By Representative Jay Barnes
The Missouri Record. April 22, 2011 10:30 AM
Barrels of ink have been spilt on the legislature’s efforts to fix problems with Prop B relating to the dog-breeding industry in Missouri. But little has been said about the unadvertised costs of the bill.
When Missourians took to the polls in November 2010, they were told by former State Auditor Susan Montee that the measure would only cost $650,000. Unfortunately, if not fixed, the true cost could be more than 30 times as expensive. The reason is the Fifth Amendment.
Under our federal Constitution, the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause provides a check on the actions of local, state, and the federal government to take private property without just compensation to the owner of that property. When people think of the Takings Clause, the usually think about eminent domain – where government takes someone’s home to build a new road – or, in some awful situations, to grow government revenue. But there’s also a strain of takings known as regulatory takings.
A regulatory taking occurs when a new government law or regulation prevents economically viable use of property or if its effect on a property owner’s ability to productive use is sufficiently severe.
When an alleged taking destroys most but not all viability, courts examine the claimed taking under a three-part test. A court must determine: (1) the economic impact of the regulation; (2) the interference with investment-backed expectations of the property owner; and (3) the character of the governmental action.
Prop B tells dog breeders around our state, the vast majority of which treat their animals with the utmost respect, that they can no long own more than 50 dogs – regardless of how well they treat their animals.
If challenged in court, Prop B could very well fail all three parts of the test. The economic impact of the regulation is to put many breeders out of business. The interference with investment-backed expectations is high because Missouri breeders invested in their facilities with the reasonable expectation that they’d be able to continue operating if they treated their dogs well. Finally, the character of the government action is arbitrary and capricious because it does not include any consideration of a breeder’s actual practices. The vast majority of dog breeders who treat their animals well are treated the same as abusive rogues regardless of their actual business practices.
If a court found that Prop B was a regulatory taking, the next question is how much it would cost the state. The industry has estimated that Prop B would destroy the value of 20,000 dogs in the state in facilities with more than 50 dogs. With an average value of $1,000 per dog, the easy math reveals that Prop B could cost Missouri taxpayers $20 million in lawsuits in its first year.
Would this knowledge have swayed enough Missourians to change the outcome of Prop B in November 2010? I believe it would have. The state of Missouri does not have $20 million lying around to pay the bill. Regardless of the merits of other parts of the legislation or the “Missouri Deal” that has been reached, the fiscally responsible thing for Gov. Nixon to do is to sign the fix passed last week in the Missouri legislature.
Showing posts with label Missouri Prop B. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Missouri Prop B. Show all posts
Monday, April 25, 2011
Thursday, April 14, 2011
MO House approves revisions to controversial Proposition B
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
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, 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
Friday, January 28, 2011
MO Senate Ag approves bill changing Prop B measures
By: The Associated Press 01/27/11 1:33 PM
A Missouri Senate panel has given its approval to a bill changing the state law for dog breeders.
The Senate agriculture committee endorsed legislation Thursday that would modify a ballot measure approved by voters in November.
The bill would delete the limit of 50 dogs per breeder and give licensed breeders up to 180 days to correct serious violations before they face criminal charges.
The measure would still require veterinarians to do an onsite examination of the dogs at least once per year. Veterinarians would also care for seriously injured dogs and euthanizing them, if necessary.
The legislation next goes to the full Senate.
In the House, a committee considering similar bills finished hearing testimony Thursday and will debate amendments to them next week.
Dog breeding bill is SB113
A Missouri Senate panel has given its approval to a bill changing the state law for dog breeders.
The Senate agriculture committee endorsed legislation Thursday that would modify a ballot measure approved by voters in November.
The bill would delete the limit of 50 dogs per breeder and give licensed breeders up to 180 days to correct serious violations before they face criminal charges.
The measure would still require veterinarians to do an onsite examination of the dogs at least once per year. Veterinarians would also care for seriously injured dogs and euthanizing them, if necessary.
The legislation next goes to the full Senate.
In the House, a committee considering similar bills finished hearing testimony Thursday and will debate amendments to them next week.
Dog breeding bill is SB113
Thursday, November 25, 2010
HSUS reaches for soft drink cash
Brownfield Ag Network
By Tom Steever November 19, 2010
The Humane Society of the United States is taking advantage of social media to raise money. The animal rights organization leads in polling on the online Pepsi Refresh Project. The project solicits ideas that are voted on by Facebook users and the top 32 vote getters each month receive grants ranging from $5,000 to $250 thousand.
“Why shouldn’t HSUS pony up to the trough; that’s really what they’re good at is raising money,” says David Martosko, with the Center for Consumer Freedom, which applies pressure to HSUS through its HumaneWatch.org website. Martosko contends that less than one percent of the funds raised by HSUS are used to shelter animals.
“I think it’s wonderful that we live in a country where people want to help animals, but I think it’s disgusting when activist groups redirect that money in a way that doesn’t reflect the donor’s intent,” says Martosko.
HSUS is an effective fund raiser. The group solicits donations using among other methods, two-minute television spots featuring pictures of seemingly suffering animals. The message the organization conveys is that donations can help these animals. Some of the money raised is used to promote passage of ballot initiatives that affect animal agriculture, and in the case of Missouri this past election cycle, dog breeders.
Martosko believes the last has not yet been heard from HSUS on Missouri’s Proposition B, which narrowly-passed. The measure limits to 50 the number of dogs a breeder can maintain.
“Their goal is to start with that 50-dog limit and then ratchet it down, and ratchet it down, and ratchet it down again until nobody can breed dogs. That’s what they want,” says Martosko. “And if you don’t care about that that’s fine, but now delete dogs and insert cows. Now do you care about it?”
By Tom Steever November 19, 2010
The Humane Society of the United States is taking advantage of social media to raise money. The animal rights organization leads in polling on the online Pepsi Refresh Project. The project solicits ideas that are voted on by Facebook users and the top 32 vote getters each month receive grants ranging from $5,000 to $250 thousand.
“Why shouldn’t HSUS pony up to the trough; that’s really what they’re good at is raising money,” says David Martosko, with the Center for Consumer Freedom, which applies pressure to HSUS through its HumaneWatch.org website. Martosko contends that less than one percent of the funds raised by HSUS are used to shelter animals.
“I think it’s wonderful that we live in a country where people want to help animals, but I think it’s disgusting when activist groups redirect that money in a way that doesn’t reflect the donor’s intent,” says Martosko.
HSUS is an effective fund raiser. The group solicits donations using among other methods, two-minute television spots featuring pictures of seemingly suffering animals. The message the organization conveys is that donations can help these animals. Some of the money raised is used to promote passage of ballot initiatives that affect animal agriculture, and in the case of Missouri this past election cycle, dog breeders.
Martosko believes the last has not yet been heard from HSUS on Missouri’s Proposition B, which narrowly-passed. The measure limits to 50 the number of dogs a breeder can maintain.
“Their goal is to start with that 50-dog limit and then ratchet it down, and ratchet it down, and ratchet it down again until nobody can breed dogs. That’s what they want,” says Martosko. “And if you don’t care about that that’s fine, but now delete dogs and insert cows. Now do you care about it?”
Monday, November 8, 2010
Lessons Learned from a Loss
11/07/2010 by Gary Truitt
Hoosier Ag Today
With the Republican landslide in last week’s election getting most of the media attention, not much ink was devoted to analyzing the vote in Missouri on Proposition B, the so called “Puppy Mill Bill” backed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). While the measure passed, how it did and where it did provide some fascinating analysis and signals that the times may be changing for radical animal groups. It also provides some clues as to why animal agriculture has been so ineffective at the ballot box and how that can be changed.
Proposition B, which would take effect in a year, will beef up Missouri‘s existing laws by restricting commercial breeders to no more than 50 female dogs for breeding, increasing the size of dogs‘ living spaces, and by requiring commercial breeders to have their dogs examined yearly by a veterinarian. HSUS tried to pass this bill through the Indiana legislature two years ago, but Hoosier lawmakers wisely saw through this thinly veiled attempt to place government controls on the raising of animals and to redefine the legal definition of animal welfare. In the Hoosier State, supporters were sent home with their tales between their legs, primarily because the issue never got to the ballot box.
HSUS is a powerful and well-funded political machine. They appear to be not above misrepresenting and distorting facts, and using every cheap, shameless, emotional trick to win. In short, they are tough to beat in a ballot box fight. Yet, the Missouri vote shows they may be losing their touch. The measure in Missouri only passed by 3%, a much narrower margin than HSUS has enjoyed in other states where they have put animal measures on the ballot. In addition, the only place the measure passed was in the major urban centers of the Show Me State.
According to the web site Humane Watch, only 11 counties in the whole state passed the measure. Unfortunately, those counties were mostly in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas where the high population meant more votes than the rest of the state. According to the Humane Watch editors, “It was a centralized urban base, largely removed from the realities of life away from their concrete jungles that delivered a victory for HSUS.” States with large population centers, removed from animal agriculture, are on the list of states where HSUS will likely strike next.
Full story
Hoosier Ag Today
With the Republican landslide in last week’s election getting most of the media attention, not much ink was devoted to analyzing the vote in Missouri on Proposition B, the so called “Puppy Mill Bill” backed by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS). While the measure passed, how it did and where it did provide some fascinating analysis and signals that the times may be changing for radical animal groups. It also provides some clues as to why animal agriculture has been so ineffective at the ballot box and how that can be changed.
Proposition B, which would take effect in a year, will beef up Missouri‘s existing laws by restricting commercial breeders to no more than 50 female dogs for breeding, increasing the size of dogs‘ living spaces, and by requiring commercial breeders to have their dogs examined yearly by a veterinarian. HSUS tried to pass this bill through the Indiana legislature two years ago, but Hoosier lawmakers wisely saw through this thinly veiled attempt to place government controls on the raising of animals and to redefine the legal definition of animal welfare. In the Hoosier State, supporters were sent home with their tales between their legs, primarily because the issue never got to the ballot box.
HSUS is a powerful and well-funded political machine. They appear to be not above misrepresenting and distorting facts, and using every cheap, shameless, emotional trick to win. In short, they are tough to beat in a ballot box fight. Yet, the Missouri vote shows they may be losing their touch. The measure in Missouri only passed by 3%, a much narrower margin than HSUS has enjoyed in other states where they have put animal measures on the ballot. In addition, the only place the measure passed was in the major urban centers of the Show Me State.
According to the web site Humane Watch, only 11 counties in the whole state passed the measure. Unfortunately, those counties were mostly in the Kansas City and St. Louis areas where the high population meant more votes than the rest of the state. According to the Humane Watch editors, “It was a centralized urban base, largely removed from the realities of life away from their concrete jungles that delivered a victory for HSUS.” States with large population centers, removed from animal agriculture, are on the list of states where HSUS will likely strike next.
Full story
Friday, November 5, 2010
Prop B Passage Won't Change Strategy
Missouri agriculture and animal owner groups pledge to continue efforts to expose Humane Society of the United States.
Compiled by staff Published: Nov 5, 2010
Missourians for Animal Care Chairman Don Nikodim released the following statement regarding the narrow passage of Proposition B on behalf of the coalition of mainstream agriculture and animal owner groups in the state.
"On Tuesday, rural Missourians sent a clear message that they will not tolerate outside organizations telling them how to do business. While we are disheartened by the narrow passage of Proposition B, the members of Missourians for Animal Care are encouraged by agriculture's united front at the polls," Nikodim said.
"With voters in 103 out of 116 election jurisdictions opposing Proposition B, people in rural Missouri saw through the emotional smokescreen bankrolled primarily by the Humane Society of the United States based out of Washington, D.C. As agricultural organizations and allied industries, our strength has always been our grassroots. We are proud of the farmers and citizens who stood up to HSUS and voted no on the flawed and misleading ballot proposal."
"While the election is over, efforts to expose HSUS and their manipulative animal rights agenda have just begun. Missouri farmers care about producing safe and affordable food. We will continue working to ensure our industry and our food supply is managed by the hands of farmers and not the bank accounts of outside interests."
Charles Kruse, Missouri Farm Bureau president, also issued a statement after the Nov. 2 election results were in. "The passage of Proposition B is disappointing because it will put licensed, reputable dog breeders out of business, not those that are unlicensed and raise dogs in unsanitary conditions," Kruse said.
"With Proposition B passing and practically all the proponents' funding coming from out-of-state individuals and organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States, Missouri farmers and ranchers are concerned that animal agriculture will be the next target of the radical animal rights agenda."
Kruse emphasized that Farm Bureau will remain vigilant in standing up for Missouri farmers and ranchers who treat their animals humanely and help provide a safe and wholesome food supply.
Missouri Ruralist
Compiled by staff Published: Nov 5, 2010
Missourians for Animal Care Chairman Don Nikodim released the following statement regarding the narrow passage of Proposition B on behalf of the coalition of mainstream agriculture and animal owner groups in the state.
"On Tuesday, rural Missourians sent a clear message that they will not tolerate outside organizations telling them how to do business. While we are disheartened by the narrow passage of Proposition B, the members of Missourians for Animal Care are encouraged by agriculture's united front at the polls," Nikodim said.
"With voters in 103 out of 116 election jurisdictions opposing Proposition B, people in rural Missouri saw through the emotional smokescreen bankrolled primarily by the Humane Society of the United States based out of Washington, D.C. As agricultural organizations and allied industries, our strength has always been our grassroots. We are proud of the farmers and citizens who stood up to HSUS and voted no on the flawed and misleading ballot proposal."
"While the election is over, efforts to expose HSUS and their manipulative animal rights agenda have just begun. Missouri farmers care about producing safe and affordable food. We will continue working to ensure our industry and our food supply is managed by the hands of farmers and not the bank accounts of outside interests."
Charles Kruse, Missouri Farm Bureau president, also issued a statement after the Nov. 2 election results were in. "The passage of Proposition B is disappointing because it will put licensed, reputable dog breeders out of business, not those that are unlicensed and raise dogs in unsanitary conditions," Kruse said.
"With Proposition B passing and practically all the proponents' funding coming from out-of-state individuals and organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States, Missouri farmers and ranchers are concerned that animal agriculture will be the next target of the radical animal rights agenda."
Kruse emphasized that Farm Bureau will remain vigilant in standing up for Missouri farmers and ranchers who treat their animals humanely and help provide a safe and wholesome food supply.
Missouri Ruralist
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
