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?”
Showing posts with label Missouri ballot initiative. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Missouri ballot initiative. Show all posts
Thursday, November 25, 2010
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
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Prop B passage disappoints MO agriculture
November 3, 2010 by Julie Harker
Missouri Farm Bureau President Charlie Kruse is disappointed that Proposition B passed, but he pointed out that 103 counties out of 114 Missouri counties opposed the measure. He says 82 percent of the money supporting the so-called Puppy Mill Bill came from outside Missouri.
“It’s clearly the Humane Society of the United States getting out of state money to bring into Missouri to impose their will on the people of Missouri and that’s very unfortunate.”
Kruse says much of his opposition stems from HSUS stating that their goal is to do away with all animal agriculture.
“I think we’d be foolish not to brace for something more. Make no mistake about it. They can say what they wish to say. And it will just be a matter of we’ll wait and see how long it is until they decide to come back to Missouri and come after the livestock industry.”
Kruse says the measure will put many of Missouri’s reputable dog breeders out of business, but will do nothing to stop bad actors. Full story at Brownfield Ag News
Missouri Farm Bureau President Charlie Kruse is disappointed that Proposition B passed, but he pointed out that 103 counties out of 114 Missouri counties opposed the measure. He says 82 percent of the money supporting the so-called Puppy Mill Bill came from outside Missouri.
“It’s clearly the Humane Society of the United States getting out of state money to bring into Missouri to impose their will on the people of Missouri and that’s very unfortunate.”
Kruse says much of his opposition stems from HSUS stating that their goal is to do away with all animal agriculture.
“I think we’d be foolish not to brace for something more. Make no mistake about it. They can say what they wish to say. And it will just be a matter of we’ll wait and see how long it is until they decide to come back to Missouri and come after the livestock industry.”
Kruse says the measure will put many of Missouri’s reputable dog breeders out of business, but will do nothing to stop bad actors. Full story at Brownfield Ag News
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Farm Bureau's response to Prop B passage
Farm Bureau's response to Prop B passage
Posted Wednesday, November 3, 2010, at 9:08 AM
The Missouri Farm Bureau hasn't wasted time in reassuring the agriculture community that they will fight any attempts to reduce or eliminate animal agriculture in the state. In a news release issued Wednesday morning the bureau said the passage of Prop 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.
The release also addressed concerns from farmers and ranchers that animal agriculture will be the "next target of the radical animal rights agenda." The Farm Bureau said it will "remain vigilant in standing up for Missouri farmers and ranchers who treat their animals humanely and help provide the safe and wholesome food supply we all enjoy."
The response seems to fall in line with comments made by Humane Society of the United States president Wayne Pacelle during an interview with the Southeast Missourian last month. He said regardless of any so-called agenda, the bureau had too much lobbying power in Missouri to allow groups to enter the state and end farming.
Prop B passed 993,860 votes to 933,540 votes statewide. Cape Girardeau County voted against the proposition 16,843 to 10,153. Prop B had the greatest support in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas.
Posted Wednesday, November 3, 2010, at 9:08 AM
The Missouri Farm Bureau hasn't wasted time in reassuring the agriculture community that they will fight any attempts to reduce or eliminate animal agriculture in the state. In a news release issued Wednesday morning the bureau said the passage of Prop 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.
The release also addressed concerns from farmers and ranchers that animal agriculture will be the "next target of the radical animal rights agenda." The Farm Bureau said it will "remain vigilant in standing up for Missouri farmers and ranchers who treat their animals humanely and help provide the safe and wholesome food supply we all enjoy."
The response seems to fall in line with comments made by Humane Society of the United States president Wayne Pacelle during an interview with the Southeast Missourian last month. He said regardless of any so-called agenda, the bureau had too much lobbying power in Missouri to allow groups to enter the state and end farming.
Prop B passed 993,860 votes to 933,540 votes statewide. Cape Girardeau County voted against the proposition 16,843 to 10,153. Prop B had the greatest support in the St. Louis and Kansas City areas.
Monday, November 1, 2010
Prop B Support Isn't Missouri-based
Missouri Farm Bureau finds interests outside of Missouri are financing Proposition B.
Compiled by Missouri Ruralist staff Published: Nov 1, 2010
An analysis of Proposition B campaign reports clearly reveals that organizations and individuals outside of Missouri are bankrolling the campaign to further regulate Missouri dog breeders. Almost 82% of the funds reported thus far are coming from out-of-state organizations and individuals, with most of the funds coming from the Humane Society of the United States based in Washington D.C., according to the Missouri Farm Bureau.
"We don't need out-of-state interests setting public policy here in Missouri," says Charles Kruse, president of Missouri Farm Bureau. "We already have Missouri laws on the books regulating dog breeders. Proposition B will do absolutely nothing to shut down unlawful dog breeders and will instead cause reputable and lawful dog breeders to close their businesses.
"Furthermore, if Proposition B passes, these radical animal rights organizations and individuals won't stop there. As experienced in other states, they will work to further regulate Missouri farmers, driving them out of business as well and driving up food costs," Kruse adds.
Through Oct. 21, the Proposition B campaign is reporting receipts of $4.363 million. Of that amount, $3.09 million is from out-of-state organizations and $486,099 comes from residents outside of Missouri. This equates to 82% of the campaign funds raised to promote Proposition B.
Following is a breakdown of the receipts for the Proposition B campaign through Oct. 21:
$4.363 million --Total campaign receipts
$3.09 million -- Total contributions by out-of-state organizations
$2.12 million -- HSUS (Washington D.C./Maryland)
$511,119 -- ASPCA (New York)
$250,000 -- Best Friends Animal Society (Utah)
$110,000 --The Fund for Animals (New York)
$80,000 -- Doris Day League (Washington D.C.)
$10,000 -- Animal Welfare Advocacy (New York)
$10,000 -- Big Cat Rescue (Florida)
Source: Missouri Farm Bureau
Compiled by Missouri Ruralist staff Published: Nov 1, 2010
An analysis of Proposition B campaign reports clearly reveals that organizations and individuals outside of Missouri are bankrolling the campaign to further regulate Missouri dog breeders. Almost 82% of the funds reported thus far are coming from out-of-state organizations and individuals, with most of the funds coming from the Humane Society of the United States based in Washington D.C., according to the Missouri Farm Bureau.
"We don't need out-of-state interests setting public policy here in Missouri," says Charles Kruse, president of Missouri Farm Bureau. "We already have Missouri laws on the books regulating dog breeders. Proposition B will do absolutely nothing to shut down unlawful dog breeders and will instead cause reputable and lawful dog breeders to close their businesses.
"Furthermore, if Proposition B passes, these radical animal rights organizations and individuals won't stop there. As experienced in other states, they will work to further regulate Missouri farmers, driving them out of business as well and driving up food costs," Kruse adds.
Through Oct. 21, the Proposition B campaign is reporting receipts of $4.363 million. Of that amount, $3.09 million is from out-of-state organizations and $486,099 comes from residents outside of Missouri. This equates to 82% of the campaign funds raised to promote Proposition B.
Following is a breakdown of the receipts for the Proposition B campaign through Oct. 21:
$4.363 million --Total campaign receipts
$3.09 million -- Total contributions by out-of-state organizations
$2.12 million -- HSUS (Washington D.C./Maryland)
$511,119 -- ASPCA (New York)
$250,000 -- Best Friends Animal Society (Utah)
$110,000 --The Fund for Animals (New York)
$80,000 -- Doris Day League (Washington D.C.)
$10,000 -- Animal Welfare Advocacy (New York)
$10,000 -- Big Cat Rescue (Florida)
Source: Missouri Farm Bureau
Friday, October 29, 2010
Vote NO on Proposition B
Cassville Democrat: Editorial Thursday, October 28, 2010
Lisa Schlichtman
This week I had intended to write an editorial opposing Proposition B that will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot. The ballot initiative would create tougher rules for dog breeders and ultimately would put a large number of reputable breeders out of business in Barry County. The state of Missouri already has laws in place that regulate dog breeders, and I believe we need to enforce the existing laws we have rather than adopt a law that is being pushed by people outside the state, namely the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a group that would be pleased to see all forms of animal agriculture abolished. I am offering my editorial space this week to Kristin Crawford, who has written a guest editorial that mirrors my opinion on Proposition B. I hope you will read her piece and inform yourself about this ballot issue. Crawford is a dog breeder herself, but her opinion on Proposition B is the same as the Missouri Farm Bureau, the Missouri Dairy Association and many veterinarians across the state, who all oppose the ballot measure. I urge you to go the polls next Tuesday and vote "NO" on Proposition B.
"Puppies, Bacon and Eggs"
by Kristen Crawford, of Cassville
Proposition B, referred to as "The Puppy Mill Cruelty Bill", is a deceptive list of "new" rules aimed at existing, licensed and fully compliant dog breeders. This measure will not shut down puppy mills in Missouri as is stated in all forms of media put forth by its proponents. Do not be fooled by the media endorsements by politicians, an out-of-state veterinarian or even the misinformed coach of our beloved Cardinals.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the world's largest animal rights (not animal welfare) lobbying group is backing this bill. They have, to date, spent more than $3 million on promoting this bill alone. The bill is worded in a fashion that implies that all breeders are cruel by not caring for their dogs by providing: food, clean water, shelter, regular vet care and exercise...things that compliant breeders are already inspected for and provide as required under the current 22 pages of rules and regulations through the Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA).
Full editorial at link
Lisa Schlichtman
This week I had intended to write an editorial opposing Proposition B that will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot. The ballot initiative would create tougher rules for dog breeders and ultimately would put a large number of reputable breeders out of business in Barry County. The state of Missouri already has laws in place that regulate dog breeders, and I believe we need to enforce the existing laws we have rather than adopt a law that is being pushed by people outside the state, namely the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), a group that would be pleased to see all forms of animal agriculture abolished. I am offering my editorial space this week to Kristin Crawford, who has written a guest editorial that mirrors my opinion on Proposition B. I hope you will read her piece and inform yourself about this ballot issue. Crawford is a dog breeder herself, but her opinion on Proposition B is the same as the Missouri Farm Bureau, the Missouri Dairy Association and many veterinarians across the state, who all oppose the ballot measure. I urge you to go the polls next Tuesday and vote "NO" on Proposition B.
"Puppies, Bacon and Eggs"
by Kristen Crawford, of Cassville
Proposition B, referred to as "The Puppy Mill Cruelty Bill", is a deceptive list of "new" rules aimed at existing, licensed and fully compliant dog breeders. This measure will not shut down puppy mills in Missouri as is stated in all forms of media put forth by its proponents. Do not be fooled by the media endorsements by politicians, an out-of-state veterinarian or even the misinformed coach of our beloved Cardinals.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the world's largest animal rights (not animal welfare) lobbying group is backing this bill. They have, to date, spent more than $3 million on promoting this bill alone. The bill is worded in a fashion that implies that all breeders are cruel by not caring for their dogs by providing: food, clean water, shelter, regular vet care and exercise...things that compliant breeders are already inspected for and provide as required under the current 22 pages of rules and regulations through the Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA).
Full editorial at link
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Vote ‘No’ on Proposition B
Millions of dollars from outside the state are being spent by HSUS to try to convince people to vote for Proposition B. Here’s hoping Missourians reject their message.
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:00 am
By Paul Campbell paulc@buffaloreflex.com
The Buffalo Reflex doesn’t endorse candidates, but this doesn’t mean I can’t write an opinion column on issues facing Missouri voters on Nov. 3. One of those is Proposition B, the so-called Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.
This ballot initiative would establish new restrictions on the state’s dog breeders, in addition to those regulations already placed on them. What’s more, the motives of some of its proponents, the Humane Society of the United States, is greatly in question.
Two factors alone would cause me to vote against Proposition B. One is that under the proposal no breeder would be allowed to have more than 50 dogs in a facility. This is an arbitrary and unfair figure, penalizing the many good breeders who have more dogs than that.
This segment of the proposition causes me to question the motives of the proponents of the bill. Such a regulation would be similar to a rule that would require farmers to have no more than 10 cows or no more than 12 hogs. Agricultural organizations in the state believe that HSUS’s ultimate goal is to limit the number of farm animals or eliminate them altogether.
The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, an opponent of Proposition B, put it this way, “The ballot being proposed would completely outlaw our state’s well-run and licensed facilities that have over 50 breeding dogs. This is unfair and misguided. These are operated properly under the guidance of extensive current regulations in order to provide families with pets to love and cherish.”
Full story at Buffalo Reflex.com
Posted: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 6:00 am
By Paul Campbell paulc@buffaloreflex.com
The Buffalo Reflex doesn’t endorse candidates, but this doesn’t mean I can’t write an opinion column on issues facing Missouri voters on Nov. 3. One of those is Proposition B, the so-called Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.
This ballot initiative would establish new restrictions on the state’s dog breeders, in addition to those regulations already placed on them. What’s more, the motives of some of its proponents, the Humane Society of the United States, is greatly in question.
Two factors alone would cause me to vote against Proposition B. One is that under the proposal no breeder would be allowed to have more than 50 dogs in a facility. This is an arbitrary and unfair figure, penalizing the many good breeders who have more dogs than that.
This segment of the proposition causes me to question the motives of the proponents of the bill. Such a regulation would be similar to a rule that would require farmers to have no more than 10 cows or no more than 12 hogs. Agricultural organizations in the state believe that HSUS’s ultimate goal is to limit the number of farm animals or eliminate them altogether.
The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, an opponent of Proposition B, put it this way, “The ballot being proposed would completely outlaw our state’s well-run and licensed facilities that have over 50 breeding dogs. This is unfair and misguided. These are operated properly under the guidance of extensive current regulations in order to provide families with pets to love and cherish.”
Full story at Buffalo Reflex.com
Friday, October 22, 2010
Missouri's Prop B Bad For Beagles & Beef
Missouri’s Proposition B which is on the ballot for the Nov. 2 election would establish new regulations for licensed dog breeders in Missouri regarding the design of kennels; minimal veterinary care; access to food, water and the outdoors; and numbers of breeding animals allowed. Not surprisingly, the Washington, D.C.-based anti-agriculture Humane Society of the United States sponsored this initiative that can have potential far-reaching ramifications for the Missouri livestock industry.
Folks, it ain’t about the puppies.
I hate “puppy mills”, too. I also hate people who indiscriminately breed horses and flood the market . I have no tolerance for companion-animal or livestock-owners who don’t take care of their animals. But that’s not what this bill is about.
Missouri already has strict laws on the books about the standards of care for licensed dog breeders. If HSUS wants to make an impact they need to go after the unlicensed breeders who disregard the laws, not put ridiculous and costly regulations on the law-abiding breeders whose very livelihood depends on the quality and care of their animals.
They say this bill will give law enforcement more “teeth” to go after breeders. Law enforcement doesn’t have the time, money or resources now to investigate the egregious breeders, how is this going to help them?
The Alliance for Truth says, “HSUS has introduced Prop B as a means of eliminating the legal, licensed professional dog breeders in Missouri, according to the Department of Agriculture. No current licensed breeder can comply with the regulations put forth in Prop B, no matter how clean and well-run the facility. Cost-prohibitive space requirements coupled with misdemeanor crimes for the most minor of issue will eliminate the legal industry in Missouri. Only unlicensed, substandard breeders will be left to produce puppies while continuing to hide from state laws.”
What does this have to with livestock? Plenty. full story at CattleNetwork
Folks, it ain’t about the puppies.
I hate “puppy mills”, too. I also hate people who indiscriminately breed horses and flood the market . I have no tolerance for companion-animal or livestock-owners who don’t take care of their animals. But that’s not what this bill is about.
Missouri already has strict laws on the books about the standards of care for licensed dog breeders. If HSUS wants to make an impact they need to go after the unlicensed breeders who disregard the laws, not put ridiculous and costly regulations on the law-abiding breeders whose very livelihood depends on the quality and care of their animals.
They say this bill will give law enforcement more “teeth” to go after breeders. Law enforcement doesn’t have the time, money or resources now to investigate the egregious breeders, how is this going to help them?
The Alliance for Truth says, “HSUS has introduced Prop B as a means of eliminating the legal, licensed professional dog breeders in Missouri, according to the Department of Agriculture. No current licensed breeder can comply with the regulations put forth in Prop B, no matter how clean and well-run the facility. Cost-prohibitive space requirements coupled with misdemeanor crimes for the most minor of issue will eliminate the legal industry in Missouri. Only unlicensed, substandard breeders will be left to produce puppies while continuing to hide from state laws.”
What does this have to with livestock? Plenty. full story at CattleNetwork
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Missouri Prop B Opposed by Agricultural Business Council
Kansas City Agricultural Business Council is latest to join in opposition of Missouri dog breeding regulation ballot initiative.
Missouri Ruralist. Compiled by staff
Published: Oct 15, 2010
The Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City is officially on record in opposition to Proposition B, the Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation Initiative that will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot in the state of Missouri as an initiated state statute.
"Missouri currently has stringent laws, regulations and reporting systems in place to prevent animal abuse," said the Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City. Proposition B adds to that litany of regulations, but does nothing to provide resources for enforcement. The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association as well as the American Kennel Club join the Council in opposition.
The council feels that Proposition B, slated to appear on the November ballot, is a misleading attempt to further the animal rights agenda promoted by activist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States. The Council said the initiative targets the already heavily regulated family owned professional kennels, which are inspected and licensed by the Missouri Department of Agriculture, and if passed, it means more big government, more bureaucracy and more unfunded mandates on the private business owners. Prop B is also an attempt by HSUS to limit the number of animals someone can own.
"HSUS, who has reportedly already invested over $2 million in the Prop B effort, is a multi-million-dollar factory fundraising machine that runs such misleading campaigns under the false guise of cute puppies and kittens," says Don Nikodim, chairman of Missourians for Animal Care. "They have no connection to our local shelters and unfortunately have no interest in solutions. In their own words, the ultimate goal of HSUS is to end animal agriculture. Bottom line – Washington D.C. factory fundraisers like HSUS, who according to HumaneWatch actually spends less than half of one percent of their $100M plus budget for hands on animal care, shouldn't be telling Missourians how to run our businesses."
The Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City joins with the St Louis Agri-Business Club, the Columbia Chamber of Commerce, and Missourians for Animal Care to oppose Prop B.
Missouri Ruralist. Compiled by staff
Published: Oct 15, 2010
The Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City is officially on record in opposition to Proposition B, the Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation Initiative that will appear on the Nov. 2 ballot in the state of Missouri as an initiated state statute.
"Missouri currently has stringent laws, regulations and reporting systems in place to prevent animal abuse," said the Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City. Proposition B adds to that litany of regulations, but does nothing to provide resources for enforcement. The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association as well as the American Kennel Club join the Council in opposition.
The council feels that Proposition B, slated to appear on the November ballot, is a misleading attempt to further the animal rights agenda promoted by activist groups such as the Humane Society of the United States. The Council said the initiative targets the already heavily regulated family owned professional kennels, which are inspected and licensed by the Missouri Department of Agriculture, and if passed, it means more big government, more bureaucracy and more unfunded mandates on the private business owners. Prop B is also an attempt by HSUS to limit the number of animals someone can own.
"HSUS, who has reportedly already invested over $2 million in the Prop B effort, is a multi-million-dollar factory fundraising machine that runs such misleading campaigns under the false guise of cute puppies and kittens," says Don Nikodim, chairman of Missourians for Animal Care. "They have no connection to our local shelters and unfortunately have no interest in solutions. In their own words, the ultimate goal of HSUS is to end animal agriculture. Bottom line – Washington D.C. factory fundraisers like HSUS, who according to HumaneWatch actually spends less than half of one percent of their $100M plus budget for hands on animal care, shouldn't be telling Missourians how to run our businesses."
The Agricultural Business Council of Kansas City joins with the St Louis Agri-Business Club, the Columbia Chamber of Commerce, and Missourians for Animal Care to oppose Prop B.
Monday, August 30, 2010
AgNetwork: Standing Up To The HSUS Agenda
August 30, 2010. With the recent publicity over Ohio’s agreement to work with the Humane Society of the United States to implement a series of on-farm animal welfare rules, new energy has been injected into grassroots efforts to prevent similar incursions by HSUS into other states.
In Missouri, for example, a new organization, The Alliance for Truth, has been formed to educate consumers about the ultimate goals of HSUS. The Alliance members include the American Pet Registry and the Sportsmen and Animal Owners Alliance, along with several state legislators and Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.). The group is opposing Prop B, a state ballot measure to regulate dog ownership that is being actively funded by HSUS.
Prop B ostensibly would curtail abuses among so-called “puppy mills,” which no right-minded person opposes. But the Alliance is pointing out that even HSUS’s more innocuous-sounding objectives often make matters worse for animals, such as the banning of horse slaughter, which has resulted in thousands of horses left to die of starvation when their owners could not care for them and had no other options available, other than abandonment.
Read more
In Missouri, for example, a new organization, The Alliance for Truth, has been formed to educate consumers about the ultimate goals of HSUS. The Alliance members include the American Pet Registry and the Sportsmen and Animal Owners Alliance, along with several state legislators and Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Mo.). The group is opposing Prop B, a state ballot measure to regulate dog ownership that is being actively funded by HSUS.
Prop B ostensibly would curtail abuses among so-called “puppy mills,” which no right-minded person opposes. But the Alliance is pointing out that even HSUS’s more innocuous-sounding objectives often make matters worse for animals, such as the banning of horse slaughter, which has resulted in thousands of horses left to die of starvation when their owners could not care for them and had no other options available, other than abandonment.
Read more
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Missouri Ballot Initiative cleared by judge
The Missouri ballot initiative filed by HSUS, approved for the ballot just 10 days ago by Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, cleared perhaps its final hurdle and is now almost certain to appear on the Nov. 2 ballot.
Karen Strange, a lobbyist for the commercial dog breeding industry, challenged the language of the petition summary that voters will read. The lawsuit held that the use of the term “puppy mill” or “puppy mill cruelty” is inherently prejudicial and misleading. “Puppy mill” is a derogatory term for dog breeders and is likely to incite prejudice in favor of the measure. While these terms appear in the Initiative Petitions, creative drafting on the part of the proponents does not alleviate Defendant Carnahan of her duty to write a fair and impartial summary statement.
Late this afternoon, a Cole County judge upheld the ballot title for the measure, ruling that the ballot summary drafted by Secretary Carnahan was "neither insufficient nor unfair."
The dog breeding industry is already regulated in Missouri; however the HSUS ballot initiative will place excessive regulation and limit the size of kennels. HSUS has a long history of opposing purposeful breeding of dogs.
Missouri voters should not be taken in by HSUS claims for the need to stop "puppy mills". In HSUS language, all dog breeders are puppy mills and no amount of regulation is ever sufficient.
Karen Strange, a lobbyist for the commercial dog breeding industry, challenged the language of the petition summary that voters will read. The lawsuit held that the use of the term “puppy mill” or “puppy mill cruelty” is inherently prejudicial and misleading. “Puppy mill” is a derogatory term for dog breeders and is likely to incite prejudice in favor of the measure. While these terms appear in the Initiative Petitions, creative drafting on the part of the proponents does not alleviate Defendant Carnahan of her duty to write a fair and impartial summary statement.
Late this afternoon, a Cole County judge upheld the ballot title for the measure, ruling that the ballot summary drafted by Secretary Carnahan was "neither insufficient nor unfair."
The dog breeding industry is already regulated in Missouri; however the HSUS ballot initiative will place excessive regulation and limit the size of kennels. HSUS has a long history of opposing purposeful breeding of dogs.
Missouri voters should not be taken in by HSUS claims for the need to stop "puppy mills". In HSUS language, all dog breeders are puppy mills and no amount of regulation is ever sufficient.
Friday, August 13, 2010
Fate of HSUS Ballot Initiative Lies with Judge
USAgNet - 08/12/2010
Despite Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan verifying signatures for a ballot proposal initiated by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups, the final determination of whether or not the initiative will be on ballots this November rests in the hands of a Cole County judge.
A legal challenge filed by the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (MoFED), was heard by the judge earlier this week, with MoFED citing biased and unfair ballot language, an insufficient fiscal note estimate by the State Auditor and other technical and constitutional challenges.
While a decision could take up to two weeks, the final outcome could keep the deceptive initiative from being brought before voters who are being led to believe laws regulating dog breeders in Missouri are lacking, although that notion is far from the truth. The ballot initiative would provide a series of redundant mandates on kennel owners already covered by a litany of state and federal rules and regulations, reports the Missouri Corn Growers Association. Adequate rules and regulations are not the problem; funding and enforcement are, the group said. This initiative does nothing to address either issue.
With long-term implications to all agriculture producers, this is an issue in which Missouri Corn will remain engaged in working against the tactics of groups such as HSUS.
Read more about the ballot initiative on the SAOVA legislative pages
Despite Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan verifying signatures for a ballot proposal initiated by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and other animal rights groups, the final determination of whether or not the initiative will be on ballots this November rests in the hands of a Cole County judge.
A legal challenge filed by the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (MoFED), was heard by the judge earlier this week, with MoFED citing biased and unfair ballot language, an insufficient fiscal note estimate by the State Auditor and other technical and constitutional challenges.
While a decision could take up to two weeks, the final outcome could keep the deceptive initiative from being brought before voters who are being led to believe laws regulating dog breeders in Missouri are lacking, although that notion is far from the truth. The ballot initiative would provide a series of redundant mandates on kennel owners already covered by a litany of state and federal rules and regulations, reports the Missouri Corn Growers Association. Adequate rules and regulations are not the problem; funding and enforcement are, the group said. This initiative does nothing to address either issue.
With long-term implications to all agriculture producers, this is an issue in which Missouri Corn will remain engaged in working against the tactics of groups such as HSUS.
Read more about the ballot initiative on the SAOVA legislative pages
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
MO senators aim to quell HSUS puppy proposal
May 12, 2010 by Julie Harker
Some Missouri Senators are pushing back on the HSUS-backed ballot initiative proposal that would severely restrict dog breeding practices in Missouri. The push-back proposal would require ANY petition issue placing ANY controls on animal agriculture to get a two-thirds majority to pass. It would set ag apart from all other issues that might go to the voters through petition campaigns.
Agriculture interests say the dog breeding proposal is OVER regulation in a state that was the first to pass comprehensive dog breeding rules, “It is a model used by all other states. So, to say that Missouri does not have (adequate) regulations is simply not the case,” says sponsor Bill Stouffer of Napton who says most in ag agree that the so-called “puppy mill” proposal is a precursor to a later petition aimed at killing livestock production.
And, Joplin Senator Gary Nodler says the term “puppy mill” is inflammatory language that stirs public emotion, “If that term is applied broadly to everybody that’s a dog breeder, it’s an unfair term. It’s a pejorative. It’s almost like – to use the term ‘puppy term’ it’s almost like using racial slurs.”
Senator Frank Barnitz of Lake Spring said the HSUS-backed ballot proposal to increase regulations on dog breeders is a threat to animal agriculture and he says pet-raising has saved a lot of farmers when the hog markets fell, “And they came up with these care standards of which fit very well for those hog producers that no longer were producing feeder pigs. So, then they had another mechanism to make money in agriculture and be able to raise their families and be able to stay on the farms.”
Barnitz says strict regulations as proposed by the HSUS and other animal rights groups would kill Missouri’s dog breeding industry, “It’d be like we going to Ford and saying, you know, ‘We appreciate you in Missouri, we’d like for you to be here. You can produce (only) a thousand cars.’”
The so-called “puppy mill” proposal would limit breeders to 50 sexually-intact female dogs. The Humane Society of the US says Missouri is the number one state for “puppy mills”, a term the animal rights activist group created.
Stouffer says he’s confident his proposed amendment can get through the Senate and then the House to get on this year’s November election ballot. IT would only need a simple majority from Missouri voters to become law.
Some Missouri Senators are pushing back on the HSUS-backed ballot initiative proposal that would severely restrict dog breeding practices in Missouri. The push-back proposal would require ANY petition issue placing ANY controls on animal agriculture to get a two-thirds majority to pass. It would set ag apart from all other issues that might go to the voters through petition campaigns.
Agriculture interests say the dog breeding proposal is OVER regulation in a state that was the first to pass comprehensive dog breeding rules, “It is a model used by all other states. So, to say that Missouri does not have (adequate) regulations is simply not the case,” says sponsor Bill Stouffer of Napton who says most in ag agree that the so-called “puppy mill” proposal is a precursor to a later petition aimed at killing livestock production.
And, Joplin Senator Gary Nodler says the term “puppy mill” is inflammatory language that stirs public emotion, “If that term is applied broadly to everybody that’s a dog breeder, it’s an unfair term. It’s a pejorative. It’s almost like – to use the term ‘puppy term’ it’s almost like using racial slurs.”
Senator Frank Barnitz of Lake Spring said the HSUS-backed ballot proposal to increase regulations on dog breeders is a threat to animal agriculture and he says pet-raising has saved a lot of farmers when the hog markets fell, “And they came up with these care standards of which fit very well for those hog producers that no longer were producing feeder pigs. So, then they had another mechanism to make money in agriculture and be able to raise their families and be able to stay on the farms.”
Barnitz says strict regulations as proposed by the HSUS and other animal rights groups would kill Missouri’s dog breeding industry, “It’d be like we going to Ford and saying, you know, ‘We appreciate you in Missouri, we’d like for you to be here. You can produce (only) a thousand cars.’”
The so-called “puppy mill” proposal would limit breeders to 50 sexually-intact female dogs. The Humane Society of the US says Missouri is the number one state for “puppy mills”, a term the animal rights activist group created.
Stouffer says he’s confident his proposed amendment can get through the Senate and then the House to get on this year’s November election ballot. IT would only need a simple majority from Missouri voters to become law.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
States Considering Livestock Care Standards Board
Idaho and Missouri are taking preemptive action to protect livestock production.
Compiled by staff at Farm Futures
Published: Mar 16, 2010
The Idaho Senate has approved a bill that would set up a Livestock Care Standards Board. The board would be similar to the one voted in last November in Ohio. Like Ohio, Idaho hopes to get ahead of any efforts by the Humane Society of the United States to influence animal welfare laws in the state.
The legislation has yet to pass the Idaho House. If it goes into law it would create a 13-member committee that would include representatives from the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, statewide organizations for dairy, livestock and cattle professionals and legislators and would make recommendations on animal care.
In Missouri, a bill is moving through the Missouri General Assembly that would protect livestock care practices in that state. The Missourians for Animal Care Coalition supports the bill, because it would protect the right to raise animals in Missouri. The Coalition says there are animal rights extremist groups like the Humane Society of the United States trying to get a ballot initiative that would put severe limitations on the ability of anyone to own and raise animals.
The intent of the bill, according to Missouri Farm Bureau's legislative director Leslie Holloway, is to try to ensure that additional restrictions on raising animals, whether it be livestock or dogs or whatever the case may be, are under the jurisdiction of the General Assembly rather than interests that might come in from out of state such as the Humane Society of the United States.
If passed, the animal care constitutional amendment would join a HSUS-backed bill on this fall's state-wide ballot that would crack down on dog breeders in the state.
Compiled by staff at Farm Futures
Published: Mar 16, 2010
The Idaho Senate has approved a bill that would set up a Livestock Care Standards Board. The board would be similar to the one voted in last November in Ohio. Like Ohio, Idaho hopes to get ahead of any efforts by the Humane Society of the United States to influence animal welfare laws in the state.
The legislation has yet to pass the Idaho House. If it goes into law it would create a 13-member committee that would include representatives from the Idaho State Department of Agriculture, statewide organizations for dairy, livestock and cattle professionals and legislators and would make recommendations on animal care.
In Missouri, a bill is moving through the Missouri General Assembly that would protect livestock care practices in that state. The Missourians for Animal Care Coalition supports the bill, because it would protect the right to raise animals in Missouri. The Coalition says there are animal rights extremist groups like the Humane Society of the United States trying to get a ballot initiative that would put severe limitations on the ability of anyone to own and raise animals.
The intent of the bill, according to Missouri Farm Bureau's legislative director Leslie Holloway, is to try to ensure that additional restrictions on raising animals, whether it be livestock or dogs or whatever the case may be, are under the jurisdiction of the General Assembly rather than interests that might come in from out of state such as the Humane Society of the United States.
If passed, the animal care constitutional amendment would join a HSUS-backed bill on this fall's state-wide ballot that would crack down on dog breeders in the state.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Farm Bureau draws a line against animal activists groups
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Erma Harris, Managing Editor
Educating the public about animal activists and encouraging farmers to pay attention to what has happened in other states already, was the main focus of a meeting held recently by the Oregon County Farm Bureau.
Kelly Smith, director of maketing and commodities for Missouri Farm Bureau, said the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is getting signatures on a petition to place dog breeding limitations on the November ballet so that owners of these businesses cannot have more than 50 dogs for breeding purposes. Smith said the HSUS is using photos of puppy mills, in horrible conditions to get the public to join this movement and donate money. He said Missouri has been targeted by HSUS because Missouri is among the top dog breeders in the United States.
According to the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners Web site, the ballot measure is sponsored by animal rights groups: Humane Society of United States (HSUS), American Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Humane Society of Missouri and Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, The HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) has filed with the Secretary of State a ballot measure titled "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act" against dog breeders to be presented on the November 2010 ballot for a vote of the people of the state of Missouri. It applies to breeders with 10 or more intact female dogs, limits the number of breeding female dogs to 50 per kennel, limits breeding to no more than twice in any eighteen-month period, requires daily exercise, veterinary care for any injury or illness, and requires controlled temperatures not to exceed 85 degrees or fall below 45 degrees. Facility and pen size requirements far exceed that which legal, licensed breeders currently must have to be in compliance with state and federal laws. Many of the requirements are virtually cost prohibitive when allowing only 50 breeding dogs maximum for generating income.
Smith said this is only the beginning of a campaign that will set regulations on all animal agriculture. "Those of us in agriculture livestock production had better pay attention to what's happening," he said. "This is a very, very important issue and quite frankly, we've faced a lot of challenges, but this issue, is not just an agricultural issue, it's a grain farmer issue, anybody that eats across the nation, this is an issue for them, too."
Full story ....
Erma Harris, Managing Editor
Educating the public about animal activists and encouraging farmers to pay attention to what has happened in other states already, was the main focus of a meeting held recently by the Oregon County Farm Bureau.
Kelly Smith, director of maketing and commodities for Missouri Farm Bureau, said the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is getting signatures on a petition to place dog breeding limitations on the November ballet so that owners of these businesses cannot have more than 50 dogs for breeding purposes. Smith said the HSUS is using photos of puppy mills, in horrible conditions to get the public to join this movement and donate money. He said Missouri has been targeted by HSUS because Missouri is among the top dog breeders in the United States.
According to the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners Web site, the ballot measure is sponsored by animal rights groups: Humane Society of United States (HSUS), American Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), Humane Society of Missouri and Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, The HSUS (Humane Society of the United States) has filed with the Secretary of State a ballot measure titled "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act" against dog breeders to be presented on the November 2010 ballot for a vote of the people of the state of Missouri. It applies to breeders with 10 or more intact female dogs, limits the number of breeding female dogs to 50 per kennel, limits breeding to no more than twice in any eighteen-month period, requires daily exercise, veterinary care for any injury or illness, and requires controlled temperatures not to exceed 85 degrees or fall below 45 degrees. Facility and pen size requirements far exceed that which legal, licensed breeders currently must have to be in compliance with state and federal laws. Many of the requirements are virtually cost prohibitive when allowing only 50 breeding dogs maximum for generating income.
Smith said this is only the beginning of a campaign that will set regulations on all animal agriculture. "Those of us in agriculture livestock production had better pay attention to what's happening," he said. "This is a very, very important issue and quite frankly, we've faced a lot of challenges, but this issue, is not just an agricultural issue, it's a grain farmer issue, anybody that eats across the nation, this is an issue for them, too."
Full story ....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
