I don’t know if anyone has posted the link to the Voter Protection Alliance page yet. Look at the list of endorsers.  This should be an “interesting” project.  I worked with libertarians and property rights people a year ago in Franklin County to thwart a charter rule effort that would have handed all decision making over to developers.  I found the folks on the opposite end of the political spectrum from me very cooperative, hard working and loyal to the cause.  As long as we didn’t talk about anything other than charter rule !

Rep. Scott Sifton of Affton (St. Louis County) deserves huge credit for leading the effort to push back against the overreaching Missouri legislators who think the Capitol is their private club.

We will be gathering signatures this year and voting next year on a constitutional amendment to require 3/4 vote of both houses to override a law passed by citizen initiative petition.  It’s about time.  

Good news for all of us who are sad and angry at what our governor and legislature did to our citizen initiative law that passed in November.  Despite a majority vote of the people, a handful of Big Ag-dependent legislators took it upon themselves to repeal our vote.  Using lies and confusion, they convinced a bunch of Missourians, mostly in rural districts where people are used to being told how to think, that raising standards at dog breeding operations will force Missourians to become vegans.  

But this fight is not over.  The ASPCA just announced that it is reviewing the actions of the governor and legislature to determine what our next step will be.

Stay tuned.  Prop B is not dead.

The description of the Missouri legislature from a friend of mine describes it best:

This legislature is a goat rodeo run by circus clowns. What a joke.

SB 113 Modifies the Animal Care Facilities Act and the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act

Sponsor: Parson Co-Sponsor(s)

LR Number: 0178S.11T Fiscal Note: 0178-11P.ORG

Committee: Agriculture, Food Production and Outdoor Resources

Last Action: 4/27/2011 – Signed by Governor Journal Page:  

Title: SS SCS SBs 113 & 95 Calendar Position:

Effective Date: August 28, 2011

House Handler: Loehner

Full Bill Text | All Actions | Available Summaries | Senate Home Page | List of 2011 Senate Bills

Current Bill Summary  

SS/SCS/SBs 113 & 95 – This act modifies provisions of the Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA) and the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.

Currently under the ACFA, the maximum fee for obtaining a license to operate certain dog facilities is $500 per year. The act increases this maximum to $2,500 per year. The act additionally requires a licensee to pay a $25 fee each year to be used by the Department of Agriculture for Operation Bark Alert.

The act changes the name of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act to the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act and modifies many of the act’s definitions. Anyone subject to the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act must retain all veterinary and sales records for the most recent previous 2 years and make the records available upon request.

Current law prohibits anyone from having more than 50 dogs when the purpose is to breed them and sell the resulting puppies. The act removes this prohibition.

The act removes the current criminal penalty provision under the the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act and adds new penalty and enforcement provisions to the ACFA and the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act. Where the state veterinarian or an animal welfare official finds that past violations of the ACFA or Canine Cruelty Prevention Act have not been corrected, the director of the Department of Agriculture may refer such cases to the Attorney General or a local prosecutor who may bring an action seeking a restraining order, injunction, or a remedial order to correct the violations. The court may assess a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation. Additionally, the act creates the crime of canine cruelty, a Class C misdemeanor, which occurs when someone repeatedly violates the ACFA or Canine Cruelty Prevention Act in such a manner that poses a substantial risk to the health and welfare of animals in the person’s custody or when someone violates an agreed-to remedial order involving the safety and welfare of the animals. A second or subsequent offense is a Class A misdemeanor.

The act makes it a Class A misdemeanor for anyone required to have a license under the ACFA to keep his or her animals in stacked cages where there is no impervious layer between the cages, except if cleaning the cages.

The act contains an emergency clause.

That last part rubs salt in the wound. An emergency clause means the bill will take effect immediately which will prevent groups who favor the more stringent restrictions called for in Proposition B from using the public referendum power we have in the Missouri Constitution.

The “compromise bill” is a sham AND a shame.  Shame on our elected officials for thumbing their nose at us.

So this is a double blow to our democratic process and puts us right up there with states like Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan and New Jersy which have Republican governors.  

Nixon needs to be a one term governor.  Whoever challenges him in the August 2012 primary will have all the dog lovers and all the voters in the 88 state rep districts that voted YES on Prop B for support.

Yesterday I got a really good look at the lopsided balance of power in Missouri when I attended a rally in support of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act in Jeff City.  About 150 of the most passionately humane and caring people met on the sidewalk outside the governor’s mansion shouting “VETO SB 113.”   Some folks brought the dogs they had adopted from horrible circumstances and told us their stories.  One woman with HSUS who used to be a television reporter talked about what she saw when she went undercover to a puppy mill auction.  We got lots of thumbs up from state workers leaving for the day and people driving by in cars.  All in all, it was an inspiring experience.  I, myself, feel inspired every time I meet someone brave enough to do the dirty work of rescuing animals from their filthy prisons.  I don’t think I could do it.  The chief investigator with the MO Humane Society told us last week about how he has to wear a breathing apparatus (not just a face mask) when he goes into some of the disgusing breeding operations.  He said the fumes in the air can damage his lungs.  Well, imagine what those fumes are doing to the dogs.

After the rally, Marty Rulo and I drove around to the south side of the Capitol building and had to face the fact that we are not just outnumbered by opponents of Prop B but outgunned as well.  The state reps and senators who passed SB 113 gathered in formal lines on the capitol steps behind a speaker’s podium, complete with professional sound system, flags and the whole works.  I’d estimate 800 or so people gathered below the speaker listening and shouting “NO” when asked if they were going to allow an assault on their “property rights.”   And that’s the difference between us and them.  As Marty said , “They think of dogs as property.  We think of them as pets and part of a family.”  The power is all on their side.  The legislators depend on corporate donations to run their campaigns.  The Department of Agriculture rules on all issues involving animals.  The Missouri Humane Society has to depend on the Ag Dept to enforce regulations pertaining to puppy mills.  That probably explains why the state humane society and the MO Alliance for Animal Legislation were willing to “compromise” on a new bill.

I’m not as up on all the regs and enforcement procedures as others are.  I’m not directly involved with any dog group at all.  But when I reviewed the new bill, the “compromise” that the governor brokered with both sides of the issue, I was struck by the fact that they are arguing about how many more inches a dog should have to turn around and stretch out her limbs.  Think about that.  It’s come to this.  We are debating whether an adult dog imprisoned for her whole life in a cage should be able to stretch her limbs.

What has become of us that we are even allowing dogs to be caged for life?  Dogs have been domesticated by humans to serve us as pets.  We want dogs to be our family members and our friends.   We don’t expect cows, chickens and pigs to interact with us emotionally, but we DO want dogs, and especially puppies, to be our companions and our “babies.”

Why are we even having this conversation?  NO DOG should spend its life in a cage barely bigger than the animal itself.  I haven’t been as emotionally affected by this issue as some of the friends I’ve met at these rallies until I read that “compromise” bill. It’s disgusting.  I’m horrified that we, as human beings, are allowing these conditions to exist in our state.  We do NOT need puppy mills in Missouri.  Humane breeders care for their animals, sell only to families that make a good fit for the dogs, follow and go beyond all the regulations because they respect their dogs as social animals.   Breeders who run the factory operations and produce thousands of puppies a year should be closed down – end of discussion.  

“Property rights”?  NO – domesticated animals are not your “property” to do with as you wish.  We have evolved.  We don’t allow animals to be trained to kill each other for sport and gambling.  We outlawed dog fighting and cock fighting a decade ago.  We are on the path to outlawing factory breeding facilities too.  This whole Prop B issue has brought to light the hidden reality of what most of us didn’t really understand until now.   Even if the “compromise” bill passes and the governor caves to corporate pressure and signs it,  we will continue to expose the cruelty that exists in our state.

I’m not as ready as Willy to throw in the towel on Prop B, but her analysis of what’s going on is probably more accurate than mine.  I had all but given up too, but a friend of mine who rescues dogs called me the other night and gently pushed me back into the ring.

One thing that convinced me that there is hope is that some state reps have been convinced to change their votes for repeal simply by pointing out to them that their districts approved Prop B in November.  She told me that Sally Faith of St. Charles and Chuck Gatschenberger of Lake Saint Louis have both agreed to vote against SB113 after it became public that they had accepted campaign contributions from Smithfield Farms.  Evidently, Sally Faith admitted that she hadn’t read the bill and had taken the word of a colleague she trusted.  Oh, sure.

If all 88 of the state reps whose districts voted YES on Prop B in November vote against repeal, that will be a majority and enough to kill the bill.  So it’s up to us to hound those state reps in the districts that passed Prop B to do the right thing – or else.

Through MEC reports I found out that my state rep, Paul Curtman of the 105th accepted a $500 contribution from Jason Smith, the rep whose mother owns one of the “dirty dozen” puppy mills.

Check out the list here.

That same Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation website has tons of good info, including a comparison of Prop B and SB 113 and a list of the voting percentage totals by district.  Check out yours.  If your House district passed Prop B, make sure your rep is voting against repeal. If your district did not pass Prop B, ask your rep to do the right thing for the dogs.  If breeders can’t make a profit by taking good care of their animals, they should close up shop and let someone do it who can.  Check out the BBB reports and all the complaints from customers who bought puppies they thought were healthy.

And click here to see Sen. Parson, sponsor of the bill, lying his head off to an audience where he obviously feels comfortable making up nonsense.

 If you have the stomach for it here are some photos from actual puppy mills.  Friends of mine who have rescued puppies from these dungeons of death tell me they can smell the diseased dogs before they even pull into the driveway.

I’m not ready to give up on this yet.  I hope you’ll get as angry as I am and motivated to do everything you can to protect these animals.

I sent this LTE to 12 Missouri papers.  Your turn.

The voters of Missouri decided in November that it is time to upgrade the standards of care at mass puppy breeding facilities where the puppies are sold as pets.  Note that this has nothing to do with breeders of show dogs or hunting dogs or dogs in general.  It applies only to breeders of puppies to be sold as pets where the facility has more than ten productive female dogs.

It’s true that there is already a law regulating care standards at these facilities, but the breeders who are in it for the highest profit often ignore the warnings and citations they are given.  Inspectors visit both licensed and unlicensed operations and have found deplorable conditions at some in each of those categories.  So it is not true that only unlicensed breeders treat dogs inhumanely.  The Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act passed by voters in November will make it against the law to mistreat dogs.  It is true that some breeders will still ignore the law, but they are less likely to abuse the animals if that abuse results in a more severe penalty.

Those of us who adopt puppies and dogs as pets consider them part of the family.  As part of a family, they deserve the same care and protection during the birth process and in their birth homes as they will receive in our homes.  Healthy pets contribute love and stability to families.   People who buy puppies expect them to be healthy, well-cared for and socialized to be comfortable with humans.   The old law covering conditions in puppy breeding facilities is 20 years old and was written to provide just basic survival conditions.  To our credit, Missourians have become more compassionate and caring in the past two decades, and we want mother dogs and puppies to be treated the way they deserve to be treated as God’s creatures.

If a breeder cannot make a profit providing a safe, healthy environment for his animals, he should probably let others do it who can.  Breeders who cut corners pass the cost on to the adoptive family in the form of high veterinary bills.  This is not fair or right.   Better Business Bureaus in several Missouri cities have lists of complaints lodged against puppy mill owners who have sold unhealthy animals to unsuspecting customers.

Females used for breeding need a rest period between pregnancies so their bodies can rebuild.  At some of the worst operations in Missouri females are being bred every cycle until their teeth rot and they lose the strength to stand up.  There are photos of females hanging in slings so they can be inseminated.   When they stop producing healthy puppies, they are disposed of.  What kind of people can do this to animals?  

The Puppy Mill Cruety Prevention Act places no additional burden on breeders who are already treating their animals with care and respect.  The new space requirements are reasonable.  Even the largest outdoor enclosure required by Prop B is still smaller than a parking space at your local grocery store. The space requirements under Prop B are determined by the size of the dog. For example, a small dog requires indoor space the size of a sleeping bag and outdoor space that measures about half the size of the bed of a pickup truck. A medium sized dog requires indoor space the size of a twin bed mattress and outdoor space the size of a pool table. And a large dog requires indoor space the size of a standard elevator floor and outdoor space the size of a compact car. Giving dogs enough space to turn around, stretch their limbs, and exercise is just common sense.

For more information about the facts about Prop B, go to http://www.missourifordogs.com.

It is right and just to defend the defenseless.

Yesterday (January 25th) I witnessed  “democracy” in action as members of the Missouri House Agriculture Policy Committee listened to what was supposed to be a public hearing on the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act passed by voters in November.  The whole show was scripted and a ringer played the key role.   Rep. Jason Smith introduced himself as an ex-officio member of the committee representing “the leadership.”  One can only assume he means the Republican leaders of the House  – or – the “leadership” of the Big Money Interests behind the attacks on the Humane Society of the United States.   It’s hard to know for whom the Jason Smiths of this country work  since the corporate moneybags and their minions in government enjoy an incestuous relationship that benefits both groups.

There have been at least seven bills so far introduced in the Missouri General Assembly to either repeal or seriously weaken the law passed by almost 52% of the voters in Missouri in November.  Keep in mind that, when state reps and senators win by 52% of the vote, they consider it a landslide and the outcome of the election is never challenged.   But, evidently, this same rule doesn’t apply when the old boys on the Ag Committee don’t get what they want.  They obviously didn’t see the big neon signs flashing over their heads yesterday spelling out  HIPPOCRITTERS.

Committee chair Tom Loehner (R-112) called the meeting to order exactly at noon and laid down the groundrules – no clapping, no booing, no outbursts, no spitting on the floor, (oops, sorry – I was caught up in the excitement of the moment.)

He asked for a show of hands how many for and against Prop B.  The room was packed and an overflow crowd stood in the hallways.  The count was easily 80% in favor of Prop B.  Some of us wore buttons saying “Defend Prop B.”   Some had stickers saying “The Voters Have Spoken.” Although the committee members were totally against Prop B and made that very clear, they had to face a room full of people who see them as stooges for corporate agriculture.  

Chairman Loehner decided to start the hearing with  HB 131 although two other bills were listed as being considered as well.  The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Stanley Cox (R-118 which is the Sedalia area) went first and listed all of his reasons for hating the law passed by the voters.  It’s hard to summarize his points because he spoke of “things” in the law that veterinarians wouldn’t support and how his bill, unlike Prop B, is based on “science.”  His central concern seemed to be that using the term puppy mill wasn’t fair to legitimate breeders.  Committee members asked Cox why he wanted to remove the section of the bill that says drinking water for the dogs had to be “debris free”?   His answer was that, in his experience, dogs are messy and can get their food in their water bowls.   How’s that for sound “science”??

Co-sponsor of HB 131, Chuck Gatschenberger (R-13) testified that he didn’t like the name “puppy mill” either and that the new law is an infringement on the right of breeders to make money and pay their bills.  He and most of the committee members kept referring to dogs and puppies as “the product” to sell, and his point was that “legitimate” breeders (there’s that word again) would be put out of business.  When all the breeders go bankrupt, they will lose their homes and have no way to support their families.   Seriously.

Rep. Joe Aull (D-26) asked Cox why he wanted to increase the number of females being bred from 50 to 100.   Cox said he just picked the number out of the air.   Hmmmm……

The first outside witness in favor of HB 131 was Karen Strange of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners.  She said her organization’s goal is to protect animal owners from the “animal rights movement.”  She warned the committee that there is an insidious plot by animal activists to” change the face of agriculture”

This theme was repeated several times during the two hours of testimony.  The Humane Society of the United States is the bogeyman in the eyes of opponents of our new law.  First they come to protect puppies and dogs, but then they want free range chickens and some of those other crazy things that are going on in places like California (horrors !)  Eventually, there will be no meat available to Americans and civilization will come to an end.  No, really.  This is what they believe, and I think the folks in the audience who hate Prop B honestly think this is what will happen to our country if we improve the care standards at dog breeding operations in Missouri.

Committee member Ed Schieffer (R-11) tried to get a handle on how many actual breeding operations there are in Missouri.  He said he had heard there were a little over 1400 “legitimate” breeders despite the fact that the Prop B supporters keep saying there are over 3000 puppy mills in Missouri.  The question came down to licensed vs. unlicensed breeders, but this is not as clear cut as it sounds either.  Evidently,some licensed breeders prefer to ignore the care standards and just accept the warnings and citations by the state inspectors until they eventually just give up trying to be licensed.   It’s kind of like people who own guns aren’t criminals until they shoot somebody.    When asked whether licensed breeders could meet the new requirements in Prop B,  Strange answered that she doubted any of them could meet the standards.

The first witness in support of Prop B and opposed to SB 131 was Tim Rickey, from Franklin County, who works for the ASPCA and has been in the animal protection business for over 20 years.  He did a very good job of explaining the problem and why a citizens’ initiative was necessary to get Prop B passed.  He offered the committee copies of reports from multiple sources describing the horrible conditions where animals suffer all their lives.  He quoted from a Better Business Bureau report as well as reports by the state auditor’s office over the years and the Department of Agriculture’s own record keeping and summary reports.  Rickey emphasized that it is not true that bad conditions exist only at unlicensed facilities.   He also appealed to the committee members not to go against the will of the voters. The one thing I wish Rickey had offered was to take the committee members to one of the “dirty dozen” facilities unannounced.  Only heartless zombies could visit one of those places and not be horrified.

Jason Smith, who would make a great prosecuting attorney, tried to get Rickey and other witnesses to restate their opinions by cross examining them with standard lawyer trickery.  He reworded what witnesses said and then asked them if they really didn’t mean the opposite.  Smith probably watches a lot of crime drama on TV and envisions himself as the star of the show.   He even got one pro-Prop B witness to agree that the new law isn’t “perfect,” to which she replied “Nothing’s perfect.”  Smith’s response was that the only perfect laws were those written by him.  Being twice his age, I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt for his sophomoric  performance – but it was a struggle.

Committee member Schieffer took plenty of time to hammer away at how much more it would cost the state to do inspections and enforce the new requirements, but that argument evidently doesn’t hold much water.  The inspectors who currently work for the Dept of Ag would still do the same number of inspections, but they will have to look more carefully and not just call ahead and drop by for coffee.

The next witness in support of HB 131 was a veterinarian from, you guessed it, Neosho.  In his little corner of the world, everything’s fine and dandy.  There are no sick puppies being sold because he has to sign a health certificate for each one of them.  Well, I certainly feel better, don’t you? &nb
sp; Prosecutor,  er….Rep. Smith got into some crazy conversation with this vet about the necessary body temperature for a puppy to survive.  The vet wasn’t sure where that question was headed, so he demurred.  But, thanks to the all night research by Rep. Smith, we learned that a puppy’s body temperature has to be at least 90 degrees for survival.   But, OMG, the new law says the temperature in the kennels can’t exceed 85 degrees.  And all those poor puppies will die.   (No, I’m not making this up.)

By now, you, dear reader, have figured out that the whole show was a circus and the clowns were the center attraction.  All of the comments and questions from committee members were slanted against Prop B and in favor of either repealing it or gutting it to make it useless.  But keep in mind this is the Ag Committee.   Many of the members have dogs or used to have dogs and know all there is to know about raising animals.  And they don’t need no new-fangled care standards that probably are a conspiracy against good patriotic Missourians.  Oh, please.

Dr. Julie Brinkman, a veterinary with the Humane Society of Missouri, reminded committee members that the new law addresses care of ADULT dogs that produce puppies.  She explained that a female who is bred every cycle is feeding puppies for four out of every six months.  Her body is feeding them inside her and then by the milk she produces.  Her body does not have time to recover between litters and she loses her teeth, muscle mass, and eventually the ability to survive.  (You don’t even want to know about how some breeders put female dogs in slings who can’t stand up anymore so they can inseminate them.)   Every woman in that hearing room who has had children could have added her own testimony about how pregnancy and nursing  takes its toll on the mother.

Not to be upstaged, Rep. Smith asked Dr. Brinkman if the new law referred also to males when it says  a “dog” can be bred only twice in 18 months,   Choke, choke.  Was he asking whether male dogs would be allowed to have sex only twice in 18 months or did he actually not know that male dogs can’t get pregnant??    I, being a retired English teacher, could have explained that the word in that sentence referred to the antecedent in the previous sentence, but Rep. Smith wasn’t really interested in understanding the provision in the law.  He was clowning around in an attempt to get Dr. Brinkman flustered and to agree that the law was not perfect.  Did I say “sophomoric”?   Maybe middle school mentality fits better.

The star witness for the prosecution was Leslie of the Missouri Farm Bureau.  She is on a first name basis with all the committee members so no need to look her up.  They all thanked her profusely for coming, “good to see you again, ” etc.  I’m sure if the committee members could have reached her from their high perches they would have given her a big hug.  I wonder if part of the kissing up thing has to do with candidate endorsements?  No, probably not.

Leslie really spelled out the “hidden agenda” of the animal rights activists.  She pandered to provincial fears by mentioning those evil creatures who live on the East Coast and West Coast and how they are behind this whole takeover thingy.  Booga Booga !  She went on and on about all the money for Prop B that came from out of state.   Oh, excuse me while I bring up some unpleasant facts.   If we’re going to “follow the money,” let’s follow it right back to the Center for Consumer Freedom.*  I posted something about this last year.

Bob Baker, Executive Director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, explained the need for an upgrade in care standards at dog breeding facilities.  He helped write the 1992 law which is the current standard and explained that it provides only for the “survival” of the animals, not “humane care.”  He gave an example of one of the loopholes some breeders use.  The temperature requirement is written into the current law, but it says the temperature can’t be too cold or too hot for more than four hours.  Inspectors call ahead, breeders change the thermostat or hide dogs they don’t want the inspectors to see.  Even if the inspectors don’t call ahead, breeders can just change the temperature while the breeder is there and change it again when he leaves.  The inspector, obviously, isn’t going to stand there for four hours.

Baker quoted the BBB reports again and made the point that improved care of animals will actually enhance the breeding business.  And it would be a vote of confidence to dog owners if they knew that Missouri was cleaning up its act.  It would enhance our reputation if we could shake the “puppy mill capital” image.

Jason Smith (again) spoke up and tried to get Baker to say that shelters and rescue groups should have to provide the same care standards that breeders will be required to provide.  Baker tried to explain that shelters offer temporary housing and take good care of their animals. (Personal story:  I visited the Franklin County Humane Society unannounced and saw a volunteer playing with a dog in the “play room.”)

Despite twisting Baker’s words and grilling him like a criminal, Smith was not able to wear the man down.  Good for you, Bob !

Time was running out, but committee member Schieffer couldn’t help tossing one last grenade at the witness.  He attacked Baker’s credibility and accused him of talking in “generalities.”  If that’s their best ammunition, we shouldn’t have too much to worry about.

*

CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, D.C., Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains. Hotels, motels, restaurants, bars and taverns together comprise the “hospitality industry,” which has long been cultivated by the tobacco industry as a third party to help slow or stop the progression of smoke free laws. CCF actively opposes smoking bans and lowering the legal blood-alcohol level, while targeting studies on the dangers of meat & dairy, processed food, fatty foods, soda pop, pharmaceuticals, animal testing, overfishing and pesticides. Each year they give out the “nanny awards” to groups who, according to them, try to tell consumers how to live their lives. Anyone who criticizes any of the above is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association (AMA); the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader’s group, Public Citizen; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)  When CCF went under the name of Guest Choice Network, its purpose was to enlist operators of “restaurants, hotels, casinos, bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators” to “support mentality of ‘smokers rights’ by encouraging responsibility to protect ‘guest choice.'” According to a year end budget, Guest Choice planned to spend $1.5 million during its first 13 months of operation, including $390,000 for “membership marketing/materials development,” $430,000 to establish a communication center and newsletter (which Berman promised would have a “60% to 70% smoking focus”, $110,000 to create a “multi-industry advi
sory council,” and $345,000 for “grassroots network development/operation.”

 source Wikipedia

Yesterday (January 25th) I witnessed  “democracy” in action as members of the Missouri House Agriculture Policy Committee listened to what was supposed to be a public hearing on the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act passed by voters in November.  The whole show was scripted and a ringer played the key role.   Rep. Jason Smith introduced himself as an ex-officio member of the committee representing “the leadership.”  One can only assume he means the Republican leaders of the House  – or – the “leadership” of the Big Money Interests behind the attacks on the Humane Society of the United States.   It’s hard to know for whom the Jason Smiths of this country work  since the corporate moneybags and their minions in government enjoy an incestuous relationship that benefits both groups.

There have been at least seven bills so far introduced in the Missouri General Assembly to either repeal or seriously weaken the law passed by almost 52% of the voters in Missouri in November.  Keep in mind that, when state reps and senators win by 52% of the vote, they consider it a landslide and the outcome of the election is never challenged.   But, evidently, this same rule doesn’t apply when the old boys on the Ag Committee don’t get what they want.  They obviously didn’t see the big neon signs flashing over their heads yesterday spelling out  HIPPOCRITTERS.

Committee chair Tom Loehner (R-112) called the meeting to order exactly at noon and laid down the groundrules – no clapping, no booing, no outbursts, no spitting on the floor, (oops, sorry – I was caught up in the excitement of the moment.)

He asked for a show of hands how many for and against Prop B.  The room was packed and an overflow crowd stood in the hallways.  The count was easily 80% in favor of Prop B.  Some of us wore buttons saying “Defend Prop B.”   Some had stickers saying “The Voters Have Spoken.” Although the committee members were totally against Prop B and made that very clear, they had to face a room full of people who see them as stooges for corporate agriculture.  

Chairman Loehner decided to start the hearing with  HB 131 although two other bills were listed as being considered as well.  The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Stanley Cox (R-118 which is the Sedalia area) went first and listed all of his reasons for hating the law passed by the voters.  “It’s hard to summarize his points because he spoke of “things” in the law that veterinarians wouldn’t support” reports staff members from the Pharr Road Animal Hospital. They go on to explain how his bill, unlike Prop B, is based on “science.”  His central concern seemed to be that using the term puppy mill wasn’t fair to legitimate breeders.  Committee members asked Cox why he wanted to remove the section of the bill that says drinking water for the dogs had to be “debris free”?   His answer was that, in his experience, dogs are messy and can get their food in their water bowls.   How’s that for sound “science”??

Co-sponsor of HB 131, Chuck Gatschenberger (R-13) testified that he didn’t like the name “puppy mill” either and that the new law is an infringement on the right of breeders to make money and pay their bills.  He and most of the committee members kept referring to dogs and puppies as “the product” to sell, and his point was that “legitimate” breeders (there’s that word again) would be put out of business.  When all the breeders go bankrupt, they will lose their homes and have no way to support their families.   Seriously.

Rep. Joe Aull (D-26) asked Cox why he wanted to increase the number of females being bred from 50 to 100.   Cox said he just picked the number out of the air.   Hmmmm……

The first outside witness in favor of HB 131 was Karen Strange of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners.  She said her organization’s goal is to protect animal owners from the “animal rights movement.”  She warned the committee that there is an insidious plot by animal activists to” change the face of agriculture”

This theme was repeated several times during the two hours of testimony.  The Humane Society of the United States is the bogeyman in the eyes of opponents of our new law.  First they come to protect puppies and dogs, but then they want free range chickens and some of those other crazy things that are going on in places like California (horrors !)  Eventually, there will be no meat available to Americans and civilization will come to an end.  No, really.  This is what they believe, and I think the folks in the audience who hate Prop B honestly think this is what will happen to our country if we improve the care standards at dog breeding operations in Missouri.

Committee member Ed Schieffer (R-11) tried to get a handle on how many actual breeding operations there are in Missouri.  He said he had heard there were a little over 1400 “legitimate” breeders despite the fact that the Prop B supporters keep saying there are over 3000 puppy mills in Missouri.  The question came down to licensed vs. unlicensed breeders, but this is not as clear cut as it sounds either.  Evidently,some licensed breeders prefer to ignore the care standards and just accept the warnings and citations by the state inspectors until they eventually just give up trying to be licensed.   It’s kind of like people who own guns aren’t criminals until they shoot somebody.    When asked whether licensed breeders could meet the new requirements in Prop B,  Strange answered that she doubted any of them could meet the standards.

The first witness in support of Prop B and opposed to SB 131 was Tim Rickey, from Franklin County, who works for the ASPCA and has been in the animal protection business for over 20 years.  He did a very good job of explaining the problem and why a citizens’ initiative was necessary to get Prop B passed.  He offered the committee copies of reports from multiple sources describing the horrible conditions where animals suffer all their lives.  He quoted from a Better Business Bureau report as well as reports by the state auditor’s office over the years and the Department of Agriculture’s own record keeping and summary reports.  Rickey emphasized that it is not true that bad conditions exist only at unlicensed facilities.   He also appealed to the committee members not to go against the will of the voters. The one thing I wish Rickey had offered was to take the committee members to one of the “dirty dozen” facilities unannounced.  Only heartless zombies could visit one of those places and not be horrified.

Jason Smith, who would make a great prosecuting attorney, tried to get Rickey and other witnesses to restate their opinions by cross examining them with standard lawyer trickery.  He reworded what witnesses said and then asked them if they really didn’t mean the opposite.  Smith probably watches a lot of crime drama on TV and envisions himself as the star of the show.   He even got one pro-Prop B witness to agree that the new law isn’t “perfect,” to which she replied “Nothing’s perfect.”  Smith’s response was that the only perfect laws were those written by him.  Being twice his age, I tried to give him the benefit of the doubt for his sophomoric  performance – but it was a struggle.

Committee member Schieffer took plenty of time to hammer away at how much more it would cost the state to do inspections and enforce the new requirements, but that argument evidently doesn’t hold much water.  The inspectors who currently work for the Dept of Ag would still do the same number of inspections, but they will have to look more carefully and not just call ahead and drop by for coffee.

The next witness in support of HB 131 was a veterinarian from, you guessed it, Neosho.  In his little corner of the world, everything’s fine and dandy.  There are no sick puppies being sold because he has to sign a health certificate for each one of them.  Well, I certainly feel better, don’t you?   Pros
ecutor,  er….Rep. Smith got into some crazy conversation with this vet about the necessary body temperature for a puppy to survive.  The vet wasn’t sure where that question was headed, so he demurred.  But, thanks to the all night research by Rep. Smith, we learned that a puppy’s body temperature has to be at least 90 degrees for survival.   But, OMG, the new law says the temperature in the kennels can’t exceed 85 degrees.  And all those poor puppies will die.   (No, I’m not making this up.)

By now, you, dear reader, have figured out that the whole show was a circus and the clowns were the center attraction.  All of the comments and questions from committee members were slanted against Prop B and in favor of either repealing it or gutting it to make it useless.  But keep in mind this is the Ag Committee.   Many of the members have dogs or used to have dogs and know all there is to know about raising animals.  And they don’t need no new-fangled care standards that probably are a conspiracy against good patriotic Missourians.  Oh, please.

Dr. Julie Brinkman, a veterinary with the Humane Society of Missouri, reminded committee members that the new law addresses care of ADULT dogs that produce puppies.  She explained that a female who is bred every cycle is feeding puppies for four out of every six months.  Her body is feeding them inside her and then by the milk she produces.  Her body does not have time to recover between litters and she loses her teeth, muscle mass, and eventually the ability to survive.  (You don’t even want to know about how some breeders put female dogs in slings who can’t stand up anymore so they can inseminate them.)   Every woman in that hearing room who has had children could have added her own testimony about how pregnancy and nursing  takes its toll on the mother.

Not to be upstaged, Rep. Smith asked Dr. Brinkman if the new law referred also to males when it says  a “dog” can be bred only twice in 18 months,   Choke, choke.  Was he asking whether male dogs would be allowed to have sex only twice in 18 months or did he actually not know that male dogs can’t get pregnant??    I, being a retired English teacher, could have explained that the word in that sentence referred to the antecedent in the previous sentence, but Rep. Smith wasn’t really interested in understanding the provision in the law.  He was clowning around in an attempt to get Dr. Brinkman flustered and to agree that the law was not perfect.  Did I say “sophomoric”?   Maybe middle school mentality fits better.

The star witness for the prosecution was Leslie of the Missouri Farm Bureau.  She is on a first name basis with all the committee members so no need to look her up.  They all thanked her profusely for coming, “good to see you again, ” etc.  I’m sure if the committee members could have reached her from their high perches they would have given her a big hug.  I wonder if part of the kissing up thing has to do with candidate endorsements?  No, probably not.

Leslie really spelled out the “hidden agenda” of the animal rights activists.  She pandered to provincial fears by mentioning those evil creatures who live on the East Coast and West Coast and how they are behind this whole takeover thingy.  Booga Booga !  She went on and on about all the money for Prop B that came from out of state.   Oh, excuse me while I bring up some unpleasant facts.   If we’re going to “follow the money,” let’s follow it right back to the Center for Consumer Freedom.*  I posted something about this last year.

Bob Baker, Executive Director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, explained the need for an upgrade in care standards at dog breeding facilities.  He helped write the 1992 law which is the current standard and explained that it provides only for the “survival” of the animals, not “humane care.”  He gave an example of one of the loopholes some breeders use.  The temperature requirement is written into the current law, but it says the temperature can’t be too cold or too hot for more than four hours.  Inspectors call ahead, breeders change the thermostat or hide dogs they don’t want the inspectors to see.  Even if the inspectors don’t call ahead, breeders can just change the temperature while the breeder is there and change it again when he leaves.  The inspector, obviously, isn’t going to stand there for four hours.

Baker quoted the BBB reports again and made the point that improved care of animals will actually enhance the breeding business.  And it would be a vote of confidence to dog owners if they knew that Missouri was cleaning up its act.  It would enhance our reputation if we could shake the “puppy mill capital” image.

Jason Smith (again) spoke up and tried to get Baker to say that shelters and rescue groups should have to provide the same care standards that breeders will be required to provide.  Baker tried to explain that shelters offer temporary housing and take good care of their animals. (Personal story:  I visited the Franklin County Humane Society unannounced and saw a volunteer playing with a dog in the “play room.”)

Despite twisting Baker’s words and grilling him like a criminal, Smith was not able to wear the man down.  Good for you, Bob !

Time was running out, but committee member Schieffer couldn’t help tossing one last grenade at the witness.  He attacked Baker’s credibility and accused him of talking in “generalities.”  If that’s their best ammunition, we shouldn’t have too much to worry about.

*

CCF is one of the more active of several front groups created by Berman & Co., a public affairs firm owned by lobbyist Rick Berman. Based in Washington, D.C., Berman & Co. represents the tobacco industry as well as hotels, beer distributors, taverns, and restaurant chains. Hotels, motels, restaurants, bars and taverns together comprise the “hospitality industry,” which has long been cultivated by the tobacco industry as a third party to help slow or stop the progression of smoke free laws. CCF actively opposes smoking bans and lowering the legal blood-alcohol level, while targeting studies on the dangers of meat & dairy, processed food, fatty foods, soda pop, pharmaceuticals, animal testing, overfishing and pesticides. Each year they give out the “nanny awards” to groups who, according to them, try to tell consumers how to live their lives. Anyone who criticizes any of the above is likely to come under attack from CCF. Its enemies list has included such diverse groups and individuals as the Alliance of American Insurers; the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons; the American Medical Association (AMA); the Arthritis Foundation; the Consumer Federation of America; New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani; the Harvard School of Public Health; the Marin Institute for the Prevention of Alcohol and Other Drug Problems; the National Association of High School Principals; the National Safety Council; the National Transportation Safety Board; the Office of Highway Safety for the state of Georgia; Ralph Nader’s group, Public Citizen; the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT)  When CCF went under the name of Guest Choice Network, its purpose was to enlist operators of “restaurants, hotels, casinos, bowling alleys, taverns, stadiums, and university hospitality educators” to “support mentality of ‘smokers rights’ by encouraging responsibility to protect ‘guest choice.'” According to a year end budget, Guest Choice planned to spend $1.5 million during its first 13 months of operation, including $390,000 for “membership marketing/materials development,” $430,000 to establish a communication center and newsletter (which Berman promised would have a “60% to 70% smoking focus”, $110,000 to create a “multi-industry advisory cou
ncil,” and $345,000 for “grassroots network development/operation.”

 source Wikipedia

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.