[SeMissourian.com] Rain Fog/Mist ~ 60°F  
Flash Flood Watch
Friday, Nov. 27, 2015

Editorial: Proposition B

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

In November Missouri voters were faced with several ballot initiatives, including one which continues to be contentious today. Proposition B, also known as the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, was approved statewide by just over 51 percent of voters.

A key concern for many dissenting voices during the campaign -- and still today -- is language that some believe would open the door to damaging regulation of the agriculture industry. For this reason, among others, some Missouri lawmakers have introduced legislation that would provide greater clarification of the regulations.

In a recent town hall meeting, Rep. Donna Lichtenegger, R-Jackson, outlined some of the proposed changes to Prop B. Changes include rewording the title of the bill, removing the limit on the number of dogs an owner can breed and removing time requirements between breeding cycles. Lichtenegger also expressed concern that the new regulations would not affect unlicensed breeders, citing the campaign images of mistreated dogs were from these situations.

Lichtenegger and State Sen. Jason Crowell, R-Cape Girardeau, who also spoke during the meeting, both contend that they are not discounting the voters' decision on the issue, but rather that the campaign was one founded on deception.

There is definitely an argument to be made that the people in the state have spoken, and the new regulations should be enacted as is. However, there is also a case to be made that the legislature has an obligation to question something when it doesn't pass the smell test.

It's reasonable to say that all good-hearted Missourians want dogs to be well taken care of and not abused. However, if the new regulations don't address unlicensed breeders, is a positive change really going to be made? If language is left vague, could this affect Missouri's agriculture industry in harmful ways? Missouri lawmakers have an obligation to ask these important questions, though they should be careful about altering the core components regarding dog breeding.

Fact Check
See inaccurate information in this story?

Note: The nature of the Internet makes it impractical for our staff to review every comment. If you feel that a comment is offensive, please Login or Create an account first, and then you will be able to flag a comment as objectionable. Please also note that those who post comments on semissourian.com may do so using a screen name, which may or may not reflect a website user's actual name. Readers should be careful not to assign comments to real people who may have names similar to screen names. Refrain from obscenity in your comments, and to keep discussions civil, don't say anything in a way your grandmother would be ashamed to read.

Unlicensed breeders are already handled.

Being a commercial dog breeder in Missouri without a license is a Class A misdemeanor.

No one has been able to come up with what is supposed to be vague, except the absurd complaint about pet definition. Either this one is contrived, or we have representatives who can't read very well.

Or both.

The only deception practiced was by the representatives, pretending that they're representing what the people want, when in actuality, they're representing special interests.

Been a lot of that this legislative session. A massive amount of disrespect being shown to voters this session.

-- Posted by shelleyp on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 12:15 AM

More and more the representatives are really understanding the problems of Prop B. It is good to know that our chosen representatives 'have our back' in Missouri and will protect its citizens from bad laws that will damage our state.

Prop B was so deceptively promoted by outsiders HSUS and other animal rights organizations that even Shelley Powers (unknowingly) admits that it was unnecessary because "Unlicensed breeders are already handled."

Since Prop B was hawked as a clean-up tool for the worst breeders, and claimed to affect the problem unlicensed breeders (as evidenced by the photos shown on the commercials of illegal breeders' facilities and confiscated dogs), you would have to say that the campaign for Prop B was absolutely deceptive and missed the target entirely.

-- Posted by rek on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 7:51 AM

Nice attempt at seeking the middle ground on this, but, if it is that easy for lawmakers to thwart the people's vote, then it needs to be equally easy for voters to recall lawmakers. Rep. Lichtenegger needs to be recalled. She has made numerous bad decisions in a short time, and is not particularly available when one tries to track her down at the Capitol. This thing is no longer about dogs, it has become a matter of the insensitivity of a lawmaker to there constituents, and general competence

-- Posted by Dr. Nemo on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 8:22 AM

Excellent article that dissects the reality of the Prop B situation and speaks the ugly truth about the largely ignored way Prop B was promoted (force-fed) to the voters. This is by far, the most well-written and complete article on the subject, bar none.

Hopefully, our legislators will not be intimidated by HSUS' millions of dollars and the raucous voices of the radical animal rights-Prop B supporters whose agenda is eradication of all dogs breeders, good or bad.

We all know that the citizens of Missouri just want reasonable care for our canine companions.

-- Posted by rek on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 8:40 AM

Oops, posted my previous comment in response to another article written by J. Miller. Check it out and see what my comments refer to: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

Great article by an intelligent, talented writer!

-- Posted by rek on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 8:45 AM

The R.A.R.E. have forced their agenda on MO and dictated how animals are to be raised. Yet they have no clue about any animal husbandry issues and have done zero research as to what is recommended and already legislated in MO on that subject.

Thankfully, our legislature has the wisdom and foresight not to fall prey to this onslaught.

Even PA, that in 2008 passed sweeping regulations on kennels forced by the RARE people is now having second thoughts. Even there, legislators toned down some of the regulations, to the chagrin of the RARE's and have now found the economic impact to the state, one county in particular, is devastating. Now with a lot of BOOHOO, they are taking steps to repeal that law.

Of course, one would only have heeded a lesson history has already taught us, the one of prohibition in the 1930s. That law didn't stop alcohol consumption as will any law against licensed breeders stop puppy mills. Get aquainted with the word bootlegging.

-- Posted by DOG FANCIER on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 9:24 AM

The real shame here is that so many seem to try and filibuster discussion on this by submitting continuous streams of canned propaganda. REK as an example. When all the noise is filtered out of this discussion, there remains one sad reality. The loser is the voter and Democracy. Voters are skeptical enough about the importance of getting out to the polls without rookie lawmakers coming along and overturning their votes. How about considering the effect of this kind of irresponsible behavior by a rookie lawmaker on the voter turn out in our state?

-- Posted by FOXTROT007 on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 9:39 AM

My Grandfather used to breed and sell dogs. Some hunting, some pets.

We went to multiple places that bread dogs all over the state.

No respectable dog breeder has 50 dogs.

-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 9:56 AM

Nice editorial. Wouldn't expect anything else from this ridiculous rag.

To say that Donna Lichtenegger represents the true will of this area regarding this or any other issue is akin to saying that my city sanitation worker knows my "true" intentions with my vote. It's absurd. ALL legislation is drafted by "special interest" groups. Some facts that even the retards of this area can't dispute:

It was voted on by the people of Missouri regardless of who drafted the legisation.

It passed.

-- Posted by clkv on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 10:36 AM

Irresponsible behavior would be allowing Prop B to be enacted as it is. Ask the voters the following:

Did YOU vote to put THOUSANDS of Missourians out of work?

Did YOU vote to destroy 1390 small businesses?

Did YOU vote to kill thousands of dogs?

Did YOU vote to create increases in veterinarian fees and put several out of business?

Did YOU vote to help the illegal breeders by eliminating their competition?

Did YOU vote to reduce tax revenues in the state?

Did YOU vote to increase expenditures by 3/4 million dollars within the first year?

Did YOU vote to increase expenditures every year by 1/2 million dollars?

Did YOU vote to give the HSUS free rein to further destroy all of our animal agriculture?

Did YOU vote to end the legal production of puppies?


Should we really have to live with all these consequences just because some voters are too stubborn to admit that they were deceived by the 4-million-dollar emotional, deceptive campaign of the radical Humane Society of the United States?

Ask your senator and representative to FIX the mess you mistakenly voted for.

-- Posted by rek on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 10:39 AM


Explain yourself first.

How does this bill put thousands out of work?

How will it destory 1400 small businesses?

How does it kill dogs?

How does it put vets out of business?

How does this help illegal breeders?

How does this bill destroy agricultures. (My guess is the old stand by slippery slope ignorance argument).

I voted for Prop B because there should be a 50 dog limit.

-- Posted by lumbrgfktr on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 10:48 AM

Thank you, lumbrgfktr. So true. The Puppy Mill Bill aka Prop B was mis-named, deceptively promoted by HSUS who wants money & glory (they backed Vick but not his dogs till it became apparent his dogs were vicktims). This was not a bill begun by Missourians...if one compares it line by line with our current bill, ACFA, there is no improvement; in fact, it only wants dogs fed once a day instead of twice.

FYI - this opinion is my own.

-- Posted by silverwalk on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 11:02 AM

Please be aware that the outcome will be more dogs dumped on the side of the road, more dogs dumped at shelters and the local Humane Society, this is a burden most shelters cannot handle, the Humane Society will deal with them like always (with a needle)

The people that voted for this Prop did not think very far into the future and besides do you really think more laws on the books will keep bad things from happening? Dishonest people do not care.

-- Posted by cdublu on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 11:53 AM

In reply to Lumbrgfktr:

"How does this bill put thousands out of work?"

Dog breeders cannot afford to build new $50,000+ kennels to satisfy outrageous housing demands of Prop B. The only alternative is to close their kennel and try to find another job.

"How will it destory 1400 small businesses?"

1390 licensed businesses will be severely damaged (most all will close) by the demands of Prop B. See above answer. If they manage to enlarge without rebuilding, it still is very costly and will put every dog breeding business in jeopardy.

"How does it kill dogs?"

It has already started; dogs being put down in preparation for Prop B. Even if you think the dogs displaced by Prop B will all end up at shelters, shelters will be killing dogs to make room for the more marketable purebreds.

"How does it put vets out of business?"

With the volume of licensed breeders regulated out of business, the need for veterinarians will be greatly diminished. Some whose clients are mostly breeders will close. Some will raise their prices in order to survive. Some will move to another state to practice.

"How does this help illegal breeders?"

Less competition from licensed breeders.

"How does this bill destroy agricultures." (My guess is the old stand by slippery slope ignorance argument). It is opening the door for HSUS. Have we not learned anything from other states? California, Florida, Ohio?

"I voted for Prop B because there should be a 50 dog limit."

You would deprive citizens of their rights to own property and to enjoy the benefits of their chosen livelihood?

-- Posted by rek on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 1:27 PM

Any place that wants to breed more than 50 dogs IS a puppy mill. Interesting they want that wording out. The state of Missouri has 3 times as many dog breeders that are licensed by the USDA than any other State


Look at the place where she wants to take off breeding limits and question that.....How are they going to do anymore about finding unlicensed breeders. Be real. We, the voters, are not stupid. I have read both B and original rough draft stupid looking law and prefer B and voted for it so get the legislators out of thereand give us our rights as voiting citizens and let the law be activated next summer like planned. This is a money talks issue. I wrote Lichtenegger on this and it comes up low priotiry and I don't get answers. Very impressive.

-- Posted by happypappies on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 1:40 PM

rek, if any place pays $1,000 per dog in order to meet basic, commonsense standards, they deserve to be out of business...because they're incompetent.

I realize that you would prefer that the breeders be allowed to pay $3.95 for a wire cage and a rusty water bowl, but we want more for the dogs.

No dog has been killed. Rescues from Long Island, DC, Colorado, and Indiana have taken dogs voluntarily given up by breeders downsizing. To say otherwise is a lie.

Less competition from licensed breeders...perhaps that's why the licensed breeders are trying to turn this into a battle against unlicensed breeders--not only to redirect attention from their own bad practices, but also to eliminate their own competition.

The slippery slope argument is a foolish one--one part contrivance, two parts unreasoning paranoia.

One could say that food laws are the slippery slope against agriculture, too, and be just as relevant. After all: if we don't allow salmonella tainted eggs, we're harming irresponsible chicken farmers.

And then notice, folks, rek has tried to create a cute little acronym, because anyone who cares about dogs has to be a, what was it? Radical Animal whatever.

Silly little games.

What's not so silly is what the representatives are doing: deliberately deceiving the people of this state with their claims of "modification", when they're completely gutting Proposition B, and doing so for special interests.

A lot of agribusiness campaign money is behind this action.

-- Posted by shelleyp on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 2:11 PM

I am going to turn my position around and become a caring, humane RARE and treat my animals with respect as they do. Euthanize all of them!!

Perhaps if the RARE people would take a cut in their lofty salary/bonuses, to $100,000 and if they gave up some of their elaborate brick and mortar facilities, the thousands of dogs they euthanize each year, in the name of HUMANITY could live comfortable lives.

They proudly proclaim how many dogs they kill and blame it on others "the devil made me do it", really!

I guess I just can't stoop that low and be such a hypocrite.

-- Posted by DOG FANCIER on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 2:12 PM

Sure, the shelters, cleverly exempting themselves for any sort of regulation and exempt themselves for sales tax, license fees etc., now want to be dog brokers, shipping dogs to other states, (again with no USDA oversight). Then, getting free dogs from shuttered breeders charging $800-1000 per dog, on the East Coast, for popular breeds, unpopular ones get killed.

Great business model, for crooks, then even have the crust to ask for donations to support their enterprise. Boy, suckers are born every minute.

-- Posted by DOG FANCIER on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 2:50 PM

Yes, Dog Fancier, if the shelters gave up a warm, solid buildings to hold the dogs, and put them in drafty barns in wire cages, I'm sure you'd be happier.

If breeders wouldn't dump their abused, used, and overused dogs on the dog rescue infrastructure, like the recent Knee Deep in Collies rescue, there wouldn't so many dogs in rescues and shelters.

The only hypocrisy here is on the part of the breeders. They demand that the representatives overthrow this law, yet only a handful will allow people to see their operations. They hide like a snake under a rock.

They pretend to have warm and cozy places for the dogs, in a small home environment, when they have barns full of dogs in wire cages--sometimes hundreds of dogs. They're basically lying to the public, yet they want their dirty little secret operations preserved for all time, and without any hindrance.

Ever notice how state officials never brag about how many large scale commercial dog breeders they have in their state? Ever heard Nixon, or any of these representatives who are overriding the vote, boast about the number of commercial dog breeders they have in their state/district. Or seen any boasts of Missouri having the largest number of commercial dog breeders in Department of Agriculture literature?

Soy and corn, yes. Cattle, and hogs, even chickens--but not a word about the dog breeders.

No one outside the industry really respects large scale commercial dog breeding. Not really. Well, except for Jason Smith, and that's because his mother is one--not a particularly good one, either.

Yet give the reps enough donations from wealthy out of state cattlemen, and they'll fight to death for them.

Now, that's hypocrisy.

-- Posted by shelleyp on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 2:55 PM

Shelly, How does this last post address the issues I brought up? Care to respond?

-- Posted by DOG FANCIER on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 3:27 PM

I don't know of any shelter that sells dogs for 800-1000. HSMO has an adoption fee of a few hundred dollars, and that doesn't bring in enough to fund the organization. Without donations, it wouldn't make it.

You're slamming good organizations, like a magician attempts to misdirect people: look at this hand, not that one.

Everyone is bad but the breeders. Everyone is wrong but the breeders. Every voter in this state is stupid, except for the ones that supported the breeders.

And on and on and on.

Yet...what does any of it have to do with the Puppy Mill Cruelty Act, and the representatives attacking our vote in order to placate agribusiness.

The shelters weren't included in Proposition B, because it was the puppy mill bill. We don't have a problem with bad shelters, we have a problem in this state with puppy mills.

I'm sick of having to restate what should be obvious to any thinking adult.

-- Posted by shelleyp on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 4:59 PM

Shelley says: "if any place pays $1,000 per dog in order to meet basic, commonsense standards, they deserve to be out of business...because they're incompetent."

I agree, that the huge space demands of Prop B are ridiculous and breeders most certainly should NOT have to build $50,000 facilities in order to have basic commonsense standards. Obviously, Prop B demands much more than basic or commonsense and must be changed to a more sensible size requirement.

By the way, you should check into the cost of supplies for building kennels. Fiberglass is a must for the 'impervious to moisture' surface for dog pens required by current standards. Air conditioning, heating, proper ventilation, plumbing, sewer, etc. It is comparable to building a house, in square footage.

-- Posted by rek on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 5:02 PM

Shelly, Bringing up items and statements by RARE cohorts is necessary, as this goes to show motive as to why RARE wants to destroy the dog breeding industry. They have yet to prove in a court of law that:

1)More than 50 dogs implies abuse and cruelty to dogs.

2)Breeding a dog more than 2 times in 18 months is bad for a dogs health, thus considered abuse.

3) That dogs required space is the same regardless of breed,Small vs large.

4) Temperature requirements for dog is the same regardless of breed.

5) That prop B will curtail puppy mills and unlicensed breeders.

6) Unfettered access is necessary for all dogs, all conditions, otherwise considered in humane.

7) Double stacking of dogs is inhumane even if separated by a floor and wash-downable as approved by the USDA.

8) That all breeders are guilty of animal abuse and inhumane treatment of animals.

9) Who is considered a puppy miller and why.

Since they are unable or unwilling to do that, it seems reasonable and correct to gut or totally repeal Prop B, before it does serious damage to MO, much as similar laws have done in PA, which is currently in the process of repealing the RARE fiasco and economic devastation that was forced on their state.

-- Posted by DOG FANCIER on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 6:20 PM

Before wading in I have one question: Is the average 6'x8' cell for a single inmate adequate for occupation? If not, what size would be?

-- Posted by non-biasedphilosopher on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 6:27 PM

Don't tell those inmates about Prop B. They will demand to have cells as big as the dog pens! The dog pens for large dogs are nearly twice as big!

-- Posted by rek on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 6:46 PM

The current ACFA regulations do a fine job of regulating dog breeders.

Prop B was and is not necessary. Does nothing to fix the problem. The main issue is that HSUS started name calling some long time ago. They started calling Missouri Dog breeders "Puppy Mills" there is and was no validity to the name (which has no definition). If Missouri was so bad I can assure you that puppies of 40% that are in pet shops though the US wouldn't be replaced when sold with more Missouri puppies...One should be proud to be a Missouri Dog Breeder..(if licensed)

-- Posted by igetitdoyou on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 8:43 PM


-- Posted by vietnamvet on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 9:26 PM

vietnamvet, what do you have against a legal, licensed kennel being allowed to raise dogs in a regulated manner without undue economic hardship?

-- Posted by rek on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 9:36 PM

How does it feel to also be the capitol of the United States of Legal Licensec puppy mills


rek, what is your problem. We all are not stupid. We don't think 50,000 is excesive. If you can't take the heat. Get out of the kitchen. You need heaters and air conditioners and updated clean concrete kennels or drydock. That's how it is. I notice you don't reply to my posts. Did you not see that we have 3 times as many "licensed" kennels and why? Because it's cheaper here than anywhere else to license USDA a year. Your on the ropes kid and digging yourself in deeper and deeper. I hope our representative looks at these ridiculous posts of yours and dog fanciers and sees them for what they are. A charade to cover the fact that Missouri is the largest legal puppy mill operating state in the United States. Argue all you want. Lets see som facts and figures to prove me wrong. If this wasn't so awful it would be funny. A kennel should not be legal with more than 50 breeding females. Get real. I am a hobby breeder and have bred more at one time and I started in the 80's and have seen the explosion of puppy mills. And I mean the licensed Puppy Mills that you obviously have an interest in of some sort. It is ridiculous. You all are the problem of too many dogs. Be real. I went down to hobby because I can't compete with someone selling AKC or APR Papillons for 150.00 to 250.00. You can't be checking these dogs with a vet and who knows if you really give them vaccine or not. That can be faked. What on earth do you feed them and how do we know if they will not have congenital defects with prices like that? It's ridiculous.

Again, for the 8th and I am counting time. Robin Carnahan's Amendment was perfectly clearly worded

Here are some interesting comments regarding peoples response to the bill


-- Posted by happypappies on Wed, Mar 2, 2011, at 10:59 PM

Folks, it should not cost $50,000 to upgrade to meet Proposition B requirements. Not unless people are keeping dogs in such miserable existence now that they really should have been closed a long time ago.

And if the people aren't willing to provide an exercise area for the dogs, enough space to be comfortable indoors, and warmth on freezing days, and cool when the temps are in the 100s--do they really deserve to be in business?

These are not excessive requirements.

And the exaggeration as to cage sizes for the dogs...the largest dogs require a cage that is 30 square feet. That's a cage that's about 6 feet long, 5 feet wide. This for dogs like Irish Wolfhounds, Bull Mastiffs, and Newfoundlands -- these are huge dogs.

What those who are against these standards are saying is yes, these breeders are puppy mills. They don't care about the dogs, they just want to maximize profits and minimize costs.

And here's a clue for you: regulations have been placed on other businesses that have caused them economic impact--why should dog breeders be exempt? What makes you all so precious?

-- Posted by shelleyp on Thu, Mar 3, 2011, at 9:36 AM

cosmo, it is okay then to starve, overbreed and underhouse a dog because it's an agenda?

-- Posted by happypappies on Thu, Mar 3, 2011, at 11:12 AM

As someone who has volunteered with Colorado shelters that have taken in hundreds of Missouri puppy mill dogs since Prop B passed, I can only say THANK GOD. These dogs are coming to us with nails so long they have grown into the dogs' paws; hair matted with feces; skin with urine burns from living in their own urine; starving and dehydrated; eyes injured or missing; and breeding females with dead puppies in their wombs. Oh, and most of them have permanent damage to their paws from living on wire. A couple have paws that look like cauliflower. If the only way someone can stay in this business in Missouri is to treat animals like this, they need to be in another business. If they only way they can maintain a profit in this business is to avoid the provisions of Prop B, requiring daily and adequate food and water, shelter that is clean and protected from the weather, and basic vet care -- like shots and, oh gosh, I don't know, maybe removing the rotting dead puppies from their mother's womb? -- Anyway, if the only way a 'breeder' can stay in business is to treat their dogs in this manner, then they need to get out of the business.

Every single one of these dogs came from a breeder licensed under the laws on the books prior to Prop B.

My family breeds beagles and chocolate labs, and they are appalled at the shape these dogs are in. No breeder I know would tolerate this abuse to their dogs, and every single reputable breeder I know does in fact make a profit. They just don't treat their animals like this in order to do so. The sad fact is that, because of these horror-breeders, there will continue to be harsher laws on the books and the breeders doing it right will pay the penalty.

As for claims about big government taking over people's lives -- Prop B was voted in by the people. It was a narrow vote, but it was still a vote by the people. This wasn't shoved down your throats by some shady government conspiracy. It was voted on by your fellow citizens. If you voted against it, you lost. Suck it up.

-- Posted by manonfetch on Thu, Mar 3, 2011, at 4:35 PM

thank you mononfetch. As I said, I went out of business because of being undersold. You cannot raise a quality dog on what they sell them for.

-- Posted by happypappies on Thu, Mar 3, 2011, at 9:26 PM

The passing of Prop B by such a small margin clearly states that the Proposition was unclear and vague. Of course good hearted Missourian's want animals taken care of properly. The breeders who are unlicensed are the problem here and that is clear. The breeders who are licensed and inspected all follow the rules and regulations set forth by USDA and the State of Mo. that already exist. This Prop B is damageing to the descent breeder and facilities that are already complying with the laws. I feel the people were mislead by false statements, false ads by the HSUS and animal activists. It is just not true that all breeders are the problem here. The new Prop B needs amended so that the good breeders can continue to raise and breed dogs according to the current laws without being forced to spend thousands of hard earned dollars on new buildings and equipment.

-- Posted by SVHobbs on Fri, Mar 4, 2011, at 10:06 AM

That 50,000 dollar figure is an estimate a breeder said would take to bring their Kennel to standard. Not a dollar amount that is absolute in the precise wording of the amendment. The reason so many people voted against it is because there are so many puppy mills that are licensed in this state. I have a chart I put on here earlier if you bother just to click on blue letters. We have three times as many licensed breeders than any other state the nation. We are the puppy mill capital. Just because you have a license from USDA and pass state inspections (if they ever inspect you because they never did me when I was open for 10 years)

-- Posted by happypappies on Fri, Mar 4, 2011, at 3:48 PM


Does not mean your facility is clean. It's probably never been checked.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Mi... Please tell me after reading this that the bill was unfair. More than 50 dogs is just too many...

You know what, The bill passed. The democracy worked. Quit trying to make this into a non democratic state because of opinions please.

-- Posted by happypappies on Fri, Mar 4, 2011, at 3:51 PM

Actually, the $50,000 figure is an estimate of a new kennel built to Prop B/HSUS specifications. The #20,000 to $40,000 existing top-of-the-line dog kennels designed specifically for the comfort, safety, and cleanliness of small to medium breeds are entirely outlawed with Prop B. They would have to be abandoned, as they cannot be retrofitted to comply.

These are the best breeders that currently comply with every regulation and do a great job of raising healthy, happy puppies that will be financially doomed with Prop B. Not even the Blue Ribbon kennels can comply with Prop B without major renovations.

Do you really think a bank will finance new kennels, when the current ones are still financed and the business plan is scaled down as well? Good luck with that. Maybe HSUS could finance them? Oh, yeah. They just want to see all the dog breeders out of business.

-- Posted by rek on Sun, Mar 6, 2011, at 12:10 PM

This bill was written by the radicals,and it shows throughout. It is titled an anti cruelty bill, when in truth it abolishes dog breeders. Our legislators realize that. The animal rights people think our legislators are back woods stupid hillbillies. Now, they found out different. Thank God for the intelligence in our state government.

-- Posted by edward c on Sun, Mar 6, 2011, at 12:50 PM

Nice to see that my name, address, and phone number has been listed on this comment section. Evidently the person who did it doesn't have the character to put their name to it. Now we know why our kennels feel targeted by these people. This is the end result of prop B along with dogs being euthanized. I would say they have proven themselves. Yes I am the same veterinarian who was defamed on KMOX radio with two lies.

-- Posted by jimfosterdvm on Sun, Mar 6, 2011, at 10:06 PM


-- Posted by jimfosterdvm on Mon, Mar 7, 2011, at 12:22 AM

why would he have any reason at all to trust you littleblackdogs?

Regardless of what you think is right, the dogs owned by these people are owned by them as property like it or not, and they are legally entitled to do what they legally may do with their property, ie dispose of it at will.

You, on the other hand have no legal recourse in a matter such as this. All you can do is what you are doing, which is taunting,ranting and raving.

I am now ready to read some more of it from you.:)

-- Posted by countrygal on Mon, Mar 7, 2011, at 12:29 AM

Ms. Ward if you want people to call me with respect and politeness please use your urban manners and change the "Please call Jim Foster" to Please call Dr. Jim Foster. I noticed your little commentary on farmers. At least farmers have the skill and manners to address a veterinarian as Dr.

-- Posted by jimfosterdvm on Mon, Mar 7, 2011, at 12:32 AM

Doctor Foster,

Thank you for your tireless efforts to support and defend the common people of Missouri who have not lost their minds to a fantasy that gives animals a god-like status worthy of being worshipped.

Commons sense and practicality(average person engaging in animal agriculture) as opposed to fantasy bordering on idolatry(animal rights,utopian society dreamers) is what animal agriculture in Missouri is founded upon.

-- Posted by countrygal on Mon, Mar 7, 2011, at 12:41 AM

goodnight all!

-- Posted by countrygal on Mon, Mar 7, 2011, at 12:43 AM

OK Heres How i feel about this hole thing. I DONT agree with peta, I love to eat my meant, I voted against Prob b. LOOK At Pet co and Pet land they are nothing but puppy mills. thats were they get their dogs. Sure people go in and look at the pups get them out and play with I know I as i feel bad for the dogs to be cramped in a tiny cage with 4 or 5 other dogs in it. But thats ok.. They can live in a building for months with out seeing the out doors but they wont get touched. How ever, The kennel here in town, Has a Heated/cooled Kennal with 1 layer of cages theres 8 of them i do belive will all runs the runs can be opened up to a massive play pen when it is nice out they get to go out. But if theres just a little piece of dog food in their water bowl that the dog did its her fault and shes got a misdomeener on her. This "Puppy Mill" bill is a bunch of stupid bull ****. I voted NO on it. I will do what ever i have to do to vote no on it. Breeding your dogs 1 time a year is totally stupid. If God wanted dogs to only be bred one time a year he would have made them have only one heat cycel HOW Ever he didn't.Women have 1 a month are we going to go to jail if we have kids one right after anther? If so i would reather see that pass then this pass.Look at all the welfare and **** we pay for the people who keep poping out kids. oh yes i k now your next thought well theres plenty of dogs that need to be saved in rescues. I coulnt agree more. I do rescuse the 2 dogs i have. I dont blow the money on them. But hey thats my choice. I still hate PETA and everything they stand for and I will always hate PETA. These kennels that are legit thats going to get the worse of this are their jobs that their family run as OBAMA has ****** this country up so bad they rely on the dogs. It may be sparatic but you can figure it out!

Bobbi-Jo Wagner

-- Posted by Bobbi-jo Wagner on Tue, Mar 8, 2011, at 7:53 AM

So. . . the two main points in this argument are:

the majority of voters, who passed the law, are stupid and were fooled by those awful out of state interests; and,

the legislature (whose votes can never be bought by special interests) needs to protect wethepeepul from our own vote.

either point is sickening

-- Posted by one4kids on Wed, Mar 9, 2011, at 2:59 PM


You left out these important facts;

101 counties voted against Proposition B.

Only 13 counties voted for it.

It passed, by a majority, but barely. It was almost dead even.

There was only a 61,680 vote difference out of 1,934,060 votes, which is .03% difference that is all.

When the total vote tally is this close, and an overwhelming MAJORITY of counties voting against the bill, the legislature is especially obligated to see to it this law serves the interests of all the people by making amendments to or even repealing the whole bill if they so choose.

That is their job!

It is your words that claim the majority of voters were stupid, and your words that implied our elected officials were bribed in some way.

You are right about those points being sickening. The problem is, YOU made them.

-- Posted by countrygal on Wed, Mar 9, 2011, at 5:47 PM

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: