory description - HSUS is using this term to encourage people to vote yes without fully reading and understand this bill - everyone wants to prevent puppy mills and cruelty.

2. 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.
These items above are already in existing law under the Missouri Department of Agricultures Animal Care Facilities Act Program (ACFA). These rules can be seen at Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA) - click on animals and livestock to see the act. There is no reason to pass new laws (at the cost of over 1 MILLION dollars) when we already have laws in place to cover these items.
3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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: Is it ok to not do these things if I only have 9 female dogs? Current Missouri law requires breeders with more than 3 females to follow the ACFA or it is a misdeamor. Missouri even has a program called Operation Bark Alert for people to report unlicensed breeders. (for more information see the above website).
(1) Sufficient food and clean water;
(2) Necessary veterinary care;
(3) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;
(4) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs;
(5) Regular exercise; and
All the above is already covered in existing laws under the ACFA - see above.
(6) Adequate rest between breeding cycles.
Breeders should make this decision in conference with their vet/reproductive specialist. This is not something that should be decided by the government or laws passed by people with no knowledge of breeding health issues.
4. 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.
Why is the government placing a number limit on the amount of "property" anyone can own? Are there laws telling me how many cars I might own or children I may have because I "might not" take care of them? Regulations and laws should be based on care - not numbers. This is just a ploy by HSUS trying to limit our numbers - in the future they could pass laws limiting breeders to 25 - 15 - 10 - 5 animals. Remember the goal of HSUS is to stamp out all breeding. Why is it that breeders can have only 50 dogs while animal shelters, rescues, hunting kennels, & HOARDERS can have way more? Isn't good care the same for all of us - why mandate a number for breeders when they are not mandating a number for anyone else?
5. For purposes of this section, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 273.325, the following terms have the following meanings:

(1) ”Covered dog” means any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids, that is over the age of six months and has intact sexual organs.

(2) ”Sufficient food and clean water” means access to appropriate nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health; and continuous access to potable water that is not frozen, and is free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants.
Why only once a day? Current law under the ACFA is twice a day. Why go to less often? Have the creators of this bill read our current laws?
(3) ”Necessary veterinary care” means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed “Acceptable” by the American Veterinary Medical Association.
Current law for Missouri licensed breeders is that they have to have a Program of Veterinary Care and that their vet make an annual visit to the premises. This rule would prevent breeders from treating minor illnesses (upset stomach, diarrhea, torn toenail, small cut) on their own using their own experience and knowledge and instead mandate that the breeder make a vet visit for every little thing.
(4) ”Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements” means constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor; is not stacked or otherwise placed on top of or below another animal’s enclosure; is cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure; and does not fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit, or rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit.
Temp, flooring, and cleaning are all already covered in the ACFA, some dogs do not like to be inside - Siberians, Malamutes, and Great Pyrenees. Are we supposed to make them be inside? Why is it not ok to have stacked cages for breeders but it is ok for pet shops, vets, animal shelters?
(5) ”Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs” means having (1) sufficient indoor space for each dog to turn in a complete circle without any impediment (including a tether); (2) enough indoor space for each dog to lie down and fully extend his or her limbs and stretch freely without touching the side of an enclosure or another dog; (3) at least one foot of headroom above the head of the tallest dog in the enclosure; and (4) at least 12 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog up to 25 inches long; at least 20 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog between 25 and 35 inches long; and at least 30 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog for dogs 35 inches and longer (with the length of the dog measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail).
Space requirements are already covered under the ACFA
(6) ”Regular exercise” means constant and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area that is composed of a solid, ground level surface with adequate drainage; provides some protection against sun, wind, rain, and snow; and provides each dog at least twice the square footage of the indoor floor space provided to that dog.
This is the scariest part of this bill. Constant and unfettered access to the outdoors means I can no longer put a puppy or a dog in a crate, puppy pen, or exercise pen for housetraining, to keep them safe, to separate them from dogs they don't get along with (ever seen 2 girls fighting - it's horrible), or to keep a girl in season away from a stud dog. Constant and unfettered access to the outdoors means that nursing moms will have their fragile puppies exposed to drafts and the heat/cold making the puppies very susceptible to colds, pneumonia, and other illnesses. It also puts these young puppies at risk of getting outside in the cold/heat and not being able to get back inside - puppies can die from this. It will also put the moms under more stress because their babies are not safe and secure.
(7) ”Adequate rest between breeding cycles” means, at minimum, ensuring that dogs are not bred to produce more than two litters in any 18 month period.
Breeders should make this decision in conference with their vet/reproductive specialist. This is not something that should be decided by the government or laws passed by people with no knowledge of breeding health issues.(
8) ”Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or syndicate.
What about co-owned dogs? Do co-owned dogs count in your total of 50 dogs? It certainly looks like it.
(9) ”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.

Teresamag · 10-31-2010, 09:40 AM

(10) ”Retail pet store” means a person or retail establishment open to the public where dogs are bought, sold, exchanged, or offered for retail sale directly to the public to be kept as pets, but that does not engage in any breeding of dogs for the purpose of selling any offspring for use as a pet.

6. A person is guilty of the crime of puppy mill cruelty when he or she knowingly violates any provision of this section. The crime of puppy mill cruelty is a class C misdemeanor, unless the defendant has previously pled guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case each such violation is a class A misdemeanor. Each violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense. If any violation of this section meets the definition of animal abuse in section 578.012, the defendant may be charged and penalized under that section instead.
Again, we don't need new laws - we need to enforce the existing laws under the ACFA
7. The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare. This section shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulation protecting the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this section prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations in addition to this section. This section shall not be construed to place any numerical limits on the number of dogs a person may own or control when such dogs are not used for breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet. This section shall not apply to a dog during examination, testing, operation, recuperation, or other individual treatment for veterinary purposes; during lawful scientific research; during transportation; during cleaning of a dog’s enclosure; during supervised outdoor exercise; or during any emergency that places a dog’s life in imminent danger. This section shall not apply to any retail pet store; animal shelter as defined in section 273.325; hobby or show breeders who have custody of no more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those dogs and selling any offspring for use as a pet; or dog trainer who does not breed and sell any dogs for use as a pet. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise, or sell hunting dogs.
Why is it that breeders can have only 50 dogs while animal shelters, rescues, hunting kennels, & HOARDERS can have way more? Isn't good care the same for all of us - why mandate a number for breeders when they are not mandating a number for anyone else?
8. If any provision of this section, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this section are severable.

9. The provisions herewith shall become operative one year after passage of this Act.

10-29-2010, 06:44 PM	#37
Teresamag YT Addict Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Missouri Posts: 358	AKC opposes Prop B Here is an email I received today from AKC, please read below. Tuesday is Election Day! AKC Opposes Missouri Proposition B Dear AKC Clubs, Officers, and Breeders: Please forward this to your club members in Missouri. This Tuesday November 2nd is Election Day and your vote is important. The American Kennel Club (AKC) stands with responsible owners and breeders in opposing Proposition B. The AKC recognizes and shares concerns about substandard kennels. Our mission includes working to protect the rights of all dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership. We support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of dogs without restricting the rights of owners or breeders who take their responsibilities seriously. The AKC strongly believes that ALL dogs – not just those who are part of a breeding program – deserve: Sufficient food and clean water; Necessary veterinary care; Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements; Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down and extend his or her limbs; Regular exercise; and Adequate rest between breeding cycles. However, the way in which some of these terms are defined in Missouri Proposition B do absolutely nothing to improve the wellbeing of animals; instead, it would add excessive expenses to responsible breeders who strive to produce well-bred family pets. The proposal also seeks to limit the number of dogs an individual may own. This confuses the real issue of animal welfare, which focuses on the quality of care given to animals, not the number of animals an individual owns. Responsible breeders are not defined by the number of dogs kept, or whether they make a profit in selling dogs. Rather, responsible breeders are characterized by the quality of care and conditions that they provide their dogs and the quality (including health, temperament and breed type) of the puppies they produce. Cruelty and negligence can occur regardless of the number of dogs a person has. Furthermore, the AKC finds the term “puppy mill cruelty” used in Proposition B to be offensive to responsible breeders. Local responsible breeders should be viewed as assets to their communities. These breeders make serious commitments to their animals by raising healthy, well cared-for dogs and by working to ensure that puppies are placed with responsible owners. They are in a unique position to support new pet owners and exemplify responsible animal ownership. Responsible dog breeders and owners are models for their communities and should not be penalized by being forced to comply with burdensome, unenforceable, expensive, and arbitrary regulations. The American Kennel Club opposes Proposition B. Click here for a printable version of this statement Click here for a handout to print and distribute

10-30-2010, 08:35 AM	#39
chachi I Love My Yorkies Donating Member Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Indianapolis, Indiana Posts: 37,147	I support anything my Humaine society is involved with. They are no kill and do have the animals best interest at heart. I donate to them as well __________________ Chachi's & Jewels Mom Jewels http://www.dogster.com/?132431 Chachi http://www.dogster.com/?132427

10-30-2010, 02:42 PM	#40
Amazing Yorkies YT Featured Breeder Donating Yorkie Yakker Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Oregon Posts: 1,552	I'm voting NO this election. I wouldn't be that affected, because I am doing more than Prop B requires anyway. Something needs to be done, but Prop B is not the answer, and if it is passed, the public will think all is well and the problems will continue. I've seen some breeders with just 3 or 4 females that live in disgusting conditions, that will be unaffected. And what about Pet Stores not affected. How many sick pups are just thrown out and marked as a loss. I refuse to support HSUS or anything about them. HSUS's agenda is not the welfare of the animals, they put down more animals than all the shelters combined. When the majority of the money donated is actually spent on the welfare of animals and not in their pockets, I may consider supporting them. Since HSUS has no idea what good breeding is, I would really hate to have them tell me how to breed. I feel like it's the Devil telling me when to go to church. __________________ Deb Sillers 816-261-8734 Cell ~ www.Amazingyorkies.com ~

10-30-2010, 07:54 PM	#43
blondschilli YT Addict Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Hillsboro, mo , usa Posts: 340	All of u from Mo with a heart will check out the new law and then decide!!!!!!! 2010 Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation in Missouri Statutory Amendment to Chapter 273, Relating to Dog Breeders 2010-085, Version 1 THE PROPOSED STATUTE Be it enacted by the people of the State of Missouri: Section A. One new section is enacted, to be known as section 273.345, to read as follows: 273.345. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the ”Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.” 2. 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. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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: (1) Sufficient food and clean water; (2) Necessary veterinary care; (3) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements; (4) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs; (5) Regular exercise; and (6) Adequate rest between breeding cycles. 4. 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. 5. For purposes of this section, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 273.325, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) ”Covered dog” means any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids, that is over the age of six months and has intact sexual organs. (2) ”Sufficient food and clean water” means access to appropriate nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health; and continuous access to potable water that is not frozen, and is free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants. (3) ”Necessary veterinary care” means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed “Acceptable” by the American Veterinary Medical Association. (4) ”Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements” means constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor; is not stacked or otherwise placed on top of or below another animal’s enclosure; is cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure; and does not fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit, or rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit. (5) ”Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs” means having (1) sufficient indoor space for each dog to turn in a complete circle without any impediment (including a tether); (2) enough indoor space for each dog to lie down and fully extend his or her limbs and stretch freely without touching the side of an enclosure or another dog; (3) at least one foot of headroom above the head of the tallest dog in the enclosure; and (4) at least 12 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog up to 25 inches long; at least 20 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog between 25 and 35 inches long; and at least 30 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog for dogs 35 inches and longer (with the length of the dog measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail). (6) ”Regular exercise” means constant and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area that is composed of a solid, ground level surface with adequate drainage; provides some protection against sun, wind, rain, and snow; and provides each dog at least twice the square footage of the indoor floor space provided to that dog. (7) ”Adequate rest between breeding cycles” means, at minimum, ensuring that dogs are not bred to produce more than two litters in any 18 month period. (8) ”Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or syndicate. (9) ”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof. (10) ”Retail pet store” means a person or retail establishment open to the public where dogs are bought, sold, exchanged, or offered for retail sale directly to the public to be kept as pets, but that does not engage in any breeding of dogs for the purpose of selling any offspring for use as a pet. 6. A person is guilty of the crime of puppy mill cruelty when he or she knowingly violates any provision of this section. The crime of puppy mill cruelty is a class C misdemeanor, unless the defendant has previously pled guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case each such violation is a class A misdemeanor. Each violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense. If any violation of this section meets the definition of animal abuse in section 578.012, the defendant may be charged and penalized under that section instead. 7. The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare. This section shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulation protecting the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this section prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations in addition to this section. This section shall not be construed to place any numerical limits on the number of dogs a person may own or control when such dogs are not used for breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet. This section shall not apply to a dog during examination, testing, operation, recuperation, or other individual treatment for veterinary purposes; during lawful scientific research; during transportation; during cleaning of a dog’s enclosure; during supervised outdoor exercise; or during any emergency that places a dog’s life in imminent danger. This section shall not apply to any retail pet store; animal shelter as defined in section 273.325; hobby or show breeders who have custody of no more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those dogs and selling any offspring for use as a pet; or dog trainer who does not breed and sell any dogs for use as a pet. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise, or sell hunting dogs. 8. If any provision of this section, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this section are severable. 9. The provisions herewith shall become operative one year after passage of this Act. Not one thing wrong with this PROP B Except to protect the animals. Nothing about cows or your home pets. Get real this is just a common sense Law for care of pets.!!!!!!!!!!! Vote Yes to Prop B

10-31-2010, 09:39 AM	#44
Teresamag YT Addict Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Missouri Posts: 358	Here are some of the objections about Prop B (in red) #1 post Here is the link to a copy of Proposition B - as it is written. SOS, Missouri - Elections: 2010 Approved Initiative Petitions What the ballot initiative says below is in black and my objections are in red 2010 Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation in Missouri Statutory Amendment to Chapter 273, Relating to Dog Breeders 2010-085, Version 1 THE PROPOSED STATUTE Be it enacted by the people of the State of Missouri: Section A. One new section is enacted, to be known as section 273.345, to read as follows: 273.345. 1. This section shall be known and may be cited as the ”Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.” Naming this Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act is an inflammatory description - HSUS is using this term to encourage people to vote yes without fully reading and understand this bill - everyone wants to prevent puppy mills and cruelty. 2. 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. These items above are already in existing law under the Missouri Department of Agricultures Animal Care Facilities Act Program (ACFA). These rules can be seen at Missouri Department of Agriculture (MDA) - click on animals and livestock to see the act. There is no reason to pass new laws (at the cost of over 1 MILLION dollars) when we already have laws in place to cover these items. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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: Is it ok to not do these things if I only have 9 female dogs? Current Missouri law requires breeders with more than 3 females to follow the ACFA or it is a misdeamor. Missouri even has a program called Operation Bark Alert for people to report unlicensed breeders. (for more information see the above website). (1) Sufficient food and clean water; (2) Necessary veterinary care; (3) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements; (4) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs; (5) Regular exercise; and All the above is already covered in existing laws under the ACFA - see above. (6) Adequate rest between breeding cycles. Breeders should make this decision in conference with their vet/reproductive specialist. This is not something that should be decided by the government or laws passed by people with no knowledge of breeding health issues. 4. 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. Why is the government placing a number limit on the amount of "property" anyone can own? Are there laws telling me how many cars I might own or children I may have because I "might not" take care of them? Regulations and laws should be based on care - not numbers. This is just a ploy by HSUS trying to limit our numbers - in the future they could pass laws limiting breeders to 25 - 15 - 10 - 5 animals. Remember the goal of HSUS is to stamp out all breeding. Why is it that breeders can have only 50 dogs while animal shelters, rescues, hunting kennels, & HOARDERS can have way more? Isn't good care the same for all of us - why mandate a number for breeders when they are not mandating a number for anyone else? 5. For purposes of this section, and notwithstanding the provisions of section 273.325, the following terms have the following meanings: (1) ”Covered dog” means any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids, that is over the age of six months and has intact sexual organs. (2) ”Sufficient food and clean water” means access to appropriate nutritious food at least once a day sufficient to maintain good health; and continuous access to potable water that is not frozen, and is free of debris, feces, algae, and other contaminants. Why only once a day? Current law under the ACFA is twice a day. Why go to less often? Have the creators of this bill read our current laws? (3) ”Necessary veterinary care” means, at minimum, examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian; prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, where needed, humane euthanasia by a licensed veterinarian using lawful techniques deemed “Acceptable” by the American Veterinary Medical Association. Current law for Missouri licensed breeders is that they have to have a Program of Veterinary Care and that their vet make an annual visit to the premises. This rule would prevent breeders from treating minor illnesses (upset stomach, diarrhea, torn toenail, small cut) on their own using their own experience and knowledge and instead mandate that the breeder make a vet visit for every little thing. (4) ”Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements” means constant and unfettered access to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor; is not stacked or otherwise placed on top of or below another animal’s enclosure; is cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure; and does not fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit, or rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit. Temp, flooring, and cleaning are all already covered in the ACFA, some dogs do not like to be inside - Siberians, Malamutes, and Great Pyrenees. Are we supposed to make them be inside? Why is it not ok to have stacked cages for breeders but it is ok for pet shops, vets, animal shelters? (5) ”Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs” means having (1) sufficient indoor space for each dog to turn in a complete circle without any impediment (including a tether); (2) enough indoor space for each dog to lie down and fully extend his or her limbs and stretch freely without touching the side of an enclosure or another dog; (3) at least one foot of headroom above the head of the tallest dog in the enclosure; and (4) at least 12 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog up to 25 inches long; at least 20 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog between 25 and 35 inches long; and at least 30 square feet of indoor floor space per each dog for dogs 35 inches and longer (with the length of the dog measured from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail). Space requirements are already covered under the ACFA (6) ”Regular exercise” means constant and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area that is composed of a solid, ground level surface with adequate drainage; provides some protection against sun, wind, rain, and snow; and provides each dog at least twice the square footage of the indoor floor space provided to that dog. This is the scariest part of this bill. Constant and unfettered access to the outdoors means I can no longer put a puppy or a dog in a crate, puppy pen, or exercise pen for housetraining, to keep them safe, to separate them from dogs they don't get along with (ever seen 2 girls fighting - it's horrible), or to keep a girl in season away from a stud dog. Constant and unfettered access to the outdoors means that nursing moms will have their fragile puppies exposed to drafts and the heat/cold making the puppies very susceptible to colds, pneumonia, and other illnesses. It also puts these young puppies at risk of getting outside in the cold/heat and not being able to get back inside - puppies can die from this. It will also put the moms under more stress because their babies are not safe and secure. (7) ”Adequate rest between breeding cycles” means, at minimum, ensuring that dogs are not bred to produce more than two litters in any 18 month period. Breeders should make this decision in conference with their vet/reproductive specialist. This is not something that should be decided by the government or laws passed by people with no knowledge of breeding health issues.( 8) ”Person” means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, limited liability company, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, or syndicate. What about co-owned dogs? Do co-owned dogs count in your total of 50 dogs? It certainly looks like it. (9) ”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.

10-26-2010, 01:17 PM	#31
Teresamag YT Addict Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Missouri Posts: 358	At the risk of being labeled a "puppymill lover" I have to say I am against Prop B. I absolutely hate breeders who do things wrong and I want something done about them as much as the next person. However as a resident of Missouri and a breeder in this state for many years I have seen very few "puppymills". (I have seen a couple). Most facilities that people call a "puppymill" are commercial breeders. They are not one and the same, please don't label all breeders in Missouri as "puppymills". Would I choose to raise my dogs this way? No, of course not but we really need to be very careful about laws that are passed. Everyone intends to do the right thing for dogs but sometimes bills can have far-reaching effects, some that might not be what was intended. Remember that Missouri is a huge agriculture state, most areas are rural. We are the #2 beef producting state in the US so it stands to reason more breeders will live in Missouri than in another state like New York or Florida. Commercial breeders can't set their kennels up in large metropolitan areas and must live in rural areas to raise their dogs. Do I like living in a state known as the "puppymill capital"? Of course not, but my state is doing better and is improving. As with most political arguments rhetoric, slandering, and fear-mongering will come from both sides, I certainly see this and it's only going to get worse in the next week. Am I sure if passed this bill will lead to affecting cattle production in Missouri? I don't think so but it's possible. Do I believe HSUS is only trying to help dogs in Missouri? No - I think they have an agenda here. Please watch the videos that are being posted and shown on TV, most of these puppymill rescues were actually from unlicensed breeders; the commercials don't tell you that. HSUS is using these to tug at the heartstrings of people who want to help and don't realize that these "breeders" were unlicensed and breaking the law already. These are the breeders who will not be affected by the new laws. They will continue to fly under the radar while licensed reputable breeders will be affected. Missouri is already trying to shut down unlicensed, sub-standard breeders by using Operation Bark Alert. This program is working! In 2009 it shut down 164 breeders, in 2010 it has already shut down 180 breeders. Instead of passing new laws (unfunded) why can't we pass a tax bill giving more money to our Dept of Agriculture? They could use more money to hire more inspectors to inspect kennels, use Operation Bark Alert, and enforce the regulations that we currently have. These regulations were put into place by a group that included vets, breeders, etc, not a bill created by HSUS who has their own agenda. I just wonder why this bill only applies toward dog breeders. It doesn't apply to anyone else. Our local no-kill animal shelter houses 100+ dogs in small 3x6 foot runs - sometimes 2 large dogs or 3-4 small dogs to a run. These dogs are on concrete - they potty where they sleep and rarely get out to play. The odor in this shelter is horrible, I certainly would not let one of my dogs live there. Why does this bill not cover animal shelters, pet shops, hunting kennels, or anyone else? Why is humane care not the same for anyone housing any number of dogs? Also, AKC and many other reputable agencies are against this bill. See the Columbia Missouri Kennel Club's website index and AKC's response to this bill American Kennel Club - AKC Opposes Missouri Proposition B Again, please understand I do not support "puppymills" or unethical breeders. I have read this bill, compared it to the current laws, and have decided to vote NO. I always make my decisions based on what is best for my dogs and I have decided that this bill is bad for all breeders and it's bad for my dogs. For anyone who thinks I am only concerned about myself, please know that I have under 10 females and would not even be covered under this bill. (I have 5 breeding girls 1 who will be retired asap and 2 will be retired in the next year with one teenager and 2 puppies growing up that I may keep). I just know what is right and what I believe in and I have a strong conviction in my beliefs so I will speak out where I need to about this bill. I respect other people's beliefs also and I really do think most people want to do the right thing. No one likes "puppymills" and we all want to prevent them. I just think this bill is not the way to go and plan on voting NO. Teresa Magnum Yorkies

10-31-2010, 09:40 AM	#45
Teresamag YT Addict Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Missouri Posts: 358	post #2 (10) ”Retail pet store” means a person or retail establishment open to the public where dogs are bought, sold, exchanged, or offered for retail sale directly to the public to be kept as pets, but that does not engage in any breeding of dogs for the purpose of selling any offspring for use as a pet. 6. A person is guilty of the crime of puppy mill cruelty when he or she knowingly violates any provision of this section. The crime of puppy mill cruelty is a class C misdemeanor, unless the defendant has previously pled guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case each such violation is a class A misdemeanor. Each violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense. If any violation of this section meets the definition of animal abuse in section 578.012, the defendant may be charged and penalized under that section instead. Again, we don't need new laws - we need to enforce the existing laws under the ACFA 7. The provisions of this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other state and federal laws protecting animal welfare. This section shall not be construed to limit any state law or regulation protecting the welfare of animals, nor shall anything in this section prevent a local governing body from adopting and enforcing its own animal welfare laws and regulations in addition to this section. This section shall not be construed to place any numerical limits on the number of dogs a person may own or control when such dogs are not used for breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet. This section shall not apply to a dog during examination, testing, operation, recuperation, or other individual treatment for veterinary purposes; during lawful scientific research; during transportation; during cleaning of a dog’s enclosure; during supervised outdoor exercise; or during any emergency that places a dog’s life in imminent danger. This section shall not apply to any retail pet store; animal shelter as defined in section 273.325; hobby or show breeders who have custody of no more than ten female covered dogs for the purpose of breeding those dogs and selling any offspring for use as a pet; or dog trainer who does not breed and sell any dogs for use as a pet. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise, or sell hunting dogs. Why is it that breeders can have only 50 dogs while animal shelters, rescues, hunting kennels, & HOARDERS can have way more? Isn't good care the same for all of us - why mandate a number for breeders when they are not mandating a number for anyone else? 8. If any provision of this section, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this section are severable. 9. The provisions herewith shall become operative one year after passage of this Act.