I strongly urge you to vote "NO" on Missouri Proposition B.
While the text and title of the Proposition sound good to the average reader, further investigation proves that the Amendment is truly nefarious and is being advanced by a radical group bent on ending Pet Ownership and Hunting. AND, NOTHING in the Amendment will truly do anything to address the puppy mill problem in Missouri.
It says nothing about Pet Ownership or Hunting. I suggest in the future your read the law and not rely on bloggers.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 9:04 AM
Thank you, but I read the existing Missouri Law and the proposed Amendment last night. Have you read existing MO law on the subject?
-- Posted by bebo on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 9:07 AM
I disagree that this bill is truly nefarious and is being advanced by a radical group bent on ending Pet Ownership and Hunting.
However, I will vote NO simply because it is ridiclous. It does nothing about the real problems
with pet ownership and it puts too much restriction on breeders. It also seems that this bill will put a bunch more dollars in veternarians pockets for services that are not necessary. JMO
-- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 10:00 AM
Caddyman, you are ever so right!
-- Posted by voyager on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 10:01 AM
-- Posted by bebo on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 9:07 AM
Lets see, you speak out against the admenment and link to a site, which aligns itself with a group called "Aliance for Truth" with a list of untrue claims...
Out of all of this rhetoric and links, and a link to the actuall Prop B wasn't possible? Why? Its kind of obvious people are full of $H!+ when they make claims and then try and then steer people away from the actual admendment.
As far as the existing law, I have not read the existing law. I did not know there were any laws regarding dog breading. Please post a link as I would be very much interested in reading the law.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 10:08 AM
Greywolf,
My family used to breed dogs and they are very much in support of this bill as it would not have impacted them. Its all pretty much obvious care for responsible dog Breeders. What this law seems to do is make animal abuse laws more specific in regards to dog breading and actually spells out punishment.
How is care to an injured animal not necessary? Denying care is actually danerous and irresponsible. Having sick animals is a danger to people living around there, as well as other livestock and wildlife in the surrounding area.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 10:19 AM
Good point lumbr, I should have had links to the laws in my original blog post. I've added them there and here they are for your reading (boredom) pleasure:
MO Law requires licensing when you breed for sale > 3 females.
Missouri has plenty of laws, rules, and regs. Seems we need more funding for the ACFA.
-- Posted by bebo on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 10:50 AM
Bebo,
Thanks for posting.
I do see where it can be duplicating.
The biggest issuces comes down to who is going to enforce these laws.
However, I still don't get the anti-hunting, arrested for "cob web in the corner" stuff of the Aliance for Truth.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 2:57 PM
They need this for children. You cant have children without being able to afford them.
-- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 3:37 PM
Regarding hunting, I don't believe we want MO to become accustomed to HSUS.org, considering the statements made by the CEO, as an entity with whom we want to work.
First step, wipe out legal breeders with Proposition B; next step, wipe out hunting:
-- Posted by bebo on Thu, Sep 16, 2010, at 7:07 AM
That's very Libertarian of you Adam!
-- Posted by bebo on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 9:39 AM
i don't like the part that states amount of animals a person is allowed to have ...
now it's dogs...next will be cows , or horses , or chickens...does the gov. have to control everything ?
-- Posted by ...Rick on Wed, Sep 15, 2010, at 9:22 AM
That sounds pretty close to conspiracy theory you have there Rick, but believe it or not you are corcet. However you are a little late on your prediction.
Years ago when many of us who truly pay attention to what the government does behind the scenes started warning people about this government control of farmers and ranchers (our food supply,) we were called the usual name conspiracy kooks.
Some of his past show archives contain valuable info. on this intrusion on personal freedom. Of course most of the mind numbed public who have been trained to be afraid of the food they eat, will think the NAIS is a wonderful thing. Of course having safe food is of primary concern. But the NAIS system is not the way to go.
More people are starting to eat locally and from organic farmers and ranchers. The mega private and corporate food suppliers hate that.
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 12:55 PM
Info, I listened to Derry on am 930 untill he was suddenly dropped. I had heard something of rumor that he offended somebody. Can you shed some light?
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 1:08 PM
I'm not sure what happened Old John. I don't get to listen every day so I might have missed it.
But it's safe to say that any time a person says anything that exposes government corruption and loss of freedom, the people exposed want to silence them. You can still hear him online live and on the archives here http://www.gcnlive.com/ .
Have you ever heard anything said about NAIS by the government controlled news media? No, but they do put out the food paranoia stories.
-- Posted by Thought Criminal on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 1:19 PM
Info, Thanks, I'll look at those sites when I return at 11.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 1:22 PM
Info, I didn't recognize the acronym but yes I have heard of the animal tracking some want to impose. Seems the mad cow disease was in the news at the time it was being debated and the COOL legislation was dropped. In it's place we have the "Product of Mexico / Canada / U.S.A." label.
I think this was less about being able to track contaminated animal products and more about fining the cattle farmer when his cow stepped in a stream. The government now owns or the same as owns all inland waterways.
-- Posted by Old John on Fri, Sep 17, 2010, at 11:17 PM
Lumbrg
Diddo!
-- Posted by vietnamvet on Sat, Sep 18, 2010, at 7:22 AM
This law will not make a puppy mill suddenly become a licensed dog breeder. It will have no effect on puppy mills.
It will however put licensed law-abiding dog breeders out of business.
Government is an ever-growing parasite that sucks the life out of its people. Let's stop this and other unnecessary legislation.
A better law would be one to make it illegal to put up a sign saying our tax dollars are being used to fix this road. What a ridiculous waste of money!
-- Posted by bebo on Mon, Sep 20, 2010, at 11:35 AM
More on all the Missouri Ballot Measures (from Conservative point of view) here:
-- Posted by dasysgod on Thu, Sep 30, 2010, at 12:15 PM
"They need this for children. You cant have children without being able to afford them."
Jesus H Christ
-- Posted by Autonomy4All on Mon, Oct 4, 2010, at 2:24 PM
"They need this for children. You cant have children without being able to afford them."
No, they are able to get rid of unwanted children with procedures that would get you locked up if you performed them on animals.
-- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Oct 4, 2010, at 4:17 PM
A comment posted to my blog (http://rockinconservative.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/no-on-missouri-propostion-b) on the subject gets down to the point:
If Proposition B's only aim is to ensure adequate care then WHY are shelters, rescues, veterinary clinics, HSUS, and non breeding owners exempt? Don't they all deserve the same treatment? If you answer yes to that question you've hopefully just realized the truth behind this oppressive illogical Proposition B.
...when they tell you what kind of light bulbs you can use?
...when they tell you how many dogs you can have?
...when they tell you how many sodas you can have?
...when they tell you how many guns you can have?
...when they tell you you can't say those words?
When???
-- Posted by bebo on Fri, Oct 8, 2010, at 3:39 PM
Sometimes the consequences of one law requires another law to correct those consequences which in term requires another law to correct more consequences. This can occur ad infinitum to the ultimate absurdity:
Putting up a sign which states your tax dollars were used to put up this sign.
Statists, collectivists, and progressives just love this game of control.
-- Posted by voyager on Fri, Oct 8, 2010, at 4:10 PM
"Putting up a sign which states your tax dollars were used to put up this sign."
That is one of our pet peeves! Telling us our tax dollars are being used to fix the road. OMG, like otherwise we'd think the local asphalt company is doing it out of the goodness of their hearts!
-- Posted by bebo on Sat, Oct 9, 2010, at 8:09 PM
A comment posted to my blog (http://rockinconservative.wordpress.com/2010/09/15/no-on-missouri-propostion-b) on the subject gets down to the point:
If Proposition B's only aim is to ensure adequate care then WHY are shelters, rescues, veterinary clinics, HSUS, and non breeding owners exempt? Don't they all deserve the same treatment? If you answer yes to that question you've hopefully just realized the truth behind this oppressive illogical Proposition B.
That's one of my comments.
-- Posted by Autonomy4All on Sat, Oct 9, 2010, at 9:40 PM
Thank you Autonomy4All!
-- Posted by bebo on Mon, Oct 11, 2010, at 1:44 PM
A good bit of info from the Springfield News Leader:
-- Posted by bebo on Fri, Oct 15, 2010, at 12:38 PM
You people are obviously all pro puppy abuse. : )
-- Posted by clkv on Fri, Oct 15, 2010, at 1:09 PM
Mr. LaRussa draws his salary in Missouri. His foundation is in California. He stated that he wanted to step away from the Cardinals to make this statement. Does he realize the agriculture community raises the meat served in his stadium and that several large agribusinesses sponsor the radio ads that pay for the Cardinal games to be broadcast? Tony evidently didn't read Line #9 of Prop B where it defines "Pet" as any domesticated livestock being maintained in or near a household.
-- Posted by jimfosterdvm on Sun, Oct 17, 2010, at 6:23 PM
Vote Yes
-- Posted by howdydoody on Mon, Oct 18, 2010, at 11:27 AM
-- Posted by bebo on Tue, Oct 12, 2010, at 1:33 PM
How is that good info. Its an editorial piece that does not provide one bit of fact or explanation as to WHY it will effect them.
It goes to far as mentioning chickens and turkeys. Really, I don't recall seeing that in the proposal.
-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Mon, Oct 18, 2010, at 2:23 PM
Yeah, slippery slope arguments are usually weak, and this one is about the worst I've heard: "Vote to prevent absolutely obscene animal cruelty, and the next thing you know, we won't be able to hunt or have pets."
Dumb and desperate.
-- Posted by FSM06 on Mon, Oct 18, 2010, at 2:27 PM
FSM06, if it weren't for the words of Wayne Pacelle - the leader of hsus.org who advanced this Proposition - people would probably not worry about the slippery slope. Look him up.
lumbr, I include the article as anecdotal evidence of the good breeders this legislation will affect. People who care greatly about the animals will be put out of business. Puppy mills are affected how?
And, the definition of "Pet" is what people have a problem with: "(9) "Pet" means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof."
...which includes chicken, turkeys, cows, etc.
However, other wording in the act seems to set the subject only to dogs, but you and I both know better than to trust the courts.
Courts in the 9th district decided it was okay in 1776 to put a GPS on your horse:
-- Posted by bebo on Mon, Oct 18, 2010, at 4:35 PM
Vote YES!
-- Posted by vietnamvet on Mon, Oct 18, 2010, at 5:08 PM
First of all, lets look at the wording of Prop B, as it will appear on the ballot:
Shall Missouri law be amended to:
require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary... care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles;
prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and
create a misdemeanor crime of "puppy mill cruelty" for any violations?
-- Posted by cleo on Tue, Oct 19, 2010, at 11:46 AM
Can any of you explain to me how "people who care greatly about the animals will be put out of business" by THIS?? If they care greatly about animals, they will already be providing them with food, shelter, exercise and veterinary care. This will not affect them in the least. Be specific in your answer, please.
-- Posted by cleo on Tue, Oct 19, 2010, at 11:48 AM
Hi cleo, gladly.
#1 Missouri law already requires any breeder with 3 or more in tact females to provide sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary... care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles. So, this law will change nothing on that front.
#2 Why do the breeding of 51 dogs suddenly make you a bad breeder? It's arbitrary and unsubstantiated.
#3 It is already illegal to treat animals cruelly. The problem is there is not enough funding for enforcement. This law does nothing about that.
#4 Imagine you had an office full of 50 cubicles that are lawfully 8' x 8'. Your building is full with those 50 cubicles.
You're taking good care of the folks that work in those cubicles, following all the existing laws, (giving them sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles).
You are making a decent living off this enterprise, but are by no means getting rich.
A group comes along and gets a ballot initiative that requires all cubicles to be 12' x 10'. So now, to deal with this new sizing requirement, you have to either buy another building, add on to the building, or reduce the number of people who work for you.
Either way, you're not going to make enough money to be profitable, you're going to have to shut down, and everyone working to take care of the people in the cubicles gets fired.
This exactly what happens w/ Prop B. The legal space requirements of 9-sq-ft suddenly become 12-sq-ft. 12-sq-ft suddenly becomes 20-sq-ft. etc. And if you don't increase the size, a law-abiding breeder suddenly becomes a criminal.
#5 There are an estimated 200,000 dogs at breeders in MO. There are 1200 licensed breeders. Under new law, the 1200 breeders (w/ 50 dogs) will be able to keep 60,000 dogs. What does this law do about the other 140,000 dogs?
YES, we need to make changes to find and remove puppy mills (not legally defined) and other bad breeders. THIS law is not the answer. And, puppy mills just won't follow the law like they are currently not following the law.
We need a better law, and I would happily support it.
Happy to discuss further at any time.
-- Posted by bebo on Tue, Oct 19, 2010, at 3:24 PM
HUSA campaigning for yes vote tells me all I need to know. VOTE NO.
-- Posted by FreedomFadingFast on Tue, Oct 19, 2010, at 3:42 PM
I read the bill to see what this is all about. I noticed there is a provision that every dog has to be seen by a licensed vet once a year. I disagree with this mandate.
My dog is a purebred. The place I got her was a wonderful farm, very nice and clean, with about 30 dogs, all very healthy and all had plenty of room to roam, and very clean kennels. The owner loved his dogs very much and could tell us the name and personality of each one. I can't imagine the huge expense he would have if he had to take each one of his dogs to a licensed vet "minimum once a year" as stated in this bill. Like any farmer out there (and I have been raised around many farms) the farmer knows what medicines his animals and need and most of the shots and puppy deworming is available at Bucheits.
Now I have bred my dog twice. Both times I raised the puppies the first 3 months and gave them their deworming & etc on the time table recommended. I registered these pups with AKC and sold them. Certainly did not make a profit off them since my large breed dog eats like a horse. But if I had been required to take them to the vet it would have greatly increased the sale price. And we chose not to breed her anymore, good thing cause we discovered she has cancer.
The vet wanted to put the dog through chemo-therapy. We have chosen not to go that route. I questiont he provision in the bill that says all "necessary" treatment must be followed through a licensed vet. Technically that chemo-therapy is considered "necessary" because she has cancer. So if this bill passes the way it is worded I could have been forced to do this treatment for my dog.
I know someone else who was in our shoes and she chose to go the chemo-therapy route with her dog in St Louis. She spent $30,000 and lost the dog anyway. We were not given a good prognosis and even the vet admitted it more than likely wouldn't work for our dog. All I know is I would be extremely angry if the government forced my dog to go through that, at my expense, and it killed her anyway. (Btw- my dog already had 3 surgeries for tumors which is why we chose not to go through chemo.)
I think the bill could have been written in a way to limit the number of dogs with the amount of space available per dog and that alone would have been adequate enough to get rid of most puppy mills. But for any government agaency to mandate medical care is wrong in my opinion.
-- Posted by Skeptic1 on Tue, Oct 19, 2010, at 8:17 PM
No law is going to change puppy mills, because there is no funding for enforcement. The current laws on the books are adequate (how many puppy mill stories have you seen where the animals were seized and animal abuse/neglect charges were not filed?) to protect animals if we enforce the laws on the books. How do you enforce this? I would rather law enforcement spend their time on investigation of crimes, rather than regulation of a business, even if there is a potential criminal penalty. Or do we hire hundreds of new ag agents to inspect all breeders on the off-chance they aren't complying with the rules?
-- Posted by SEMO_Storyteller on Tue, Oct 19, 2010, at 8:59 PM
-- Posted by bebo on Tue, Oct 26, 2010, at 1:30 PM
What kills me today is that yesterday on a St. Louis radio show, Wayne Pacelle, radical CEO of hsus.org, said that we need to enact laws that will ensure basic care of dogs at the breeders such as food, water, space, exercise.
On page 17 of the MO Dept of Agriculture regulations for Dog (and Cat) breeders, requirements say that the animals are to be fed twice daily.
Proposition B changes that such that the Dog or Cat only needs to be fed ONCE daily.
Why would they make that change? The only thing that comes to mind is that Wayne Pacelle and H$U$.org will be laughing (all the way to the bank) at the useful idiots in Missouri that vote for this ridiculous legislation because it sounds good... ...without doing their homework and paying attention to those of us who are saying "Enforce Existing Law!!"
-- Posted by bebo on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 6:51 AM
Are you going to let a Washington Lobbying Group that doesn't have any dogs tell you what to do with yours?
-- Posted by bebo on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 9:03 AM
Missouri Hunting laws. Funny thing there. If a guy comes up on my porch and I feel unsafe. I can can shoot him dead and get away with it. BUT if a deer walks into my yard and I feel hungry and shoot it. I could go to jail.
-- Posted by timexx on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 11:09 AM
Let's see, this is being opposed by the Farm Bureau... The next thing you know, the puppy mills will be getting subsidies!
-- Posted by Hugh M Bean on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 3:00 PM
this is gonna pass. no conspiracy bull,just a bunch of paranoid hill billies.
-- Posted by workingdude on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 7:39 PM
-- Posted by bebo on Thu, Oct 28, 2010, at 8:08 AM
The biggest thing about prop B is that is makes it a crime to have the dogs living inhumainely where as before all they could do is take pictures and make notes (some people have had 11 pages of violations, but still breeding)
bebo, I see nothing about restricting hunting and causing regulations on farm animals... I highly doubt either of those will pass. They are seperate issues, will be voted on as such, and should be treated seperately.
-- Posted by futile_rant on Thu, Oct 28, 2010, at 8:52 AM
-- Posted by timexx on Wed, Oct 27, 2010, at 11:09 AM
Might want to read this:http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/c500-599/5630000031.htm
-- Posted by Acronym on Thu, Oct 28, 2010, at 9:05 AM
-- Posted by Acronym on Thu, Oct 28, 2010, at 9:06 AM
Prop B is feel good legislation drafted by a clever group of HSUS lawyers who are experts on deception. Beware of what you vote for. One question that has not been answered to any degree of satisfaction is: Exactly how will Prop B affect illegal, unlicensed puppymills? The real answer is: IT WON'T. AT ALL. There is NO provision for shutting down puppymills. Prop B is NOT stand-alone regulation. It is only a supplement to current regulations. Therefore, it CANNOT affect anyone who is not governed by ACFA. Prop B CANNOT govern illegal breeders.
One of HSUS' paid commenters (Sarah) on another site says that it would be pointless to promote a bill that does not affect licensed AND unlicensed breeders. After I pointed out that LIE about affecting unlicensed breeders, she tells me that 'opponents are famous for taking quotes out of context'. And then repeated the LIE!! A lie repeated a million times does NOT become a fact. The conclusion has to be that Prop B is a POINTLESS law (according to SarahHSUS' words!). HSUS keeps defending their 'proven-to-be' LIES!
Vote NO on Prop B!
-- Posted by rek on Thu, Oct 28, 2010, at 10:54 AM
...but it is a class A Misdemeanor to operate an unlicensed breeding kennel. That's a little more than a picture and a list. Prop B does nothing about enforcement so there will be no change for the bad actors.
Folks are concerned about hunting and farm animals based on HSUS's other activities (some highlighted in link above)
I don't know what 'Acronym' is talking about.
-- Posted by bebo on Thu, Oct 28, 2010, at 4:05 PM
-- Posted by bebo on Fri, Oct 29, 2010, at 7:41 AM
bebo,
You are absolutely correct. Those that respond to these postings need to take a little effort and reach out to learn about these Propostions. I'm involved with an animal organization and I assure you there are effective laws in place just as their are enough gun laws in place. You can have adequate & comfortable housing for 2,000 animals and only have 1,000 and this new proposal will euthanize 950 of the 1,000 to be in compliance with the law. Only 1/2 of 1 percent of this tax money will reach its proper destination. The remainder of the tax money with be forwarded to socialistic programs in disquise. This is why we need to vote all incumbents out of office because just like the healthcare bill, none of the politicians realize what they placed on the ballot. The registered kennels are not the problem, it's the illegal ones. This Prop B does nothing to the illegals but make the legal kennels illegal. FACT... Tony LaRussa should be ashamed of himself supporting this. Of course, think about it. He is from California where the queers & steers roam the range.
-- Posted by Missouri Kid on Fri, Oct 29, 2010, at 12:29 PM
Puppy mills generate thousands of dogs; most of whom are bred and raised under the most deplorable conditions. These businesses operate purely for the money involved with little, if any, concern for the welfare of the animals, themselves. Prop 'B' would stop this practice and restore 'Humane' to our treatment of animals. Animal shelters across the country euthanize millions of unwanted animals every year; animals who lose their lives, simply for want of a loving home.
PLEASE join me in voting 'YES' on Prop B. I thank you, on behalf of those who cannot thank you, themselves. Missouri has a reputation as the 'Puppy Mill Capitol' of the nation. That's not a distinction; it's a disgrace!
-- Posted by Bikerguy on Sat, Oct 30, 2010, at 3:32 PM
Prop B does nothing about enforcement -- which is the real problem with existing Missouri law. With that in mind, please tell me how Prop B 'would stop this practice'??
-- Posted by bebo on Sat, Oct 30, 2010, at 7:49 PM
After the election can we start a people mill thread?
-- Posted by Old John on Sat, Oct 30, 2010, at 10:11 PM
Menu
I strongly urge you to vote "NO" on Missouri Proposition B.
While the text and title of the Proposition sound good to the average reader, further investigation proves that the Amendment is truly nefarious and is being advanced by a radical group bent on ending Pet Ownership and Hunting. AND, NOTHING in the Amendment will truly do anything to address the puppy mill problem in Missouri.
More Information Here:
http://rockinconservative.com/2010/09/15/no-on-missouri-propostion-b/
Replies (72)