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

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

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

BLM backs wild-horse sanctuary

State Board of Finance to mull touchy land purchase Nov. 16
Staci Matlock The New Mexican
Posted: Monday, October 25, 2010

The head of the federal Bureau of Land Management's Wild Horse and Burro Program supports a plan for a proposed mustang sanctuary in New Mexico near Cerrillos and said it could serve as a model for other states.

Don Glenn, chief of the BLM's Division of Wild Horses and Burros, said the agency solicited ideas for more sustainably handling an ever-growing number of wild horses that need homes. "One idea was to seek out partners and places to put sanctuaries," Glenn said. "We are interested in a partnership with the state if they buy this land."

A few weeks ago, the New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department, which oversees the State Parks Division, announced plans to purchase the 12,000-plus-acre Ortiz Mountain Ranch, also known as the Ball Ranch. The property is south of Madrid. The $2.9 million for the purchase would come from Gov. Bill Richardson's discretionary portion of New Mexico's federal stimulus funds. The purchase would expand Cerrillos Hills State Park tenfold, although the ranch is not contiguous with the existing park. A portion of the ranch would be set aside for a wild horse sanctuary, according to Jim Noel, Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Cabinet secretary.

Gubernatorial candidates Diane Denish and Susana Martinez both oppose using federal stimulus funding to create the wild horse sanctuary. The purchase must still be approved by the eight-member New Mexico Board of Finance, of which Richardson is president and Denish is a member. Full story

It's time to get a clue about deer hunting

Covington News Sports Editor Josh Briggs ignited a firestorm on Wednesday with his column on deer hunting. In case you missed it, Briggs questioned the need and the motivations of hunting deer as a sport. Read the article: What if the hunted was the hunter?.

By far most readers took Briggs to task, saying he missed the point of hunting. Here is a response from Matt Fry, a wildlife biologist in Covington, GA with WildCo LLC.

It's time to get a clue about deer hunting
By Matt Fry sports@covnews.com

As a wildlife biologist and an educated human being I would like to inform you that your article entitled, "What if the hunted was the hunter?" was extremely distasteful and more importantly, showed a great deal of ignorance on your part.

White-tailed deer are wild animals, and as such, have what biologists call a "carrying capacity" meaning there is a limit to the number of deer that a given habitat can support. If the deer population reaches or exceeds that limit, disease and starvation are nature's way of bringing it down.

Deer hunting, although it is a sport, is the scientifically proven BEST method of controlling these populations without letting starvation and disease do it for us. Unfortunately, many of our natural predators, such as the panther and red wolf (all but a few captive animals are extinct) have been extirpated and now have no affect on deer populations. This is the reason deer hunting is ESSENTIAL to our state. Some of the diseases that deer carry, such as Lyme's Disease, increase as deer populations rise and these diseases can cause human sickness and fatalities.

Deer hunters are responsible for a large percentage of funding for wildlife and habitat conservation throughout Georgia and the rest of the US. These funds go to game and non-game conservation include birds, amphibians, parks, nature trails, and the list goes on forever. Without hunting license fees, you may not have the wonderful natural resources that we are blessed with in this state.

Deer hunting is a sport that allows everyone, including children, to develop a love for the outdoors so that we can continue to conserve our natural resources for years to come. The sport is not about killing the animal, it is about learning about nature and enjoying it. Your comment that "hunting deer is the same as hunting humans" is appalling to me and reflects the ideals of those that are responsible for our decaying society.

I cannot believe that CovNews would even publish such ridiculous article and I will be boycotting the entire newspaper because of this article and will be persuading my friends and family to do so as well.

You should educate yourself on a subject before you write about it, sir.

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:

Time to swing for the fences

The problem with our nation today isn't with what people know; it is that too much of what they know isn't so. Whether it is a protester at the front gate or a longtime teacher, we must be transparent. We must explain exactly how it is and hide nothing.

By TRENT LOOS Posted on: 10.22.2010

I had hoped for a grand slam but probably only got a single instead. I was in San Francisco, Cal., where the Giants baseball team was attempting to go onto the World Series.

However, I am actually not talking about baseball at all. I am referring to putting the "cow" back into Cow Palace.

Seth Daulton called me last spring and asked if I would be willing to help bring the emphasis on the cow back to the Grand National Livestock Show & Rodeo.

On the first night of the event, I was in the administration office when the call came over the radio that protesters were at the front gate. Without hesitation, I went to monitor the situation, and what I saw was extremely interesting.

The thing that impressed me most was the manner in which the situation was handled. As general manager Joe Barkett told me, "We have plenty of practice dealing with protesters."

Still, it really hit me that you must maintain your composure, grant the protestors the opportunity to say their spiel yet establish a set of guidelines they must follow. Each of the eight protesters who showed up in opposition to the rodeo were handed a piece of paper with the guidelines they would be expected to follow.

One key thing about these protesters is that they were seeking to intimidate, pure and simple. They had cameras rolling on rodeo management just hoping to catch someone making a mistake.

I thought I would attempt to turn the table on that, so I took out my camera and microphone to interview the lead protester. The minute I turned on my camera, they put three cameras on me and made it look like a video camera duel at the front gate of the Cow Palace. Full commentary