The Maneater Column: Prop B no good for dog breeders By Ryan Schuessler
Published Aug. 31, 2010
Can you define the term "puppy mill?"
If you say something along the lines of a cramped, dirty, abusive farm where dogs are bred and sold, then you're wrong. In reality, there is no legal definition of a puppy mill.
Let me get this out of the way first: no animal should be abused. Ever. The picture of puppy mills that has been implanted in people's heads is undoubtedly, wrong, immoral and shouldn't be allowed. Every animal in the care of a human deserves the utmost respect and basic right to a decent life on this Earth, as does every living creature.
But don't be fooled. The Puppy Mill Prevention Act or Prop B, which will be appearing on the November ballot in Missouri, isn't a good idea.
It's not that Missouri doesn't have laws regulating the facilities and care of dog breeding establishments already. A set of laws was passed over 18 years ago that mandated breeders to provide enough food, water, shelter and veterinary care.
They're also required to provide regular exercise, socialization and enough space for each dog to turn, stand, sit and lie in a comfortable position and walk freely in a normal matter. And that's just the beginning of a list of regulations already in place. This law is about 22 pages long (I've seen a copy) and addresses virtually everything that Prop B wished to handle. It was created by a group of 13 people from all corners of the dog-breeding world; from breeders to shelter workers, veterinarians to department of health employees.
Missouri's "puppy mill" problem does not come from a lack of legislation. It stems directly from a lack of enforcement and funding of adequate legislation already in place.
The biggest problem with Prop B is that it limits every dog breeder, no matter how well they treat their animals, to having a maximum of 50 animals at a time. Even if there is a staff member assigned to each dog, it still isn't allowed.
Full article at link