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
Showing posts with label Vote No Missouri Prop B. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vote No Missouri Prop B. Show all posts
Monday, November 1, 2010
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
UKC Opposes Missouri’s Proposition B
UKC recognizes that irresponsible breeders and kennels are a valid concern, and UKC strongly believes that irresponsible breeders and dog owners should be dealt with accordingly. Obviously, dog welfare in all aspects of dog ownership, from pet owners to exhibitors to breeders, is a priority and no form of neglect or abuse should be tolerated in any aspect of dog ownership. However, Missouri’s Proposition B is not really about dog welfare as it outwardly appears to be. It’s a creation of the animal rights movement to restrict all dog breeding in Missouri. If Proposition B passes, it would label many responsible breeders as ‘puppy mills,’ an offensive and negative term created by animal rights proponents, simply due to the number of dogs the breeder has. The Humane Society of the United States, an animal rights (not welfare) organization is one of the major proponents of Prop B, and has already spent $2.18 million dollars on emotional advertisements to persuade citizens that this is about animal welfare, when in reality it’s another way to criminalize dog breeding.
Proposition B defines a puppy mill as any breeder that owns ten or more intact female dogs over the age of six months. It also creates a cap on the number of dogs a person can own. Realistically, dog welfare isn’t about the quantity of dogs one owns, but about the quality of care the dogs are given, which is why UKC is opposed to numerical limits on dog ownership. The number of pups whelped per year is in no way relative to the welfare of dogs owned by a breeder; a person can just as easily neglect or abuse one dog as they can sixty dogs.
Missouri already has a law that regulates pet breeders called the Animal Care Facilities Act, and it’s actually more comprehensive than Prop B. It has requirements for adequate care, not only for the facilities themselves, but also for transportation of animals. Prop B does not cover transportation at all. The current law also requires inspections of animal shelters and pounds, and includes cats as well as dogs. Prop B specifically excludes animal shelters and pounds. The current law requires licensing and inspections for all covered breeders, while Prop B does not provide for how violations are to be enforced. Violators of the current law could face class A misdemeanor charges while Prop B violators will only face a class C misdemeanor. The current law provides an exemption for registered show and hobby breeders, while Prop B provides no such exemption.
Clearly, the current law is much more applicable and reasonable, and actually regulates dog welfare while Prop B does not. If Prop B was really intended to protect so-called ‘puppy mill’ dogs, then it would focus more on welfare, provide for an inspection and licensing system, and exempt hobby and show breeders from being negatively labeled as ‘puppy mills.’ The current law is much more specific and comprehensive not only in what it covers, but also in its standards of care. Instead of Prop B, the current law should be more strongly enforced, and possible stronger penalties should be considered for repeat offenders. There is simply no need for Missouri’s Proposition B.
United Kennel Club
Proposition B defines a puppy mill as any breeder that owns ten or more intact female dogs over the age of six months. It also creates a cap on the number of dogs a person can own. Realistically, dog welfare isn’t about the quantity of dogs one owns, but about the quality of care the dogs are given, which is why UKC is opposed to numerical limits on dog ownership. The number of pups whelped per year is in no way relative to the welfare of dogs owned by a breeder; a person can just as easily neglect or abuse one dog as they can sixty dogs.
Missouri already has a law that regulates pet breeders called the Animal Care Facilities Act, and it’s actually more comprehensive than Prop B. It has requirements for adequate care, not only for the facilities themselves, but also for transportation of animals. Prop B does not cover transportation at all. The current law also requires inspections of animal shelters and pounds, and includes cats as well as dogs. Prop B specifically excludes animal shelters and pounds. The current law requires licensing and inspections for all covered breeders, while Prop B does not provide for how violations are to be enforced. Violators of the current law could face class A misdemeanor charges while Prop B violators will only face a class C misdemeanor. The current law provides an exemption for registered show and hobby breeders, while Prop B provides no such exemption.
Clearly, the current law is much more applicable and reasonable, and actually regulates dog welfare while Prop B does not. If Prop B was really intended to protect so-called ‘puppy mill’ dogs, then it would focus more on welfare, provide for an inspection and licensing system, and exempt hobby and show breeders from being negatively labeled as ‘puppy mills.’ The current law is much more specific and comprehensive not only in what it covers, but also in its standards of care. Instead of Prop B, the current law should be more strongly enforced, and possible stronger penalties should be considered for repeat offenders. There is simply no need for Missouri’s Proposition B.
United Kennel Club
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
Monday, October 25, 2010
MO: Proposition B not the right answer to problem
By Robin Nuttall October 22, 2010
COLUMBIA — In November, Missourians will get a chance to vote on Proposition B, the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.”
For most of us, “puppy mill” conjures images of shivering, emaciated, matted dogs standing in their own filth, terrified of people, bereft of the most basic necessities, socialization and care. None of us want puppy mills in Missouri, and for those of us involved in dogs — as I have been for over 25 years as a trainer, exhibitor, local and national club member and instructor — it’s a passion and a vocation to try to eliminate them. So why would I oppose this bill?
There are several reasons.
Our existing laws are better. Misssouri’s Animal Care Facilities Act is more clear, detailed, specific and typically more stringent than Proposition B.
Prop. B covers only breeders. ACFA covers “any person or organization operating an animal shelter, boarding kennel, commercial kennel, contract kennel, pet shop, pound or dog pound, or acting as a dealer, commercial breeder, intermediate handler or exhibitor in Missouri.” Violating Prop. B will be a Class C Misdemeanor. ACFA starts right out with a Class A Misdemeanor, which is up to a year in jail and up to $20,000 fine. To see a detailed side-by-side comparison, click here.
Proposition B punishes legitimate breeders. Prop. B caps the total of intact dogs to be owned by any breeder at 50, the inference being that no one can adequately care for more than 50 dogs. I mean, that’s a lot, right? Who has the time and energy to take care of all those animals? But the bill's sponsor, the Humane Society of the United States, is confining its proposed legislation to breeders. What about kennels, rescues, shelters, humane societies and pet shops? If you’re going to say that 50 is too many dogs, it should apply to them, too, right? So this really isn’t about numbers of dogs, it’s about punishing breeders.
Full commentary at link:
COLUMBIA — In November, Missourians will get a chance to vote on Proposition B, the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act.”
For most of us, “puppy mill” conjures images of shivering, emaciated, matted dogs standing in their own filth, terrified of people, bereft of the most basic necessities, socialization and care. None of us want puppy mills in Missouri, and for those of us involved in dogs — as I have been for over 25 years as a trainer, exhibitor, local and national club member and instructor — it’s a passion and a vocation to try to eliminate them. So why would I oppose this bill?
There are several reasons.
Our existing laws are better. Misssouri’s Animal Care Facilities Act is more clear, detailed, specific and typically more stringent than Proposition B.
Prop. B covers only breeders. ACFA covers “any person or organization operating an animal shelter, boarding kennel, commercial kennel, contract kennel, pet shop, pound or dog pound, or acting as a dealer, commercial breeder, intermediate handler or exhibitor in Missouri.” Violating Prop. B will be a Class C Misdemeanor. ACFA starts right out with a Class A Misdemeanor, which is up to a year in jail and up to $20,000 fine. To see a detailed side-by-side comparison, click here.
Proposition B punishes legitimate breeders. Prop. B caps the total of intact dogs to be owned by any breeder at 50, the inference being that no one can adequately care for more than 50 dogs. I mean, that’s a lot, right? Who has the time and energy to take care of all those animals? But the bill's sponsor, the Humane Society of the United States, is confining its proposed legislation to breeders. What about kennels, rescues, shelters, humane societies and pet shops? If you’re going to say that 50 is too many dogs, it should apply to them, too, right? So this really isn’t about numbers of dogs, it’s about punishing breeders.
Full commentary at link:
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.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Proposition B on Facebook
Connect with Vote no on Prop B Missouri!!! on Facebook
Proposition B is little more than another attempt by those on the fringe to push their agenda of animal ownership abolishment. It seeks not to end animal cruelty, but to limit the opportunities for many animal loving Missourians.
Proposition B is little more than another attempt by those on the fringe to push their agenda of animal ownership abolishment. It seeks not to end animal cruelty, but to limit the opportunities for many animal loving Missourians.
Proposition B opposition
Missouri voters need to be educated on Proposition B and the harm it will do to dog breeders in the state. More information and links are available on the SAOVA website. Proposition B is a ballot initiative introduced by HSUS. The issue is control - not animal welfare.
Southeast Missourian. Monday, October 4, 2010
Proposition B opposition by Dale E. Steffens, President, Cape Girardeau County Farm Bureau, Jackson
Don't be fooled by the slick television ads or the Hollywood celebrities. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not your local pet shelter but an east coast fundraising organization. Very little (less that one-half of 1 percent) of the money it raises is used to rescue dogs and cats but rather to finance an extremist agenda that is targeting pet breeders, livestock producers and hunters.
As a livestock producer, hunter and dog breeder, I am very concerned about the threat posed by HSUS and other extremist organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Full story and comments at the link
Southeast Missourian. Monday, October 4, 2010
Proposition B opposition by Dale E. Steffens, President, Cape Girardeau County Farm Bureau, Jackson
Don't be fooled by the slick television ads or the Hollywood celebrities. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is not your local pet shelter but an east coast fundraising organization. Very little (less that one-half of 1 percent) of the money it raises is used to rescue dogs and cats but rather to finance an extremist agenda that is targeting pet breeders, livestock producers and hunters.
As a livestock producer, hunter and dog breeder, I am very concerned about the threat posed by HSUS and other extremist organizations such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Full story and comments at the link
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Voices: Vote NO to Prop B
By Ruthie Snodgrass
Special to The Globe Thu Sep 23, 2010, 07:38 AM CDT
LAMAR, Mo. — Missouri voters will find Proposition B on the ballot when they go to their polling places on Nov. 2. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has contributed more than $1.2 million in support of Proposition B.
Missouri Farm Bureau opposes Proposition B, Missouri Farmers Association opposes Proposition B, the Missouri Department of Agriculture believes its current program will do more for animal welfare than Proposition B. The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association opposes Proposition B. For more information, go to www.mofb.org.
Several state organizations have joined together to form Missourians for Animal Care Coalition.
Its purpose is to inform the public about Proposition B. The American Veterinary Medical Association opposes HSUS and Proposition B. Go to www.humanewatch.org and www.thealliancefortruth.com.
Millions of dollars worth of income and revenue will be gone from the state of Missouri.
Hundreds of thousands of tax dollars a year will be wasted enforcing needless regulations on Missouri’s respected, licensed breeders, while the unlicensed problem breeders remain unchecked.
HSUS is the richest and most powerful animal rights organization in the world.
Do not confuse animal rights organizations with animal welfare organizations.
For those folks who have been duped by HSUS into sending $240 annually in $19.99 monthly payments, less than $1.03 goes to feed a dog or cat.
Conscientious people concerned with the welfare of animals should support their local shelter. Every voter must not let themselves be fooled by wording on the ballot.
Vote “no” on Proposition B.
Special to The Globe Thu Sep 23, 2010, 07:38 AM CDT
LAMAR, Mo. — Missouri voters will find Proposition B on the ballot when they go to their polling places on Nov. 2. The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) has contributed more than $1.2 million in support of Proposition B.
Missouri Farm Bureau opposes Proposition B, Missouri Farmers Association opposes Proposition B, the Missouri Department of Agriculture believes its current program will do more for animal welfare than Proposition B. The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association opposes Proposition B. For more information, go to www.mofb.org.
Several state organizations have joined together to form Missourians for Animal Care Coalition.
Its purpose is to inform the public about Proposition B. The American Veterinary Medical Association opposes HSUS and Proposition B. Go to www.humanewatch.org and www.thealliancefortruth.com.
Millions of dollars worth of income and revenue will be gone from the state of Missouri.
Hundreds of thousands of tax dollars a year will be wasted enforcing needless regulations on Missouri’s respected, licensed breeders, while the unlicensed problem breeders remain unchecked.
HSUS is the richest and most powerful animal rights organization in the world.
Do not confuse animal rights organizations with animal welfare organizations.
For those folks who have been duped by HSUS into sending $240 annually in $19.99 monthly payments, less than $1.03 goes to feed a dog or cat.
Conscientious people concerned with the welfare of animals should support their local shelter. Every voter must not let themselves be fooled by wording on the ballot.
Vote “no” on Proposition B.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Prop B no good for dog breeders
The Maneater Column: Prop B no good for dog breeders By Ryan Schuessler
Published Aug. 31, 2010
Can you define the term "puppy mill?"
If you say something along the lines of a cramped, dirty, abusive farm where dogs are bred and sold, then you're wrong. In reality, there is no legal definition of a puppy mill.
Let me get this out of the way first: no animal should be abused. Ever. The picture of puppy mills that has been implanted in people's heads is undoubtedly, wrong, immoral and shouldn't be allowed. Every animal in the care of a human deserves the utmost respect and basic right to a decent life on this Earth, as does every living creature.
But don't be fooled. The Puppy Mill Prevention Act or Prop B, which will be appearing on the November ballot in Missouri, isn't a good idea.
It's not that Missouri doesn't have laws regulating the facilities and care of dog breeding establishments already. A set of laws was passed over 18 years ago that mandated breeders to provide enough food, water, shelter and veterinary care.
They're also required to provide regular exercise, socialization and enough space for each dog to turn, stand, sit and lie in a comfortable position and walk freely in a normal matter. And that's just the beginning of a list of regulations already in place. This law is about 22 pages long (I've seen a copy) and addresses virtually everything that Prop B wished to handle. It was created by a group of 13 people from all corners of the dog-breeding world; from breeders to shelter workers, veterinarians to department of health employees.
Missouri's "puppy mill" problem does not come from a lack of legislation. It stems directly from a lack of enforcement and funding of adequate legislation already in place.
The biggest problem with Prop B is that it limits every dog breeder, no matter how well they treat their animals, to having a maximum of 50 animals at a time. Even if there is a staff member assigned to each dog, it still isn't allowed.
Full article at link
Published Aug. 31, 2010
Can you define the term "puppy mill?"
If you say something along the lines of a cramped, dirty, abusive farm where dogs are bred and sold, then you're wrong. In reality, there is no legal definition of a puppy mill.
Let me get this out of the way first: no animal should be abused. Ever. The picture of puppy mills that has been implanted in people's heads is undoubtedly, wrong, immoral and shouldn't be allowed. Every animal in the care of a human deserves the utmost respect and basic right to a decent life on this Earth, as does every living creature.
But don't be fooled. The Puppy Mill Prevention Act or Prop B, which will be appearing on the November ballot in Missouri, isn't a good idea.
It's not that Missouri doesn't have laws regulating the facilities and care of dog breeding establishments already. A set of laws was passed over 18 years ago that mandated breeders to provide enough food, water, shelter and veterinary care.
They're also required to provide regular exercise, socialization and enough space for each dog to turn, stand, sit and lie in a comfortable position and walk freely in a normal matter. And that's just the beginning of a list of regulations already in place. This law is about 22 pages long (I've seen a copy) and addresses virtually everything that Prop B wished to handle. It was created by a group of 13 people from all corners of the dog-breeding world; from breeders to shelter workers, veterinarians to department of health employees.
Missouri's "puppy mill" problem does not come from a lack of legislation. It stems directly from a lack of enforcement and funding of adequate legislation already in place.
The biggest problem with Prop B is that it limits every dog breeder, no matter how well they treat their animals, to having a maximum of 50 animals at a time. Even if there is a staff member assigned to each dog, it still isn't allowed.
Full article at link
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
