By DOUG WILSON Herald-Whig Senior Writer
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- Legislation regulating dog breeders was approved in the Missouri House Wednesday afternoon, revising many of the provisions from Proposition B.
"It strengthens the law," said Rep. Craig Redmon, R-Canton.
Rep. Tom Shively, D-Clarence, said the legislation is a big improvement over Prop B, which passed in November. He said Prop B would have put many of Missouri's dog breeders out of business, but was so poorly written it would have done nothing to boost inspections.
"This requires more supervision by veterinarians (and inspectors), which to me ought to be the final authority on whether you're running the operation right," Shively said.
The legislation now goes to Gov. Jay Nixon, who has not said whether he will sign it into law.
Officials from the Humane Society of the United States did not immediately comment on Wednesday's 85-71 vote, but have opposed any changes in the initiative petition the group supported.
"Whether you care about protecting dogs from abuse, or care about the democratic decision-making process, this assault on the will of the people must be stopped," HSUS President and CEO Wayne Pacelle said in a release last month.
Senate Bill 113 would provide more money for inspectors who monitor breeding operations -- potentially hiring five new inspectors to join the Missouri Department of Agriculture's staff of 12. It would require at least two visits per year from veterinarians. Supporters say those things will make breeders more accountable.
It would remove the 50-dog limit that was supposed to take effect later this year. It also would eliminate some of the changes in criminal law that could have made violators subject to Class A misdemeanor charges and up to a year in jail.
Sen. Brian Munzlinger, R-Williamstown, has gotten calls from people who were angry he supported revisions to Prop B. He sent them copies of SB 113 and asked them to read it and call back if they still had concerns.
"I haven't had anybody call me back yet once they saw what the law does. I think it really does the things people thought they were voting on in Prop B," Munzlinger said.
License fees for dog breeders could cost as much as $2,500 under the new law, up from a cap of $500. In addition, a $25 fee per facility will fund Operation Bark Alert.
HSUS was instrumental in financing advertisements supporting Prop B and the initiative petition passed by a narrow margin last November with support in the state's largest urban areas and opposition from the rest of the state.
Barbara Schmitz, Missouri director for HSUS, said the added inspection and enforcement is a good thing, but she opposes SB 113 for rolling back "clear and basic standards" that could prevent dogs from being abused.
Many lawmakers had opposed Prop B because they considered it vague in requiring "adequate water and food," whereas state and federal law laid out specific language that could be used in court.
Munzlinger said a coalition supported by HSUS filed another initiative petition Tuesday that would require a three-quarters majority of Missouri lawmakers to revise any initiative petitions.
"I don't think the HSUS is done here in the state of Missouri. I don't know if they want to come back after agriculture or hunting. They're against both those things," Munzlinger said.
--dwilson@whig.com/221-3372
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Thursday, April 7, 2011
Ohio livestock board changes rule on veal crates
Capital Press April 5, 2011
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- An animal rights group says it's pleased that Ohio's livestock care board has reversed an earlier vote on the size of cages for veal calves.
The Humane Society of the United States had been threatening to revive a ballot issue against animal cruelty after the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board voted to allow veal calves to be kept in crates too small for them to turn around.
The board reversed its course on Tuesday and decided to allow the larger crates. The rule still faces one more vote and a hearing before it can take effect.
The Humane Society complained that the earlier vote jeopardized an agreement reached with former Gov. Ted Strickland last year that led them to give up a ballot campaign.
Related article:
Brownfield Ag News. Care Board reverses decision on veal crates
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- An animal rights group says it's pleased that Ohio's livestock care board has reversed an earlier vote on the size of cages for veal calves.
The Humane Society of the United States had been threatening to revive a ballot issue against animal cruelty after the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board voted to allow veal calves to be kept in crates too small for them to turn around.
The board reversed its course on Tuesday and decided to allow the larger crates. The rule still faces one more vote and a hearing before it can take effect.
The Humane Society complained that the earlier vote jeopardized an agreement reached with former Gov. Ted Strickland last year that led them to give up a ballot campaign.
Related article:
Brownfield Ag News. Care Board reverses decision on veal crates
Friday, April 1, 2011
Alaska Congress Young refuses HSUS award
KUDOS to Congressman Young. We look forward to the day when the entire Congress "gets it".
The State Column | Thursday, March 31, 2011
Alaskan Congressman Don Young refused an award this evening from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Humane Society Legislative Fund that would have honored his work for animals in 2010. While capitalizing on the good work of local humane societies that shelter, spay, and neuter animals, the HSUS does not own, operate, or directly control a single animal shelter in our country, despite a budget of well over $100 million.
HSUS are hypocrites, plain and simple, and I will not join them by accepting this award,” said Rep. Young. “Local animal shelters and humane societies do excellent work by caring for neglected and homeless animals, and through their spaying and neutering programs. This organization, however, has absolutely nothing to do with animal welfare. Instead they prey on the emotions of big-hearted Americans. They flash images of abused animals on our television screens to raise money that will eventually go to pay their salaries and pensions, not to helping better the lives of these animals.”
“They run anti-hunting and anti-trapping campaigns and are of the same cloth as PETA and other extremist organizations. I can only guess that I was to receive this award due to my support of the Wildlife Without Borders program, which develops wildlife management and conservation efforts to maintain global species diversity. That program is true conservation; what this group wants is preservation. To accept this award would be supporting their manipulative ways and misguided agenda, and I want no part of that.”
The State Column | Thursday, March 31, 2011
Alaskan Congressman Don Young refused an award this evening from The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Humane Society Legislative Fund that would have honored his work for animals in 2010. While capitalizing on the good work of local humane societies that shelter, spay, and neuter animals, the HSUS does not own, operate, or directly control a single animal shelter in our country, despite a budget of well over $100 million.
HSUS are hypocrites, plain and simple, and I will not join them by accepting this award,” said Rep. Young. “Local animal shelters and humane societies do excellent work by caring for neglected and homeless animals, and through their spaying and neutering programs. This organization, however, has absolutely nothing to do with animal welfare. Instead they prey on the emotions of big-hearted Americans. They flash images of abused animals on our television screens to raise money that will eventually go to pay their salaries and pensions, not to helping better the lives of these animals.”
“They run anti-hunting and anti-trapping campaigns and are of the same cloth as PETA and other extremist organizations. I can only guess that I was to receive this award due to my support of the Wildlife Without Borders program, which develops wildlife management and conservation efforts to maintain global species diversity. That program is true conservation; what this group wants is preservation. To accept this award would be supporting their manipulative ways and misguided agenda, and I want no part of that.”
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Investigations clear New York dairy of animal abuse
By Dairy Herd News Source | Updated: March 28, 2011
Syracuse.com reports investigations by the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets and other experts show the Willet Dairy meets or exceeds animal-care standards despite accusations by an animal-rights organization.
An undercover worker from Mercy for Animals, a Chicago-based animal-rights group, released a video showing what it called inhumane treatment of cows and calves at Willet Dairy. Results from two investigations found the dairy’s workers used care practices equal to or above industry standards. The final reports showed no systemic abuse of cattle on the farm.
The investigation was completed by state Department of Agriculture and Markets, state Cattle Health and Assurance Program, state College of Veterinary Medicine Animal Health Diagnostic Center and ProDairy.
The investigation did find one dairy worker from the video hitting a cow on the nose with a screwdriver handle. That employee, Phil Niles, pleaded guilty to animal cruelty. He was fined $350, was fired from the dairy and is denied contact with animals for a year, according to The Post-Standard.
Apart from the charge against Niles, practices on the farm kept the 5,000-cow dairy cows clean and well cared for. Some of the practices Mercy for Animals found inhumane were common and according to the district attorney’s report, “not currently illegal in New York state.”
The undercover work who released the video admitted he is not an expert on dairy operations or New York state animal-welfare laws.
Source: Syracuse.com
Syracuse.com reports investigations by the New York Department of Agriculture and Markets and other experts show the Willet Dairy meets or exceeds animal-care standards despite accusations by an animal-rights organization.
An undercover worker from Mercy for Animals, a Chicago-based animal-rights group, released a video showing what it called inhumane treatment of cows and calves at Willet Dairy. Results from two investigations found the dairy’s workers used care practices equal to or above industry standards. The final reports showed no systemic abuse of cattle on the farm.
The investigation was completed by state Department of Agriculture and Markets, state Cattle Health and Assurance Program, state College of Veterinary Medicine Animal Health Diagnostic Center and ProDairy.
The investigation did find one dairy worker from the video hitting a cow on the nose with a screwdriver handle. That employee, Phil Niles, pleaded guilty to animal cruelty. He was fined $350, was fired from the dairy and is denied contact with animals for a year, according to The Post-Standard.
Apart from the charge against Niles, practices on the farm kept the 5,000-cow dairy cows clean and well cared for. Some of the practices Mercy for Animals found inhumane were common and according to the district attorney’s report, “not currently illegal in New York state.”
The undercover work who released the video admitted he is not an expert on dairy operations or New York state animal-welfare laws.
Source: Syracuse.com
Senate panel OKs ban on undercover farm videos
By ANDREW DUFFELMEYER - Bloomberg Business Week
The Senate Agriculture Committee approved a bill Wednesday aimed at preventing animal rights activists from getting hired on farms to secretly record what they believe is the mistreatment of livestock.
The bill would make it illegal to secretly record and distribute videos and punish those who take jobs on farms only to gain access to record animals' treatment. Penalties include up to five years in prison and fines of up to $7,500.
The committee approved the bill on a voice vote, while the Republican-led House approved the measure 65-27 on March 17.
Critics of the bill say it would have a chilling effect on free speech and the question of whether it is constitutional could be challenged in court, something that could prove expensive for the state.
"Our primary concern is the constitutionality of the bill," said Adam Mason of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. "It seems like it's going to limit free speech of individuals."
The bill's manager, Democratic Sen. Tom Rielly of Oskaloosa, agreed the measure needs more work before it goes to the Senate floor for a vote.
But Rielly said he still believes the bill is necessary to prevent animal cruelty. Some animal rights groups film abuse of livestock without reporting it and then use it to gain publicity, Rielly said. Full story at link
The Senate Agriculture Committee approved a bill Wednesday aimed at preventing animal rights activists from getting hired on farms to secretly record what they believe is the mistreatment of livestock.
The bill would make it illegal to secretly record and distribute videos and punish those who take jobs on farms only to gain access to record animals' treatment. Penalties include up to five years in prison and fines of up to $7,500.
The committee approved the bill on a voice vote, while the Republican-led House approved the measure 65-27 on March 17.
Critics of the bill say it would have a chilling effect on free speech and the question of whether it is constitutional could be challenged in court, something that could prove expensive for the state.
"Our primary concern is the constitutionality of the bill," said Adam Mason of Iowa Citizens for Community Improvement. "It seems like it's going to limit free speech of individuals."
The bill's manager, Democratic Sen. Tom Rielly of Oskaloosa, agreed the measure needs more work before it goes to the Senate floor for a vote.
But Rielly said he still believes the bill is necessary to prevent animal cruelty. Some animal rights groups film abuse of livestock without reporting it and then use it to gain publicity, Rielly said. Full story at link
Friday, February 18, 2011
Budget amendment votes: fish yes, horses no
By Pete Kasperowicz - 02/16/11 05:09 PM ET The Hill
The House on Wednesday voted to maintain $7.5 million for a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service resource management program that gives grant money to private environmental groups.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) said the program's authorization has expired, but yet, "the money just keeps rolling on." McClintock's amendment was rejected in a voice vote.
The House did approve an amendment from Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) that would remove $2 million from the Bureau of Land Management as a way of protesting the Bureau's effort to manage the wild horse population in western states.
Burton criticized the Bureau's practice of transporting horses thousands of miles and keeping them in pens and said the cost of the program has more than tripled in the last 10 years. Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) agreed and said the Bureau should control the size of herds through contraception, a less costly alternative.
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) opposed Burton's amendment and said Congress has caused problems by preventing the slaughter of wild horses. But Burton's amendment was approved regardless.
Both amendments were considered as part of H.R. 1, the GOP's FY 2011 spending bill, which the House is considering throughout the week.
The House on Wednesday voted to maintain $7.5 million for a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service resource management program that gives grant money to private environmental groups.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) said the program's authorization has expired, but yet, "the money just keeps rolling on." McClintock's amendment was rejected in a voice vote.
The House did approve an amendment from Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) that would remove $2 million from the Bureau of Land Management as a way of protesting the Bureau's effort to manage the wild horse population in western states.
Burton criticized the Bureau's practice of transporting horses thousands of miles and keeping them in pens and said the cost of the program has more than tripled in the last 10 years. Rep. Jim Moran (D-Va.) agreed and said the Bureau should control the size of herds through contraception, a less costly alternative.
Rep. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) opposed Burton's amendment and said Congress has caused problems by preventing the slaughter of wild horses. But Burton's amendment was approved regardless.
Both amendments were considered as part of H.R. 1, the GOP's FY 2011 spending bill, which the House is considering throughout the week.
Thursday, February 10, 2011
St. Joseph MO could pass rules to mirror Prop B
Regardless of the outcome of current bills to repeal Prop B, the City Council is supportive of passing an ordinance to give the city authority to inspect local dog kennels. The proposed ordinance changes would update the local regulations for breeders of dogs or cats to mirror Proposition B.
St. Joseph dog breeders may operate on a tighter leash by the end of the year.
The City Council showed support Tuesday for an ordinance that would grant the city authority to inspect local dog kennels. The bill also would update the local regulations for breeders of dogs or cats to mirror Proposition B, which voters approved in November.
Under current city ordinances, the city does not inspect kennels that are inspected or licensed by another agency. The Missouri Department of Agriculture currently licenses and inspects the two breeding kennels within the city limits. No boarding or rescue kennels operate in St. Joseph.
The ordinance, like Proposition B, would require breeders to provide larger kennels for their animals and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area; would prohibit stacked cages; and would limit the number of animals a breeder could keep in a facility, among other regulations.
At least three bills are circulating in the state Legislature to repeal or reduce the authority of Proposition B.
Rick Smith, manager of St. Joseph Animal Control and Rescue, said the possibility of repeal should not affect the council’s decision.
“Even if the Legislature goes on to revise Prop B, that doesn’t mean you have to change the ordinance,” Mr. Smith said. “We can have stricter regulations than the state.”
Both of St. Joseph’s commercial breeders, Barbara Hoerath and Crystol Malchose, told the council the regulations would harm their businesses. When council member Donna Jean Boyer tried to ask a question, Ms. Hoerath immediately jumped in with the answer.
“So if it’s not repealed by the state ...” Ms. Boyer began.
“... I will move. I’ll have to move out of the state,” Ms. Hoerath said.
Full story
St. Joseph dog breeders may operate on a tighter leash by the end of the year.
The City Council showed support Tuesday for an ordinance that would grant the city authority to inspect local dog kennels. The bill also would update the local regulations for breeders of dogs or cats to mirror Proposition B, which voters approved in November.
Under current city ordinances, the city does not inspect kennels that are inspected or licensed by another agency. The Missouri Department of Agriculture currently licenses and inspects the two breeding kennels within the city limits. No boarding or rescue kennels operate in St. Joseph.
The ordinance, like Proposition B, would require breeders to provide larger kennels for their animals and unfettered access to an outdoor exercise area; would prohibit stacked cages; and would limit the number of animals a breeder could keep in a facility, among other regulations.
At least three bills are circulating in the state Legislature to repeal or reduce the authority of Proposition B.
Rick Smith, manager of St. Joseph Animal Control and Rescue, said the possibility of repeal should not affect the council’s decision.
“Even if the Legislature goes on to revise Prop B, that doesn’t mean you have to change the ordinance,” Mr. Smith said. “We can have stricter regulations than the state.”
Both of St. Joseph’s commercial breeders, Barbara Hoerath and Crystol Malchose, told the council the regulations would harm their businesses. When council member Donna Jean Boyer tried to ask a question, Ms. Hoerath immediately jumped in with the answer.
“So if it’s not repealed by the state ...” Ms. Boyer began.
“... I will move. I’ll have to move out of the state,” Ms. Hoerath said.
Full story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
