Truthiness: “The quality of stating concepts one wishes or believes to be true, rather than the facts.” They left out the part about paranoid teabagger conspiracy theories.

Slick literature opposed to the November ballot initiative regulating puppy mills has been hitting the streets.

Who is paying for this stuff? The Alliance for Truth [pdf], the group with the laughably Orwellian name opposing restrictions on puppy mills in Missouri, filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission on October 1, 2010 – hand delivering the paper work. The committee, according to the Statement of Committee Organization, was organized to work on Proposition B and states the subject as “Dog Breeding Restrictions”.

In addition to attacking the Humane Society, the flyer states that the organization has darker motives:

…To abolish all hunting and fishing…

…To cripple and/or destroy all animal industries…

…To make it impossible for anyone to own pets…

…To become the “enforcement” arm of the Federal Government…

But, but, the “Alliance” said on their committee organization paper work that this was about “Dog Breeding Restrictions”.

The front side of the flyer.

So, who has been dropping money in the last week to help this committee put out right wingnut talking points?:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101546 ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH [pdf] 10/7/2010

Alliance For Truth PAC

Chesterfield, MO

10/6/2010

$7,849.60

Missouri Farm Bureau Federation

Jefferson City, MO

10/6/2010

$5,000.00

MFA Inc.

Columbia, MO

10/7/2010

$5,000.00

Missourians For Animal Care Campaign

Committee

jefferson City, MO

10/7/2010

$27,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C101546 ALLIANCE FOR TRUTH [pdf] 10/7/2010

MOFED Corporation

Eldon, MO

10/7/2010

$5,387.93

[emphasis added]

Ah, the usual right wingnut and corporate agriculture interests. Though, with the amount of money they’re spending you can just tell that their hearts aren’t really into it.

The “B” side of the flyer.

Another palm card/walk piece printed by the Alliance for Truth states:

….Prop B is pushed the the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS): a radical animal rights organization….

Run for the hills, the Humane Society is gonna take away everyone’s pets…

Previously:

Have you kicked a puppy today? (September 24, 2010)

Three excellent reasons to support Prop. B and regulate “puppy mills” (October 5, 2010)

The three reasons:  the Missouri Tea Party, Phyllis Schlafly and Joe the Plumber. I don’t normally advocate arguments based on an appeal to authority, but in this case the temptation to argue negatively based on an appeal to (anti?) authority is just too strong. Doesn’t the fact that the Tea Party, Phyllis Schlafly and Joe the Plumber have jumped into the fray against the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act” (Proposition B) make you want to run out and vote for it immediately?

Animal cruelty is not a liberal or conservative issue per se. Many good, conservative Republicans in my neighborhood signed the petition to get Prop. B on the ballot. However, the anti-Prop. B lobbying efforts on the part of the Tea Party and the two media personalities is more or less predictable. The Tea Party, for instance, seems so worked up that a new group in Mexico, Mo. will devote it’s first meeting to figuring out how they can fight Prop. B. One can only imagine what frothing displays we will be gifted  with if they manage to get their bad-tempered act together.

The Tea Party involvement is easy to explain. The organization formed to fight Prop B, the misnamed Alliance for Truth (they claim that anti-animal cruelty activists “don’t like animals”), for lack of a better tack, is pushing all kinds of far-fetched conspiracy stories – catnip for Tea Party paranoia.

The Alliance has managed to distort the simple and straightforward provisions of Prop. 6 into a “radical” plot that reaches into (where else?) the White House. According to Alliance for Truth spokesperson, Anita Andrews, the main instigator of this plot is the Humane Society of the Unitd States (HSUS) which:

… seeks only to raise the cost of breeding dogs, making it ever-more difficult for middle-class American families to be dog-owners.”

[…]

Andrews  also explained that Cass Sunstein, “one of the biggest animal rights activists,” and President Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is tied to the Humane Society, and is helping them give Obama “a punch list” of the animals rights activists’ agenda.

It would take its own separate post to go into all that’s wrong with this little gem.

The involvement of Joe the Plumber requires no explanation beyond the fact that taking up the fight against Prop. B offers one more avenue for expanding his fifteen minutes of fame. This explanation also helps us understand his incoherent, over-the-top statement on the Alliance for Truth site, which proclaims Prop. B proponents to be:

…cowardly hiding behind animal cruelty, lying to our citizens and taking our constitutional rights away – one state at a time.

Ahhh! The constitutional right to be cruel abuse animals! I knew there had to be a constitutional issue in there somewhere. Since Prop B doesn’t involve the federal government, but simply a state deciding for itself about whether or not it wants to allow longstanding abuses to continue, the constitutional card loses some of the old Tea Party punch. But never fear, it does its job with the target audience; all you have to do is repeat the word “constitutional” enough and they end up drooling on the rug.

Phyllis Schlafly’s Eagle Forum, of course, opposes government regulation on principle. The weakness of this position in cases like that of Missouri’s scandalous puppy mill industry is revealed by her tactics.  Instead of principled arguments about regulation, even poor, old, hardline Phyllis is reduced to advocating conspiracy theories to make her opposition to anti-cruelty legislation palatable:

HSUS has attacked modern livestock production practices in several other states and, while the first battle in Missouri is targeted to dog breeders, this is the precursor to subsequent fight involving our Missouri farm families

Can’t these bozos get it through their heads that this legislation deals exclusively with dog breeders, and that it has been proposed because the puppy mill industry has been a blight on Missouri’s reputation for years? Any legislation, for good or ill, directed at other livestock will have to be passed or defeated on its own terms.

Read the provisions of Prop.B yourself. They are straightforward and describe minimal improvements in the welfare of dogs used for large-scale breeding purposes. TPM quotes Humane Society spokesperson Michael Markarian who summarizes Prop. B  as follows:

This measure would provide common sense standards for the care of dogs,” he told TPM, including sufficient food and clean water, vet care, regular exercise, and adequate rest between breeding cycles, among other things. Markarian said the measure only applies to “commercial dog breeding facilities” that have more than 10 breeding females who they use for “producing puppies for the pet trade.

If conforming to these very basic requirements would bankrupt a breeder, as some have argued, then that breeder should not be in the business in the first place. We don’t condone forced child labor because paying adults a living wage would bankrupt the manufacturer – do we?

It should tell us something when the opponents of proposed legislation resort to manufacturing non-existent conspiracies, imagining impossible constitutional encroachments, and projecting their own dishonest agendas on a clear-as-water initiative. The “slippery slope” argument that gets them so worked up has always been a loser that has hurt “us” more than “them.” In this case it will only serve to perpetuate unnecessary animal suffering.

Tea Party photo by Sage Ross from Wikimedia Commons; Joe the Plumber photo from Wikimedia Commons.

Note the cute dog graphic. A “no” vote is for those who think that puppy mills as they currently exist in Missouri don’t need any more regulation.

Official Ballot Title

Proposition B

[….]

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?

It is estimated state governmental entities will incur costs of $654,768 (on-going costs of $521,356 and one-time costs of $133,412). Some local governmental entities may experience costs related to enforcement activities and savings related to reduced animal care activities.

Fair Ballot Language:

A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law 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.  The amendment further prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets.  The amendment also creates a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations.

A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding dog breeders.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes.

The Humane Society, interfering fly by night radicals that they are, believes a “yes” vote is the right thing to do:

…Prop B will not shut down all puppy mills in Missouri. But it will require that breeders maintain certain humane care standards, and if past patterns hold, a fair number of them won’t be interested in complying. They turn hefty profits by cutting corners-not providing sufficient space for the animals, denying them veterinary care, and starving them of human affection and attention. If they weren’t able to cut so many corners, many of them would no longer be in the business, since they wouldn’t realize the profits they counted on…

Ah, such a choice – profits or humanity? It’ll be telling to find out which of the two the voters of Missouri will choose in November.

Thanks for posting the list of contributors to Missourians for the Protection of Dogs.  That is very encouraging. I don’t know if MPD has tried to raise big bucks in Missouri or not.  Individuals can contribute on their website.

MPD lists 5901 supporters so far as well as 113 veterinarians and clinics.  Among the 108 animal protection charities that are helping this effort, four of them are part of the coalition actively working on passing Prop B in November.  They are ASPCA, Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, Missouri Humane Society and Humane Society of the US.

MPD also has a list of their opponents on their

“sick puppies” page. The Missouri Federation of Animal Owners was formed in 2009 specifically to block the right of citizens of Missouri to voice their opinion on the inhumane conditions in massive breeding facilities.  Some of the worst offenders are listed, along with the citations and fines against them for their heartless treatment of innocent and caged dogs.

I wrote about the national effort front groups such as Center for Consumer Freedom several months ago on this blog.  

Keep in mind, the rather minimal standards required by Prop B will apply only to breeders with 10 or more female dogs, and breeders will be limited to no more than 50 females actively producing puppies for sale.  Small breeders, especially family or hobby breeders who keep a small number of dogs will not be affected.

Reputable breeders already meet or exceed the basic requirements of shelter, food, water, space to move around and a rest between pregnancies.

With the highest number of puppy mills in the nation (over 3,000 separate operations) Missouri is known as the puppy mill capital of the U.S.  It took the HSUS over 10 years to make cock fighting illegal in Missouri.  Let’s hope it doesn’t take that long to rescue some of these pitiful creatures from their misery.  

Proposition B is on the November ballot. It would:

…amend Missouri law 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.  The amendment further prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets.  The amendment also creates a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations…

Some big contributions have come in for Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, a group which supports the ballot initiative’s restrictions.

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 8/26/2010

ASPCA

New York, NY

8/26/2010

$200,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 8/24/2010

The Humane Society of the United States

Gaithersburg, MD

8/24/2010

$500,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 8/4/2010

Mary and Peter Max

New York, NY

8/5/2010

$10,000.00

Leslie Bhutani

Greenwich, CT

8/5/2010

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 8/4/2010

Big Cat Rescue Corporation

Tampa, FL

8/3/2010

$5,000.00

Animal Welfare Advocacy Inc

Mamaroneck, NY

8/3/2010

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf]8/1/2010

The Fund for Animals

New York, NY

7/30/2010

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Okay, this looks like it’s one of three things – no one in Missouri is sufficiently bothered by the problem this initiative seeks to correct that they want to part with large sums of money to help pass it, or the economy is so bad in Missouri that no one has the big bucks to contribute, or the people that have the big bucks to contribute are contributing to something else. Like, I dunno, say, a ballot initiative that’ll gut the finances of Missouri’s two largest cities.

The big contributions continue:

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 7/30/2010

Paula Kislak, DVM

Santa Barbara CA

7/30/2010

$5,000.00

[emphasis added]

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 7/28/2010

Michael Katz

New York, NY

7/27/2010

$10,000.00

[emphasis added]

Whew. We finally got one from Missouri. I’m somewhat relieved.

CONTRIBUTION OF MORE THAN $5,000.00 RECEIVED BY ANY COMMITTEE FROM ANY SINGLE DONOR – TO BE FILED WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE CONTRIBUTION

C091304 MISSOURIANS FOR THE PROTECTION OF DOGS [pdf] 7/21/2010

Humane Society of Missouri

St. Louis, MO

7/21/2010

8,088.10

[emphasis added]

I bet if you vote yes on Proposition B your puppies will thank you.

Both those who favor the anti-puppy mill petition drive and those who oppose it are overlooking the most relevant factor:

According to the HSUS, the reason Missouri needs this new initiative is because Missouri is the leading state in the US when it comes to the number of ‘puppy mills’. HSUS projects that there are around 3,000 ‘puppy mills’ in the state. According to the US Department of Agriculture, there are 1,525 licensed commercial breeders in the state — nearly 3x more than any other state.  The rest, to get to HSUS’s projected number of breeders are unlicensed.   In other words, Missouri could CUT IN HALF the number of ‘puppy mills’ just by closing down all of the unlicensed operations in the state.

Unfortunately, one of the big reasons we are unable to close down these operations is due to a severe lack of state inspectors.  As of right now, the state only has 13 licensed inspectors–who not only have to inspect all of the licensed operations, but also are charged with identifying and closing down unlicensed operations.  There are 120 unlicensed operations per state official assigned to close them down — and another 120 that they have to actually inspect each year. Even though Missouri shut down nearly 150 operations last year, more could be done with the same laws, but more enforcement officials.

According to some unconfirmed reports from people I know involved in this, HSUS has pledged nearly half a million dollars in order to get the 130,000 needed signatures to get this initiative on the ballot.  A couple of million dollars more will be needed once it’s placed on the ballot in order to get enough advertising out there to pass the bill.  This doesn’t even count the number of man hours that will be required to get the ballot signatures.  All I can think about is what this type of money, and this type of human support, could do if it were all channeled toward shutting down the commercial breeding operations that are operating illegally without a license — instead of working on a bill that will have minimal, if any, impact.

I sympathize with those who want puppy mills regulated. Of course I do. Joy Ward, a national activist who has written a science fiction novel involving a dog, told me that those who want the dog breeders left alone do not care what happens to those animals:

They are just taking the mill and Hunte Corp money and moving on. They don’t care about the tortured animals and they sure as hell don’t care about the thousands of people who buy these dogs thinking they are getting healthy family members only to find out their dogs will require thousands of dollars in vet bills, hundreds of hours of behavioral work due to the poor rearing experiences and still may have to euthanize their beloved pets because the vets can do nothing to remedy the insurmountable problems.

Obviously, the situation needs to be remedied.

But I also understand that our rural senators, especially those who are farmers themselves, feel they’ve been shoved from pillar to post these last couple of decades. They’re having a hard go of it, what with Big Ag shouldering them out of the hog and chicken raising business. Some are surviving by raising dogs instead, and they don’t want any interference, particularly from city folk.

All that makes sense, except that their hostility is aimed at the wrong target. CAFOs and Big Ag are the enemy here. Getting CAFOs regulated so that they have to treat the environment and their animals responsibly, instead of raping both, harming the public health with antibiotics and hormones, and then paying no penalties for their sins–that’s where the senators’ efforts should be focused.

Ward responds to those rural senators this way:

The main problem is that dogs are not being bred to be eaten, they are being bred to live in homes with people, Completely different things. If there are genetic problems with a slaughter hog, it won’t cost the buyer thousands of dollars and a ton of family pain.

Like I said, as far as how she feels and as far as how Senators Shoemyer and Purgason feel, I get it. But I don’t think the legislature’s attempt to require that the petition about puppy mills get a two thirds majority to pass is fair, constitutional or helpful as far as solving Missouri’s problems with inhumane treatment by dog breeders. The anti-puppy mill petition, on the other hand, has at least this to be said for it: it has raised awareness of the problem. But if we pass that petition and do nothing to get more regulators, we’ll be kidding ourselves if we think we’ve done anything to solve the problem.

The vested and powerful interests in Jeff City could very well invalidate the 190,027 signatures gathered by volunteers for Missourians to Protect Dogs.  This is the puppy mill petition that would force the Dept. of Ag to do what it’s supposed to do – regulate those god-awful puppy mills.  We would rather see them eliminated altogether, but we know that’s impossible right now.  HJR 86 is on the “informal calendar” and can be voted on at any moment.  We have to let these bastards know they can’t just make our right of initiative petition disappear.  Call, fax, email and keep it up until 6 p.m. Friday.   Here is the suggested message, but you might have your own choice words for these creeps.

As your constituent, I urge you to oppose H.J.R. 86 and legislation with similar wording, which attempt to interfere with Missouri citizens’ right to petition the government on abusive practices, such as the puppy mill ballot initiative now circulating. These bills are unfair and undemocratic, and are so broad they could even protect animal abusers.  

There are efforts underway now to amend H.J.R. 86 and one of the measures in the House to require a super-majority vote on ballot measures relating to animal protection.  Please do not fall for this last minute change, which does not improve the fundamentally bad public policy that these bills represent.

This legislation is a cynical and underhanded attempt to take away the rights of Missouri citizens. Voters overwhelmingly banned cockfighting in 1998, and are now circulating a petition to prevent cruelty at large-scale puppy mills. The right of citizens to petition for new laws is guaranteed by the Missouri Constitution, and lawmakers should not try to interfere with a ballot measure already in progress.

H.J.R. 86, H.B. 1747, S.B. 848, and S.B. 795 would also invest more power in the courts and subject the state to expensive lawsuits from animal abusers who want to overturn anti-cruelty laws. We shouldn’t waste our tax dollars and take away the rights of Missouri voters just to protect puppy mills and animal abusers.

Please oppose these bills and any other bill with similar language.

Rural Missouri legislators are hedging their bets. Attached to a bill that would legalize facilities that slaughter horses for human consumption is this provision:

No state law criminalizing or regulating crops or the welfare of animals will be valid unless based upon the most current industry standard and generally accepted scientific principles and enacted by the General Assembly.

[emphasis mine]

Translation: Only the General Assembly can restrict the puppy mill trade–and we’ll each cut off our left little finger before we lift a finger to do that. Y’all initiate all the petitions you want to rein in abuses in the dog breeding industry; we plan to ignore them.

So, would this amendment to HB 1747 be considered hedging their bets or is it overkill? Because the Senate Ag committee is now considering a bill for a constitutional amendment to the same effect. HJR 86, which already passed in the House, says–in the last version that I saw:

[N]o state law criminalizing or otherwise regulating the welfare or breeding of any domesticated animals shall be valid unless it has been enacted by the general assembly or promulgated by administrative rule….

[emphasis mine]

Both bills are probably unconstitutional. Any plan to ignore initiative petitions that affect only one segment of society (those who raise livestock) is, in effect, discriminating in their favor. It’s a little like sending your five kids to school with the proviso that teachers can discipline four of them but they can’t punish Billy for bad behavior. Only the parents–who never do–can discipline him. Right, like that’s gonna work.

Still, one moral is clear from these two bills: rural legislators really, really want the rest of us to butt out.

Missourians for the Protection of Dogs is doing a great job of collecting enough signatures to get the puppy mill issue on November’s ballot.  I was going to write a heart-wrenching posting about the abuses of the mother dogs and puppies in Missouri, but the first article I read online made me sick.  You can find the info you need by googling Puppy Mills-Missouri.  It’s hard to believe there are humans who treat animals (or any living thing) the way these monster breeders do.  

Luckily, there are many good people offering to collect signatures in locations around the state.  Click on the above link to find locations near you and help if you can