Column:
Prop B no good for dog breeders
Published Aug. 31, 2010
Editor's note: Corrections have been made in the ninth, 10th and 15th paragraphs of this column upon the columnist's request.
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.
It should also be noted that Prop B was designed exclusively by the Humane Society of the United States.
Speaking of which, according to humanewatch.org, very little money donated to the HSUS actually goes to help animals. In fact, less than half a percent of its annual budget goes to other pet shelters. And if you think that the HSUS is an umbrella group which funds thousands of other local pet shelters, than you’re wrong.
So where does the other 99.5% of your donation go? To legislator’s campaigns (Prop B, anyone?) and other programs, businesses and institutions that donators didn’t know they were supporting. Despite this blatant act of corruption by one of its biggest supporters, there’s yet another underlying problem with Prop B.
It's PETA. It's always PETA.
Maybe it's because I'm the son of a veterinarian but I think PETA is crazy. I remember going to the American Veterinary Medical Association convention in Seattle a couple summers ago with my family and seeing half naked women dressed up as mermaids with painted bodies laying on the sidewalk outside the convention center to protest, of all things, fishing and the AVMA.
Yeah, you read right. PETA has, for some reason, been on a crusade against the AVMA for some years. That makes sense; an animal rights group opposing an association of animal doctors.
Ultimately, PETA's agenda is pro-vegetarianism. If Prop B passes, then it will open the door to the logic of "if 50 dogs, why not 50 cows? Why not 50 pigs?" These ideas could ultimately become law, thus destroying the agricultural economy of our state. So while Sarah McLaughlin is holding an adorable kitten on that HSUS commercial asking for money, just remember that your donation would benefit animals in need more if you made it directly to a local shelter, not the Humane Society of the United States.
But don’t worry, the other meager .5% of your donation probably ended up helping some animals. Or at least paid for them to be euthanized.
Say no to Prop B in November.
Comments (75)
8:58 a.m., Aug. 31, 2010
John said:
You're upset that the AVMA, a group established to help animals, is being asked to take animals' interests into consideration regardless of species? That doesn't have to do with PETA, it has to do with rational thinking.
9:18 a.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Karen Strange said:
Absolutely excellent piece telling it like it is! Prop B is NOT designed to help animals but has as its goal the total elimination of professional, legal licensed breeders who abide by the laws already in place. It will destroy the industry while doing nothing to address those who operate outside the law. Substandard breeders and those who collect hundreds of dogs living in horrible conditions but do not breed them will go untouched by Prop B. The good breeders will be eliminated while substandard ones will thrive!
9:35 a.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Anonymous said:
There is one GLARING bit of misinformation in this article. Mr. Berman is not associated with HSUS. Wayne Pacelle the CEO of HSUS oversees the millions of dollars fraudulently obtained from donors under the pretext of "helping" animals. Visit Humanewatch.org re: the massive misuse and abuse of funds by this radical "animal rights" outfit posing as a proponent of Animal Welfare. HSUS is nicknamed "PETA in a Suit" by some concerned critics. Mr. Pacelle's definition of "puppy mill" is anyone who owns one intact dog, whether ever bred or not, and includes anyone who has ever bred one litter of anything, ever. I agree there are suffient laws in place to protect animal welfare. The problem is enforcement by appropriate trained informed people.
9:39 a.m., Aug. 31, 2010
olemotherhubbard said:
Yeah.... thank you!! Prop B is defining EVERY licensed kennel in Missouri a puppy mill. This isn't the way to handle the sub-standard kennels.
10:58 a.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Colleen said:
I'm not fond of breeders in general. There are some good ones out there but I would rather take an animal that is in a shelter so it doesn't get put down. There are way too many cats and dogs as it is. I like pets not show dogs.I'm with ya on the HSUS and PETA though.
11:04 a.m., Aug. 31, 2010
John Doppler Schiff said:
Ryan, this article is an embarrassment on multiple levels. Rick Berman is the head of the Center for Consumer Freedom, an industry front group that is OPPOSED to the HSUS. You're right that 92% of corporate "donations" to his sham charity go into his pockets, but I assure you that this astroturf king is diametrically opposed to the HSUS and its mission of confronting animal cruelty wherever it exists. HSUS is not CCF. I don't see how a person with the tiniest awareness of the issues could have made that mistake. See www.humanewatch.info and www.bermanexposed.org for information. HSUS does not operate local kill shelters. It has nothing to do with euthanazing animals in shelters. HSUS is not PETA. PETA had nothing to do with the language in Prop B. HSUS is not the ASPCA. Sarah McLachlan is a spokesperson for the ASPCA, not HSUS. Prop B clearly defines "puppy mill cruelty" as a violation of any of the provisions of Sec. 273.345.3, which include basic requirements for food, water, veterinary care, housing, space, exercise, and rest between breeding cycles. Slippery slope fallacies about "opening the door" to [insert world-ending catastrophe here] have no place in a well-reasoned argument. And student journalists have no place writing on subjects they know nothing about, especially when they can't be bothered to perform the most basic of fact-checking.
11:23 a.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Warren Falvey said:
Can you define the term "dumbass"? Yes - person who wrote this embarrassing article.
12:29 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Florence said:
Gee Mr. Journalism Student - Perhaps you should consider another career. Not only is your story riddled with factual errors and flat out mistakes, one Google search would have led you to the definition of "puppy mill" provided by the judicial system over 25 years ago: A “puppy” mill is a dog breeding operation in which the health of the dogs is disregarded in order to maintain a low overhead and maximize profits. Avenson v. Zegart, 577 F. Supp. 958, 960 (D. Minn 1984)
1:47 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Craole Pitzer said:
Gosh, a jounalism student that hasn't reaseached any of the facts and never been to a 'puppy mill.' There is a definition and he didn't bother to find it. Ethical breeders feed, exercise, care for their dogs. If there is not problem why does this country PTS over 4,000,000 animals a year. Is MIZZOU worried for the VET SCHOOL????? They won't have as many students with limited breeding in MISSOURI. What a jerk and that is a 'good definition.' If you need a puppy mill address, contact me and I can show you the abused dogs, sick puppies that are SOLD to the public. The Public and the sick LITTERS are the final victims. What an A-------. That GOd my brother became a criminal instead of going into journalism if this is an example.
1:57 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Jessica said:
Mr. Schuessler, you are an idiot. You have no idea what you are talking about.Maybe try doing a little research before writing an article? Is that too much to ask? You may have a bias against groups like PETA and HSUS and that's fine. That's your opinion. But do not write articles filled with blatant inaccuracies and half truths which could put thousands of dog's lives in danger because you have a grudge. You really might want to consider a different line of work because factual journalism clearly isn't for you.
2:03 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Kim Cronin said:
I have been in hellish puppy mills and I have been in clean, organized commercial breeding facilities. I am the director of a small breed rescue near St. Louis. I won't even bother addressing the nasty places, we all know that those are wrong on all levels but even the clean places are not good for dogs. Even with 'only' 50 dogs (and the ones that I have been at have anywhere from 100 to 300 dogs). I guarantee you that no dog breeder will have one person assigned to each dog EVER, not even one person to 10 dogs, 20 dogs or 30 dogs. The dogs are not always 'abused' but are always neglected. How much lap time do you imagine those breeding dogs get? How often are they petted or played with? Sure, they do seem to get shots sometimes but that is just protecting the investment of the breeder's money makers. And what about the puppies? Do you think that they give any care at all to where the pups end up? Nope, first one that shows up with the money gets the puppy. Doesn't matter if you have a huge dog and think that a chihuahua would be a great pet. Doesn't matter if you have multiple young kids who want a tiny puppy to carry around. Do you think that those would be good placements? They are not. We have taken in way too many dogs who were in inappropriate homes after being purchased online or in a pet store then injured by young children. Don't even get me started on the pet stores. Again, no one cares at all where the puppies end up or how they will be cared for. We have an obligation to Man's Best Friend to provide them with veterinary care, a safe life and to return the affection that they give to us unconditionally. Puppies are not merchandise and dogs should not be bred every 6 months. We have taken so many puppy mill dogs who have obviously never been handled lovingly, 4 year old dogs who have to have all or most of their teeth removed from the lack of fresh water and good food, dogs with chunks out of their ears from fighting with other dogs and 6 year old females who can't walk properly because they've had too many puppies and lacked proper nutrition. I do know that there are responsible breeders but they don't have 50 dogs, they know what is behind their lines, they don't adopt to anyone who comes along and they show their dogs. I am not a rescuer who says that no one should breed but I DO say that no one should breed commercially. No one should make a living off of breeding dogs. Get an education, get a job, make your living the honorable way. I, for one, have been and will continue to educate people about prop B and encourage them to vote in November. Those that vilify the HSUS and oppose prop B are just trying to keep their easy money flowing in.
2:09 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
G Parsons said:
Wow. MU is one of best -- if not the best -- journalism school in the country. But apparently this column's writer has skipped all his classes. Because no one who went to even a half-decent journalism class could have written this. As others have pointed out, a quick google search revealed that Rick Berman is actually at odds with the HSUS. Here's a link on the HSUS site: http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/2010/02/center-for-consumer-freedom.html. And what does PETA have to do with Prop B? Nothing. I mean really, who has 50 breeding animals? Breeders who breed a lot of animals, that's who. Breeders who don't care what happens to those animals. And what breeder assigns one staff member to each of its animals? Can you name a breeder that does that, Ryan? Truthfully? As for a pro-vegetarian agenda, that's another topic.
3:08 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Ida McCarthy said:
Um, Ryan? Why don't you walk IN a puppy mill. Then maybe you can define them for us. THESE ARE COMPANION ANIMALS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, NOT LIVESTOCK. Get it? You should be ashamed of yourself for supporting cruelty and neglect.
3:21 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Noa said:
Um. . .I'm not really sure where to start. One, this article isn't truthful, and the writer didn't do his homework (I would note that paragraphs nine and ten have been editted due to the author's rightful embarassment). . .but this has nothing to do with PETA, or vegetarianism. Prop B has to do with how animals are treated. Should it target puppy mils? Absolutely, we need to THINK about how animals are treated (there is a ton of proof that puppy mills and the puppy auctions that accompany them are cruel and disgusting. . .maybe read Saving Gracie to get a beginners idea of what happens behind closed doors). PETA has nothing against the AVMA. . .nor does the HSUS (the stuff this writer said about both organizations is the stuff of liable). Both organizations spend a LOAD of money in a variety of ways to save animals. This is easily shown with good, basic, second grade research. This writer has never read the AP rules of ethics, nor has he any common sense or manners. He shouldn't be writing. It is time to put the truth about animals on the table: they are being harmed and the bulk of human animals don't think that's OK. Vote Yes on Prop B.
3:29 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Debbie said:
How many of you have READ Prop B? If you had, you would know that only SOME dogs will be protected by it. "hUNTING DOGS ARE EXEMPT" that means ALL hunting dogs, it doesn't say some or a few. All Labs, Goldens, Beagles, Dachshunds, All of the terriers, all of the sight hounds, even Standard Poodles will have no protection under this law!Why can't this law be written to protect ALL dogs? ALso, the proposal doesn't say where the money will come from to fund it, the state can't find the moeny to fund the laws on the books now, how are they going to afford to enforce these new laws?
3:30 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Jeff said:
Great article. I am glad somebody finally gets it. Just like in any industry there are bad operators and there are already laws on the books to regulate them. WE DON'T NEED MORE LAWS JUST MORE PEOPLE AND MONEY TO ENFORCE THE ONES WE HAVE.
3:39 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
M. Moriarty said:
Prop B would limit breeders to "50 breeding dogs" that means 50 females - not 50 total. There are reputable breeders out there - this law is not going to negatively affect them. It IS going to negatively affect those breeders who treat their dogs LIKE MACHINERY - and it is about time. Dogs were domesticated by humans. We have a responsibility to treat them correctly and humanely, and to make sure others do to. No animal should spend YEARS living in a tiny cage. Some of these animals spend 10 years or more in a tiny cage. This is totally disgusting and outrageous. No dog should spend it's entire life never knowing what it feels like to walk on solid ground and grass. No dog should be bred continuously, over and over again, until it's health is completely ruined by the breeder's greed. The current laws are a failure!!! I am ashamed to be a citizen in the Puppy Mill Capital of the United States - Missouri. The second largest doesn't even come close to the number of substandard breeders in our state. These dogs have no one to look out for them but caring Missourians. This has nothing to do with chickens and cows. It is about dogs that live daily with the pain of broken bones, sore gums, rotting teeth, the stench of urine and feces choking their lungs and burning their eyes and for many, their skin. It has to do with dogs with mats of hair stuck to the cornea of their eyes causing pain and eventual blindness because they have NEVER BEEN GROOMED. It has to do with dogs with fur so matted they can't walk or move and are in constant pain. It has to do with dogs standing on open wire floors that cripple their feet. The worst breeders don't even give the dogs room to completely stand up or lay down and stretch out. This law wants to stop animals living with skin and lung infections caused by living in fithy conditions and poor air quality. Many of these dogs have never even been out of the room there cages reside in. The only contact they have with people is when they are grabbed out of their cage and thrown in with another dog for breeding - then thrown back into the cage. The State of MO earns money on every dog a breeder has - it has a vested interest in not limiting the the number of dogs a breeder may have. That is why our state politicians have DONE NOTHING to improve conditions of substandard breeders in the state. The people of Missouri have had to take a stand and fight for the proper treatment of these dogs. Don't listen to the feeble protests of those who refuse to understand or help these poor lost animals. It is time stand up for what is moral and right. Vote yes on Propostion B in November. Thousands of animals living in misery are counting on us to help them. We are the only voice they have. If you don't, who will? Not the cold hearted puppy mill owner counting his or her money. It's all about money to them - PERIOD.
3:56 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
M. Moriarty said:
In my previous comment, I forgot to add that I can't understand why any veterinarian wouldn't be in favor of guaranteeing the basic minimum of care for dogs belonging to breeders. That is what Prop B is attempting to do, with clearer language and stiffer penalties for breeders who neglect or abuse their dogs. Mr. Schuessler, I know your father, and the other veterinarians at Kirkwood Animal Hospital and I'm shocked that he would be not in full support of Prop B. That is what your comments are implying. People don't need to make a living off of the suffering of animals that should be treated like pets - not livestock. Dog Breeders should not be under the control of the USDA. It obviously hasn't worked out well for the dogs up until now. I signed the petition to get Proposition B on the November ballot, and I got a lot of other Missorians to sign it too. And if it somehow doesn't pass in November, I'll be working on the next legal remedy, too. This issue is not going to go away. And by the way, there were a lot of local, state, and national agencies that worked on Prop B - not just the USUS, which by it's very charter, is a lobbying organization created to work for the welfare of animals - period. The Humane Society of Missori was heavily involved. PETA had nothing to do with it. Be a voice for the dogs - end needless suffering. Vote yes on Propostion B in November - be proud to be from Missouri again.
4:36 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Brook Dubman said:
Prop B is necessary, basic humane treatment for the dogs, and easy to comply with for any legitimate, caring breeder. Almost all puppies sold in pet stores come from puppy mills. Every time puppies are sold in a pet store, a mother dog is sentenced to a lifetime of misery in a puppy mill.
4:44 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Debbie said:
<That is what Prop B is attempting to do, with clearer language and stiffer penalties for breeders who neglect or abuse their dogs< Do you know waht the penalty is for a violation of any of Prop B? "The crime of puppy mill cruelty is a calss C msidemeanor" This is from the petition, a class C misdemenor is a SLAP ON THE WRIST. The truly bad breeders won't mind at all paying a $150 fine! ALso everyone is saying that this law limits breeders to 50 females, it does, but it also says that anyone with 10 or more intact females is a commerical breeder! I DON'T THINK YOU CAN COMPARE THE TWO. Please READ Prop B before you vote on it!!!
4:55 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Amanda said:
I am very glad someone rational is writing for the Maneater. The comments against this article are based in complete fiction and are obviously coming from ignorant people who have no background in what they are talking about, EXACTLY like the HSUS. HSUS is the biggest scam in American history and as an animal lover it sickens me that they have pulled the wool over our eyes for so long. Missourians should wake up and not bow down to HSUS because they have their own agenda and care nothing about animals or YOU.
6:22 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Barb said:
WHO AM I? Who told you that because I'm a Commercial Breeder, I am A Puppy Mill? OH Yes of course, everone know who I am and what I do. Everyone has seen it on TV and read the newspaper. But, Do you know me? Do you know how hard I work to care for my dogs or how much money I spend to maintain my kennel? Do you know how many times I have got out of my bed in the middle of the night to check on a mother and her babies? Do you know how many tears I shed at the loss of one of my dogs? Do you know how many dollars I spend to insure my adults and puppies have been vaccinated, wormed, given ear mite and heart worm prevention and various other disease prevention treatments? Do you know how much time I take to educate myself on canine genetics' and canine diseases: Do you know that my kennel and dogs are inspected every year by a Licensed Veterinarian, State and USDA inspectors and AKC. Do you know that I too am appalled at the sight of animal cruelty? I too am angered by substandard living conditions and imhumane treatment of all animals. Animals in zoos, in the circus, in research facilities, and yes in a kennel. So, you see all you know is what special interest groups such as HSUS and PETA have told you. All to often the real stories never hit the news stands or air on television. So you really don't know me at all. You don't know anythin about me or what I do. Because if you did you would never use the word puppy mill. This is a derogatory slang word and is very offence to me. I am a PROFESSIONAL.. If Proposition B is passed it will not only effect my job, but many, many other jobs in Missouri at a time when our state cannot afford to lose more jobs. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B
6:28 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Barb York said:
Maybe if everyone read the proposition in it's entirety, and knew the law as already written, you would see the basics are already law: food, water, vet care, shelter, and exercise is already mandated in the law. If you knew about dogs the females don't always come into heat every 6 months. Many are every 7-10 months. Licensed regulated breeders are inspected by the state of MO and a vet every year-sometimes more often. Many breeders are also inspected by the USDA. Not all breeders are licensed and inspected some due to regulations in numbers and some are in hiding. The bad actors are the ones who need to be brought into compliance or eliminated. Good law abiding citizens will follow the law. Those that aren't, won't. Why add more regulations on those who already do it right? It won't affect those not regulated! Someone made the comment that if this passes it still leaves 50 females total. No, it won't. If you had read the proposal by HSUS it is 50 "covered dogs". "Covered dogs" will be ANY dog 6 months of age or older with intact sexual organs. This will include males and females. All dogs will have to have heat and air regardless of the breed. But no law says a child (or our elderly) must have heat and air. Amazingly, HSUS and their animals rights cohorts have exempted themselves from following any of these regulations. No HUGE space requirements for the shelters, rescues, and humane societies. No mandate for heat and air. Two Chihuahuas will have to have a total pen size of 18 feet by 24 feet!!!! Plus must be exercised daily. No law says how big a child's room must be or how many kids can be stacked in a room. HSUS has one agenda and that is to eliminate animal ownership and animal agriculture no matter how well the animals are cared for. If HSUS truly cared about animals shouldn’t they use more than one-half of one percent of their $134 million annual income to care for animals? There are abusive owners of one dog and excellent owners of 100. Quality of care should matter a lot more than quantity. There are abusive and cruel parents but you don't hear anyone saying they can't have as many as they want regardless of care? Don't you think the animal rights people have their priorities screwed up?
6:44 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Kathy Lahmeyer said:
KAREN STRANGE cares about nothing but making a profit from the mass production of animals! She cares NOTHING about the well being of ANY animal! The only people that oppose Prop B are people that are Directly profiting from the overpopulation of abused animals! FOR EXAMPLE: A) veterinarians(Many of whom have contracts with puppy mills. B) Some dog breeders who breed hundreds or thousands of animals AND C)Some people who are letting themselves be persuaded by A and B that Prop B is a bad thing. You either care about the animals or you care about your own selfish profits and frivolous wants. People who are profiting from the sales from large scale breeding facilities do not want any laws to curtail their profits! Sick and cruel treatment is the norm at these facilities! 1,000 dogs with 10 employees! GO PROP B!
6:46 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
AmyK said:
Before you post on your school newspaper site for the world to see, you might want to do some basic fact checking. Even if I agreed with your argument about Prop B (which I don't), you have so many errors that this is more a comedy piece than serious commentary. First, Sarah McLachlan (you've got the wrong spelling) makes commercials for the ASPCA, not the HSUS. Second, PETA has absolutely NOTHING to do with Prop B. You might hate them - many people do - but they are irrelevant to this issue. Finally, and here is your biggest gaffe of all - donations to the HSUS do not go to Rick Berman. This is NOT what the IRS tax forms say. Rather, Rick Berman, head of the Center for Consumer Freedom, has been working for years to DESTROY the HSUS. The New York Times called the CCF a "fake consumer advocacy group" paid by large tobacco, alcohol, food and agribusiness corporations to run smear campaigns against anyone who threatens their profits. In the past they've targeted Mothers Against Drunk Driving, Center for Science in the Public Interest, and Centers for Disease Control. They are now targeting the HSUS because it is so effective in passing basic protections for farm animals. Missouri is the No. 1 state for puppy mills in the nation. If passed, Prop B would: 1. require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles. 2. prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and 3. create a misdemeanor crime of "puppy mill cruelty" for any violations. At a time when 4 million to 5 million animals are being put to death in animal shelters every year due to lack of homes, Prop B is a reasonable reform. Most breeding dogs in large puppy mills are kept in wire cages their entire lives, bred every cycle, and receive no exercise, socialization or medical care. You show me a puppy miller who has a staff person for every dog, and I'll show you some nice ocean-front property in Missouri. What these people care about is money. This is not to say every breeder operates this way. But Missouri is a haven for those that do. I am appalled that the student newspaper at the best journalism school in the country would publish an opinion piece rife with so many blatantly wrong facts and poorly supported arguments. Just a tiny bit of research online would have revealed these problems.
6:55 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Mary D. said:
First of all lets clariffy what a puppy mill is once and for all. A puppy mill is a mass breeding facility in which the parent dogs are forced to churn out litter after litter of puppies that will be sold through pet stores, over the internet and directly to the unsuspecting public. Profit not the health of the dogs or the breed is the main focus. I went to a puppy mill thinking it was a good breeder and I couldn't tell one breed from another they were so horrible matted and I guarantee you they had never been bathed. There were 10 dogs in each incredible small fenced in area. No protection from the incredible hot summer days we have here and no protection against freezing rains , winds or snow. These dogs never get to feel the joy of grass under their feet or loving hands to hold them. They are feed in two week feeders and rarely touched. So if any vet in Columbia won't sign this Prosposition to help hundreds of dogs in our state in horrible conditions then I question their integrity. Maybe it is because they have their hands in this profitable disgusting business they profits off the misery of dogs who can't speak up against this insanity. Lets get one thing straight here folks MISSOURI IS THE #1 PUPPY MILL CAPITAL IN THE COUNTRY. The entire country views Missouri has the Meth and Puppy Mill Capital. Who wouldn't want stricter laws to be put into effect since the last time the laws were written was 18 years ago as you quoted. I don't care who is behind trying to help these defensely animals I'm for the Proposition. Peta has nothing to do with this and it is an organization made up of hundreds of concerned citizens who are fed up with PUPPY MILLS running wild in our state. I wouldn't have my dog treated by any vet who didn't support this Porposition. We are more educated and aware of puppy mills and FEED UP WITH THEM. This article is so full of lies and deception and obviously written by a bias student who needs to do a great deal more research. I beg students to get involved in this issue and learn more. VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION B. By the way good breeders support this proposition as they want to get rid of the puppy millers to bring some credability to their industry. We should be ashamed Missouri !!!
7:56 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Jack said:
Hey Ryan, A little research should be done before writing a article. Give it a try, then hit us with another article that has some facts.
8:12 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Diane said:
Do you think that a person who owns more than 50 breeding dogs is taking good care of those dogs the way you and I who love our dogs and give them the comforts of our home because they are part of our family? Do you think they run free and have any human contact other than a scream to be quiet (if their vocal cords haven't been singed with a hot poker to silence them forever) and a bit of food (food is money, you know) and water shoved in their cage. Have you gone to see these dog breeding farms? If not, how in the world have you taken it upon yourself to write against Prop B? These breeders don't let you step one foot onto the real production farms. If these breeders have nothing to hide, why don't they welcome these changes to regulations. Voters, just read the proposition. If the regulations seem reasonable to you, Vote for Prop B. Any caring person who isn't out to make a buck on the backs of suffering dogs will Vote Yes Prop B.
9:06 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Caitlin said:
To anyone who is pro-Prop B or who wrote anything bad about this article, you are obviously all mis-informed. Ryan clearly stated at the beginning of his article that he is anti-puppy mill, but that is not what the agenda of this bill is about. The whole point he was trying to make is that the HSUS is ANTI-AGRICULTURE. Which, if anyone would do their research and not give in to the Humane Society trying to tug on your heartstrings by using the term "puppy mill," you would all know. And next time, maybe try to speak more eloquently before you start bashing something you don't know about. The end of animal agriculture in Missouri would be a much larger problem than anyone is ready to tackle. Not to mention the fact that all licensed, responsible breeders would be out of business. Let the laws already in place regulate the puppy mills. And to Craole Pitzer: I happen to be a student in Mizzou's vet school, and let me tell you that limited breeding facilities would not be a huge problem for veterinarians. The agenda of the HSUS is the real problem: the decline of the animal agriculture industry in Missouri has already begun taking its toll, on veterinarians and farmers alike, and I would hate to see what would happen if it completely disappeared. And M. Moriarty: I think you need to check your facts. I can tell you from experience that Kirkwood Animal Hospital is very much ANTI Prop B. So please educate yourselves before you start spouting off opinions and miss the whole point of the article. Obviously veterinarians are not pro-cruelty, they are pro-agriculture and anti-HSUS. VOTE NO ON PROP B!
9:10 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Nancy said:
So many of you are more inclined to jump on a young journalist for a few mistakes (which he corrected) and yet you never say a word to paid journalists who have made much worse mistakes in stories based on hearsay without even attempting to research facts on their own. As written now, this article is factual. HSUS is no friend to animals or people. They knowingly do more harm than good to animals and pocket donations taken in based on lies and deceit without losing a night's sleep over it. HSUS may not personally kill healthy animals, but they have advocated for it to be done many times without a word's encouragement to try to rehabilitate them first...even newborn pups and pups as young as 2 weeks old. PETA has killed over 27,000 animals, most of whom were adoptable and healthy. They have more blood on their hands than any shelter in the U.S. Let's not overlook those of you who are blaming breeders for dogs and pups in shelters. Here's a thought. Should the blame really be placed on the owners who put the dogs there? The owners who didn't bother to do any research into what type or age of dog/puppy might fit into their lifestyle? How big would the puppy grow up to be? Is it a breed that is known to be good with children or a highstrung breed that would be better with adults? Will it be a very energetic breed suited to a family who is into jogging, biking and other things the dogs can do with them to burn excess energy? Will it be a quiet breed more suited to a family or person who has a more relaxed lifestyle? Those are questions you need to ask whether you get your pet from a breeder, a shelter or a pet shop. YOU know yourself family, and lifestyle better than any pet outlet operator or breeder or shelter worker. They have to rely on the fact that you are giving truthful information on what will fit your lifestyle as much as you depend on them to be honest in what pets they have to offer. M. Moriarty gave good descriptions of animal abuse. What he/she failed to point out was that it was a description of a minority of breeders as well as a minority of pet OWNERS. He/she also left out that there are already state AND federal laws addressing those abuses. They need to be ENFORCED. You cannot judge every breeder and owner by the acts of a few. How many of you who are quoting HSUS statistics have ever asked for verification of the numbers of ANYTHING they say? How many of you have attended council meetings in your area to see that it's the breeders who not only discuss facts, but bring proof of research to PROVE the facts from peer reviewed research? HSUS brings in their 'paid experts' who will spin facts in any direction they are paid to do so, but they off nothing in actual non-biased research by firms with no vested interest in the outcome. Many figures they quote are pulled directly from their nether regions with NO basis in fact. The difference between HSUS 'experts' and this young journalist is that he corrected his mistakes.
9:45 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Kim said:
In a clean but crowded puppy mill that I was in more than one time, the owner told me that she made $30,000 at her last auction. THIRTY THOUSAND DOLLARS! How long does it take you to make that kind of money? She did it in one day. Then she went to Europe for a month long vacation while her ONE grossly underpaid helper took care of the remaining 150 dogs... for a month... by herself. Yeah, that's responsible breeding. That is gluttony and greed pure and simple.
10:01 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Kim S said:
Shame, shame, shame on you! How can anyone be opposed to animals receiving only the basic, humane care? Room to move around, actual exercise out of a cage, proper medical care, rest between breeding, and shelter from the elements. I currently foster with a group that pulls dogs out of the puppy mill system ... I know personally the mental and emotional scars these dogs still suffer. And I know for a fact that the auctioneer will brag when he has a VIRGIN dog ready to be bought.
10:11 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Mark A. Landers said:
What kind people in any society would give rights to domesticated canines that would trump the needless death of human babies or the horror of human children getting their faces torn off? What kind of a society would allow a "beleif system" to be created that would encourage these tragedies? Why aren't the people responsible for creating this "belief system" and the people promoting this "belief system" held accountable? If you actually buy into "this belief system" that dogs are not domesticated canines but rather some "special" entity with "special" rights like "little kids in fur suits" then why support Prop B 's "unfetted access to the outdoors" which will be reponsible for the gruesome deaths of many domisticated canines? Why would you ask veterinarians to support Prop B when it will kill dogs? Please before you parrot more of the Animal Rights Industry's "belief system", google dog bite or dog maulings images. Hopefully these will satisfy the need for emotionally reactive images. If you need more emotionally reactive images look into the faces of the victims of fatal maulings by domesticated canines on the net. Then check out the sites on dog bite prevention and ponder that most deaths and maulings by domesticated canines are preventable. Dogs are simply domesticated canines and therefore behave like domesticated canines. This does not mean we should treat any animal abusively. There are already laws on the books to prevent animal abuse. This does not mean domesticated canines (or any other domesticated species) can't be a good pet animals if bred for that purpose. It does not mean domesticated canines can not be excellent gaurdian, exhibition, hunting, working, etc. animals if bred for that purpose. But by promoting a belief system that dogs are "little kids in fur suits" or anything other than another species of domesticated animal then it is my opinion you are in part responsible for every one of those images I've asked you to view. Would not the money spent on getting Prop B before the people this fall have been better used in enforcing the existing laws both federal and state. USDA and State licensing standards are based on science rather than a "belief system". Please think of the children and the dogs that will die if Prop B passes before you vote on Prop B this fall. I realize this is an emotionally reactive issue, please try and set emotions aside and think rationally before voting this fall. Thank you for taking the time to read my comment and viewing the images I referenced.
11:12 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Brigid said:
Mr. Schuessler, you evidently flunked your Logic class. The “slippery slope” argument (If A leads to B, and B leads to C, then A surely will lead to C) is a logical fallacy. That means, Mr. Schuessler, limiting a breeder to 50 dogs WILL NOT invariably lead to restrictions on farm animals, as you claim. Do your homework, Mr. Schuessler.
11:22 p.m., Aug. 31, 2010
Leanne Fritsch said:
Where to begin? Many others have already addressed your errors, use of incorrect information and lack of support for your arguments. But to reiterate, PETA has nothing to do with Prop B so your rant about that organization is irrelevant. Also, your statement Prop B "is completely designed by the Humane Society of the United States" is false; Humane Society of MO, Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation and ASPCA all have joined HSUS in this effort. Your claim the current law--Animal Care Facilities Act (ACFA) has almost everything Prop B does is also untrue. 1. Current regulations allow dogs to be caged their entire lives in cages only 6" taller, longer and wider than the animal. Prop B would increase the size of the enclosures and require the dogs BE LET OUT OF THEIR CAGE daily. 2. ACFA provides no consequences for violations no matter how many or how often they are repeated, inspection after inspection, year after year. The only penalty the state and federal agencies can impose is revocation of a license and according to both MO Dept of Ag and USDA, this action takes a minimum of 1 to 3 years. Thus, all that time the kennel is allowed to remain in business and the animals continue to be abused/neglected. Prop B creates the misdemeanor crime of puppy mill cruelty--a Class C misdemeanor unless someone has previously pled guilty or been found guilty of violating the act, then it is a Class A misdemeanor. Every violation is a separate offense. This also allows law enforcment to get involved rather than only MO Dept of Ag or USDA as it is now so inspectors will no longer be solely responsible for "enforcement." Those are just 2 of the major changes/improvements Prop B will make to the existing regulations. As others have said, dogs are not livestock and ACFA allows them to be treated as such. Dogs are companion animals as commercial breeders know all too well as they hypocritically sell their offspring as "cherished family pets." To those of you who think the current regulations are sufficent---do you think it's acceptable (let alone humane), to keep dogs caged their entire lives in cages only 6" taller, longer and wider than the dogs or allow kennels with numerous violations, many of them repeats, to continue to stay in business and mistreat animals for 1 to 3 years as the adminstrative law process is pursued? If you don't think those situations are okay then you have to admit the current regulations are not sufficient.
midnight, Sept. 1, 2010
KathGerman said:
This article is full of sloppy mistakes. The writer should do some real research and get to the bottom of the businesses that are really funding the opposition to Prop B. And that includes some of the most horrific puppy mills in Missouri. Take a look at the photo on this site. Yes, those are dogs in those tiny cages, and the facility is current licensed by the Missouri Department of Agriculture: http://yesonpropb.com/about/sick-puppies
12:01 a.m., Sept. 1, 2010
Jenny Thrasher said:
First of all, I am rigidly opposed to Prop B, and not because I own a kennel or am profitting off the backs of abused animals. I stand nothing to lose or gain with the passage of Prop B. If the current regulations aren't being enforced now, how is adding more laws going to help? Let's put this clearly in context: adding more regulations to those licensed professionals who are already adhering to current law won't put the criminals out of business. It will have no effect whatsoever on them- they will continue to abuse and neglect dogs. The proponents of Prop B are going to catch a heck of a lot more dolphins in their nets than tuna, because the other people that Prop B is really going to hit are those hobby and show breeders, the "responsible breeders", who have 10 unspayed females, or more. What the public doesn't realize is that it is common practice to keep puppies till they are 6 months or older in order to determine if they are truly show potential. Since spayed and neutered dogs can't be shown, a responsible breeder may find themselves with several show potential female puppies, the mother dog, a few older girls that are too old to undergo surgery, maybe a few rescues that haven't been spayed yet, and then a former puppy buyer finds themselves in a bad life situation or dies, and the dog needs to go back to the breeder. Suddenly, the responsible breeder finds themselves at the "magical" number 10, and has to move all the dogs out of the house, and build a kennel in order to get licensed, spending tens of thousands of dollars they don't have even though they have several show homes lined up and waiting for those show potential puppy girls, the appointment for the rescues to be spayed is a week away, and a pet home has just filled out an application for the returned female dog. This amendment would snag that responsible breeder in a heartbeat, and they would lose all their dogs and be charged with the crime of "Puppy Mill Cruelty", which would create a police record for a law abiding citizen who may only breed one litter every other year. Does that sound appropriate? Does that sound like a puppy mill situation the proponents of Prop B are pushing this amendment to prevent? There are SO many other real life situations that are neither abusive nor neglectful that will cause good, responsible breeders harm, and will pull happy healthy animals out of loving homes and put them in the shelter system. Is that what the proponents of Prop B intend to happen?
12:10 a.m., Sept. 1, 2010
Jenny Thrasher said:
Shame, shame, shame on anyone who comments on or is in favor of Prop B without knowing all the facts surrounding every aspect of pet breeding in the State of Missouri! Prop B has nothing to do with ensuring that dogs receive "basic, humane care", and everything to do with the HSUS coming in to our state to lie and deceive the public with a generic law that will devastate good people and happy animals. Missouri is only the Puppy Mill Capitol this year- California, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Tennessee, Virginia, Oklahoma, and many other states have had that name applied to them when the exact same law as Prop B was being pushed by the HSUS in those states too. For the past 2 years, I have extensively studied the current laws and regulations on the books in the State of Missouri. There are 11 different Statutes (laws) that detail specifically the punishments for every conceivable act of abuse, neglect, or violation of state regulations concerning the welfare of dogs in Missouri. The penalties range in strength from a fined offense to Class C and D Felonies. In comparing Prop B to what is already enforceable regulation and law, the only 2 things that Prop B would accomplish are limiting the number of breeding dogs MALE AND FEMALE to 50, and placing the State between the owner of the dogs and their Vet. Hobby and show breeders frequently participate in rescue, and are quite experienced in a variety of medical treatments that pertain to breed specific issues. They are in constant contact with their vets, but Prop B would raise the cost of legitimate rescue by requiring that these folks take the rescued dog to the vet for ongoing treatment, like an ear infection, every time medicine had to be administered. Read Prop B and find out what responsible breeders actually do in a day's work before voting yes. Prop B will hurt far more dogs than it will help.
12:13 a.m., Sept. 1, 2010
Jenny Thrasher said:
"And I know for a fact that the auctioneer will brag when he has a VIRGIN dog ready to be bought." Is that kind of like the Humane Society of Missouri bragging that they have a new shipment of "Puppy Mill dogs" ready to be bought?
4:58 a.m., Sept. 1, 2010
Dr_Rosset said:
All one needs to know is that Wayne Pacelle has vowed to end all domesticated animals on this planet. One generation and out we have no problem with the extinction of all domesticated animals. The laws on the books are there it is a problem of enforcement. Animal rights zealots complain constantly about every breeder. I have been to their workshops where they tell their volunteers its alright to lie and misrepresent the facts to get to their ultimate goal of eliminating all domesticated animals. There is no legal definition of a puppy mill. And animal righters know that by limiting the number of dogs you can own will automatically reduce the gene pool and notice the hate toward people who try to breed better dogs. Most of these responses in favor of the proposition are regularly paid HSUS staff whose only job is to secure your signature on a document that will force your state into bankruptcy and prevent you from deciding on your pet and what you want for your pet. LA enacted these laws and their shelter killing rates skyrocketed. These people are anti human and anti animal."My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." JP Goodwin, employed at the Humane Society of the US, In their workshops the people call all Missourians rubes and rednecks not because you raise animals, but because they believe they can fool you into passing laws that harm animals in the long run and your right to own a pet or raise livestock.
8:30 a.m., Sept. 1, 2010
Susan said:
All this young jouralisim student needs to do is make a short trip to Mexico MO to see first hand an example of one of Missouri's puppy mills. Dogs covered with feces,matted fur,covered with sores and many with behavior problems. These poor animals need a voice. VOTE YES on PROP B!!!!
9:52 a.m., Sept. 1, 2010
lisab said:
Laughing at Karen Strange for aligning herself with this idiot writer! Seems to me like she was the source of his misinformation. It's the same old song and dance by the puppy mill lobby. Obviously they are in the minority and will be losing this battle in MO, as they have in states across the country.
10:21 a.m., Sept. 1, 2010
John said:
I watch Glenn Beck every episode, so I know what is going on with this isue. Prop B is sooo anti-angriculture. Obama and his cohorts are trying to manipulate the voters in MO by establishing communist dumbocrats in PETA, humane society, and any organization for liberal agendas. PETA will make every one of us eat vegetables fo the rest of our lives. I will vote no on prop B, because I am tired of people telling me what I can and can't do. If I wanna have a puppy mill and have 500 dogs at one time, then I can. i need money anyways. Vote GOP!
11:16 a.m., Sept. 1, 2010
Tom Grady said:
Although the Prob B could stand to include some stiffer penalties - as is the case for other bills in other states could - it is a good step in the right direction. As far as the 50-dog limit goes - in other states bills have been introduced without such as limit and the same folks are still against the new laws. It's a matter of greed and profit - versus compassion for animals. If we read the bill and others like it, we see there merely basic minimums applied for the basic health and welfare needs of the dogs. That's it. I would hate to be on the side of the fences arguing AGAINST compassion for animals. And of course, the good breeders across the state and nation already meet or exceed the standards in Prop B, so they will NOT be impacted by it. We do need more national standards - such as required annual inspections and a ban on the sale of puppies younger than 10 weeks old. For more on the topic of puppy mills, go to http://packmentality.wordpress.com/.
12:05 p.m., Sept. 1, 2010
Nancy said:
I thought Missouri was known as the "Show me state". How many of YOU have asked HSUS and MHS to show you the proof of the numbers they claim make Missouri "The Puppy Mill Capitol"? How many of you have asked to see how much revenue is brought into the state through breeders, vets, groomers, pet supply stores, pet food manufacturers, dog shows (Did you know commericial breeders have and sponsor dog shows too?) and how much the state stands to lose in that revenue with passage of Prop B? How many of you have read both state and federal regulations regarding housing, vetting, care, and abuse and compared it to Prop B? If you did that, you would find out that if current laws were enforced, abusive breeders AND abusive owners would be gone. If you continue to buy into rhetoric and lies you may as well change the motto from "Show Me State" to "Show me the closest feel good bandwagon to jump on without researching facts state" Might be a problem fitting that one on your license plates. If you still have pets in your homes and meat, cheese, milk, and other nutritious food on your plates 10 years from now, thank breeders, vets, farmers, and others who have done research and fought on your behalf against things like Prop B, "Puppy Mill Bills", BSL, MSN, and Pet Limits being pushed by people like Wayne Pacelle who 'has no hands on fondness for animals and would like to 'not see another dog or cat born' (HSUS) and Ingrid Newkirk (PETA) who believes pets are 'better dead than owned' and JP Goodwin who said "My goal is the abolition of all animal agriculture." (HSUS) Those are the people behind Prop B (endorsed by PETA as well) and the people you are allowing to come into the state to incrementally follow their beliefs with your blessing.
12:43 p.m., Sept. 1, 2010
Nancy said:
For those of you who doubt that your farm industry will be affected by passing Prop B regarding dog owners, will you still feel as strongly when HSUS SHOWS you that after dog breeders are 'taken care of' your farmers are next on their hit list? Iowa, you neighbor to the north was hit with one of these puppy mill bills this past spring. Guess who came up on HSUS radar right afterward? Hog, cattle, and chicken farmers. Ask OH, IN, CA, FL, and many other states what animal industries are or have been under fire in their states? Three years ago I would have been on your same bandwagon for things like Prop B. Since then I have learned to research and read every bill in it's entirety before voting for or against it to find what good it will do or what damage it will cause. What these things have done in other states was to allow animal control and police to enter private property, not by warrant in many cases, but because they BELIEVE you MIGHT being doing something illegal or simply because someone complained with no proof you did anything wrong. People are finding out the hard way (a little too late for some) that these laws are taking away our 4th and 14th amendment rights to own animals, to be safe in our homes, to be guilty until PROVEN innocent. It is not just breeders who are affected by these laws. It's also pet OWNERS. If you have 2 dogs, 2 cats and 2 goldfish and a pet limit law says you can have 3 pets total, no grandfathering for those who are above that number, 3 of your pets have to be given up or you are a criminal. If a breeder has 51 dogs, 75, or 100 if this passes, regardless of how well they may be cared for, the overage are gone to shelters or the breeder risks losing ALL their animals. Think about this: IF MO truly does have as many licensed (and unlicensed) breeders as is being claimed by the HSUS, and those animals over the limit of 50 have to be given up, how many shelters will be needed to take in the massive number of dogs who already had a home but will have one no longer? How many of those animals will be killed for lack of room, not health reasons? Do you follow Ingrid Newkirk's belief better dead than owned? Be careful what you vote for folks. Without researching and checking facts, you can and will condemn healthy animals to death by asking for too much all at once. How much will it cost the state to house or kill all the dogs this Proposition will render homeless? Wouldn't it be better to work towards a goal of more funding for more inspectors and enforcement of current welfare laws? Wouldn't it be better to work towards goals like responsible ownership of ALL animals, of owner education and low cost S/N programs for those who can't afford high vet fees? Finding ways to help animals without hurting innocent people while ferreting out abusive ones is a better goal than the animal rights goal of no more pets or food animals.
1:45 p.m., Sept. 1, 2010
Lindsey said:
If you are a "good" breeder, then this bill shouldn't bother you at all. You would essentially already be complying with the elements of this bill, if it were passed by voters. Yes, there are regulations in place, and yes the programs aimed at enforcing these regulations are underfunded...PERHAPS, because there is an explosion of horrific breeding operations in this state and it is virtually impossible to keep up with the growing number of bad breeders. As a former journalist myself, I've been with the Missouri Ag Department when they go to good breeders, and I've been with the Ag Department when they shut down the bad ones. The conditions at the bad breeders are beyond horrific in sight and smell, and that's from a human perspective. Imagine living in it. Not to mention the long-term behavioral effects on these dogs. I adopted two dogs. One was just a stray who was found on a playground, he was a perfectly well-adjusted puppy and loved his toys and people. The other was a sweet little girl who was used to breed in a puppy mill. She was very very shy, often shook when she heard loud noises, and took months before she was comfortable with us...and with eating food. No bill will ever be comprehensive enough to address the numerous problems with dog-breeding and its subsequent effects. That's not to say there aren't good breeders who mean well, but with anything that's easy money, dog-breeding and selling dogs attracts a dark side too. Prop B is a step in the right direction, as it directly limits the market. This journalism student purports that Prop B will not address those "rescue" operations in the state that simply "collect" dogs to sell them to east-coast pet shops. He's wrong. By limiting the breeding operations, it limits the supply, and thus limits the dogs available for "collection" by "rescues." Prop B indirectly regulates such "rescues" and cuts their supply, and therefore their potential for income. I welcome anyone to watch the documentary "Dealing Dogs." Its a poignant illustration of exactly how the problem in Missouri is fueling problems in other states. I welcome the columnist to watch it as well. Good effort trying to write an op-ed piece, I suggest you go to the source and see the problem first-hand and check your facts better next time. Vote for Prop B in November.
2:26 p.m., Sept. 1, 2010
daniel said:
The hypocrisy of those on the pro side of the animal welfare issue is completely evident in WHO this bill if passed affects. This bill EXEMPTS those on the pro side of animal welfare, e.g. Shelters, rescue groups from the very laws they are trying to get passed. Since this proposed bill is "supposed" to be for the welfare of the animals why are shelters,rescue groups,etc EXEMPT? Their facilities should not only be liable under the same law, but they should already be leading the way and in full compliance with this bill THEY invented!
6:18 p.m., Sept. 1, 2010
Jacob said:
Thank you Lindsay! I personally know good breeders within my area, and they have said that they would not be affected by this bill. Why? They are good breeders. This hysteria caused by opponents only causes voter ignorance. As someone who has volunteered for shelters, I can say that Prop B is a must have. There have been countless times where I have had to deal with the products of bad breeders. Dogs would come in with serious mental and health conditions. You can see every bone, and the dogs are shaken by the sights of other barking dogs and humans. Once again, good breeders will not be harmed. They already pay attention to the rules. This is a step in the right direction, for justice. Please vote YES for prop B.
2:29 a.m., Sept. 2, 2010
Kim said:
Daniel (2:26pm 9-1-10) rescues and shelters are exempt because we aren't breeding dogs. Simple, right?
8:38 a.m., Sept. 2, 2010
Debbie said:
Been following this thread, I have a question AGAIN that no one so far has addressed. Why doesn't the HSUS want to protect hunting dogs with this bill??READ THE BILL, hunting dogs are not covered by PROP B!! That's over 70 breeds reconized by the AKC, plus several other breeds from the UKC regestry. They will still suffer neglect and/or abuse, many of them have big litter, 10-12 puppies is not unusal for hounds or Labs, they will still fill the shelters, I have to think the HSUS is trying a divide and conquer thing here, first the little pet dogs, then the bigger hunting dogs, then no dogs left-- How many shelters could pass this proposed law? Every go to one and look around, smell the odor, check the over crowed conditions? check out the condition of the dogs and cats? Many shelters are worse than the so called "puppy mills" they want to shut down!
12:11 p.m., Sept. 2, 2010
Fred said:
If you are going to write an article, get your facts straight. We all make typo's but this article has blatant errors. Rick Berman and Wayne Pacelle aren't exactly best friends, nor do they work together. I suggest a re-do and greater accountability.
9:37 p.m., Sept. 2, 2010
Hillary, HSUS said:
@Debbie - Hunting breeds as a whole are not exempt, only dogs who are specifically bred for hunting. Prop B is targeted toward breeding dogs whose puppies are sold to the pet trade – some 200,000 dogs in Missouri. The ballot initiative isn't designed to address animal shelters, where dogs are typically kept only for a few days or weeks.
9:54 p.m., Sept. 2, 2010
Nancy said:
Debbie, Do you really want to know why they're exempt? Think about it. How many raids do you see done on breeders with large breed dogs? Hunting dogs or otherwise? Very, very few. Not because those breeders necessarily care for their dogs any better or worse than any other breeder. It's because they aren't easily placed like the small breeds are. HSUS has no interest in them. Not yet anyway. They'll still be wanting donations and if they manage to run all the small breed breeders out of business, you can bet the large breeds will be next. As for good breeders thinking Prop B won't affect them since they already take good care of their dogs, a lot of good breeders in other states thought the same thing...until they came for them. HSUS doesn't need proof to take them, they carry proof in plastic bags with them to make sure they can find proof no matter who they raid. People never learn from anyone's mistakes but their own. I hope for the sake of MO that Prop B doesn't pass. If it does don't blame anyone for saying I told you so when you find out how much damage it will do to your state. Not just with dogs, but when they move on to your farmers..and they will.
2:18 a.m., Sept. 3, 2010
Tom said:
@daniel: shelters and rescues aren't pumping out puppies for profit. They also are required to spay/neuter before adopting out. Some commercial breeders expect rescues and shelters to take their dogs when they're finished with them/can no longer breed and deal with all their health issues, both physical and mental. The breeders have made $$$$$ on the breeding dogs and get to dump all the problems onto the rescues unless they choose to destroy the dogs instead of release them to rescues whose concern is the dog, not the puppies and $$$$ they can provide. The rescues who take in the breeding dogs deemed useless by the breeders amass huge vet bills to provide these dogs medical care they've been deprived of for years and attempt to give them a chance to know love and life as a companion animal instead of a breeding machine. I hear the breeders claim how wonderful and healthy their puppies are but what about the breeding dogs? They are the ones sentenced to a life no dog should have to live; the sole purpose of the breeding dogs for commercial breeders is to pump out puppies and bring in $$$$. It sure isn't to provide them with any quality of life.
11:08 a.m., Sept. 4, 2010
YES to Prop B said:
12,000 dogs are euthanised DAILY in the US. Breeding any dog is unethical at this point. House up the dogs we have now before you make more!
1:38 a.m., Sept. 6, 2010
Kara said:
I have been reading these comments and actually cannot believe, that normal, supposedly sensible people are buying into the lies put out by the H$U$ and it's affiliates. First, let's take Tom's comments, "shelters and rescues....are required to spay/neuter before adopting out." Are you serious?!?! Shelters and rescues are in no way REQUIRED TO SPAY/NEUTER dogs, they are actually not required to do anything they don't want to. Most shelters and rescues send dogs home with 'certificates' to local vets to get their dogs spayed or neutered. You are just supposed to send 'proof' that it was done, where's their expense in that? I went to my local Humane Society in Springfield to adopt a cat and you want to talk about horrible conditions!! Every cat in the place was in a STACK CAGE with several cats to a cage. They were all in some stage of an upper respitory illness. From sneezing to laying near death with running eyes and noses and vomiting. One of the shelter workers kept trying to encourage me to take a certain cat, when I asked why? She said 'he had just came in that day and hadn't had a chance to get sick yet!' When I asked what they were doing for the cats, she looked at me like I was insane and laughing said "NOTHING, THEY ARE ALL GOING TO DIE ANYWAY!!!" I ran out of there, I don't even want to think what the dogs looked like. So tell me, if they are so supportive of animals receiving all the things that they are trying to require of breeders, why don't they have to practice what they preach? Why not follow the new regulations themselves? Even though they want to make using stack cages a crime for a breeder, they will still be free to use them. Even though they want all breeders' dogs to have unfettered access to outdoor pens 10 times the size of the dog with limitless exercise, they don't have to comply to these standards. Even though they want breeders to take their dogs to the veterinarian for a broken toenail or a runny nose, they will let 100 cats lay in their cages in misery and die with out taking them to the vet or giving them medication. Even though they want to restrict a breeders' right to free enterprise, they want to continue to be able to SELL their dogs "free and unfettered". I don't care if you agree with me or not, I don't care if you cry foul that "all shelters aren't like that!!" You know what, ALL BREEDERS ARE NOT PUPPY MILLS!!! I complained to the MO Dept of Ag and am proud to say, that something was done. Unfortunately, not in time to save any of those poor cats, but the MO Dept of Ag did their job. Two weeks after I was there, it was reported in the news that "Tragically, all the cats at the Southwest Missouri Humane Society had to be euthanized due to upper respitory disease." Wonder how that would have read if it had been a breeder?
2:06 a.m., Sept. 6, 2010
kara said:
Now, let's address Leanne Fritsch's comments. Where to begin? As with a lot of the others on here, you shouldn't talk about things you know nothing about. Someone that makes claims, should at least have a basic knowledge of what is going on. 1.Size requirements: "6 inches taller, longer and wider than the dog..." Actually, that is a HSUS lie!! The actual requirement for indoor floor space, is the measurement of the dog in inches, from the tip of the nose to the base of the tail + 6, multiplied by the length of the dog + 6 divided by 144, equals the required square feet for each dog. Thus a 25 inch dog's room is measured 31 times 31 divided by 144 to get 6.68 square feet. They have to have at least 6 inches of space above the head of the highest dog in the enclosure, while in a standing position. Breeders are also required to exercise their dogs according to a program developed with their veterinarian. 2. "State and Federal agencies can only revoke license." Actually, the MO Dept of Ag, can and does have the ability to fine, shut down and confiscate dogs. They do this job every year. They can also ensure that cruelty charges are brought against the worst cases. 3. "Dogs are not Livestock". While we love our dogs and they can become members of our families. They are property and they are listed as "LIVESTOCK" on my property taxes. I pay property taxes on my dogs every year. The state considers them livestock and we are charged as such. I realize, that the HSUS and it's affiliates, would like to pass Prop B so that I would have to house my dogs better than people do their children, but they are still property!! When this goes through will I then be able to claim all my dogs as dependents? If I am going to have to follow stricter laws than are in place for CHILDREN, I should be able to claim them as such. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B
2:16 a.m., Sept. 6, 2010
Kara said:
"Kim (2:29, 9-2-10) rescues and shelters are exempt because we aren't breeding dogs. Simple, right?" So what you're saying, is that the dogs in shelters and rescues don't deserve the same consideration and humane care that breeding dogs do? That you should not have to provide them with clean water and food daily. That they don't deserve unfettered exercise, climate controlled living space and the room to "lie down and fully extend his or her limbs" with protection from the elements. That a shelter dog doesn't care if it is still stuck in a stack cage? Wow, that sounds pretty heartless to me, right? VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION B!!!
2:23 a.m., Sept. 6, 2010
Kara said:
And to M.Moriarty. The Missouri Veternary Medical Association has actually come out against Proposition B, so that should tell you all something about this Proposition. Maybe you should go to their website and read what they have to say, that should answer your question as to why any Veterinarian would be against Proposition B!!
10:29 p.m., Sept. 6, 2010
Marinashane said:
Wow... how I LOVE to see the puppy millers getting all riled up & scared! Prop B is needed legislation in Missouri. Anyone who thinks that Prop B will lead to the desimation of farming in Missouri is crazy. The only effect it will have will be on BAD DOG BREEDERS. It doesn't effect pet stores, hunting dogs or breeders with under 50 dogs. It does NOT effect farming or animals raised for food. I'm SO Glad to see it has all of you puppy millers shaking in your boots! Missourians are SICK of turning on the news to sick, diseased dog rescues coming from your mills. Prop B had over an 80% approval BEFORE we started the petition drive. This bills gonna pass on November 2, 2010. VOTE YES ON B!
11:02 a.m., Sept. 8, 2010
Kara said:
So Marinashane, what you're saying is a bad dog breeder is ANYONE with over 50 dogs. That's your definition of a puppy mill? Actually, again you animal activists',who are trying to mislead the public, are doing it again. It specifically says that it AFFECTS ANY BREEDER WITH OVER 10 DOGS!!! So how does that not affect anyone with under 50 dogs? I love the fact that someone with 9 dogs can treat them like dirt as far as you are concerned, but get 51 and you are a puppy mill, no matter how clean and well cared for. I am all for shutting down bad kennels, show me where in this Proposition that is going to happen? Puppy Mills are unregulated, unlicensed people hiding their dogs away. The state doesn't even know where they are, so what makes you think they will now follow another new law when they don't follow the old ones? Proposition B has no provisions in place to track these people down. So they will actually be the only ones left still raising dogs in this state. And your 80% approval, ha, what a joke. So you polled 100 animal activists in a major city and asked them if they were against puppy mills, duh!!! Could of seen that result coming!! The only people that are going to be affected by this bill are the ones that try their hardest to follow the law and do what they are supposed to, so you will effectively shut down the resposible breeders in Missouri and all that will be left are the unregulated breeders who don't have to answer to anyone. We have a program in place to shut down puppy mills already and it IS WORKING. You said yourself, you're tired of turning on the news and seeing all those sick dogs coming from mills. They wouldn't be on there if they weren't shutting them down!! What this will do is cost this state MILLIONS in revenue and cost Missourians THOUSANDS of jobs. It will leave Missouri farmers open to bombardment from the HSUS. And if you don't believe that, just ask the egg producers in California!!
1:18 a.m., Sept. 9, 2010
Marinashane said:
See.... Just like I said... ALL RILED UP Cause you puppy millers are going to LOSE this fight!!!! :):):) And FYI... I never said that ANYONE with over 50 dogs was my definition of a puppy mill. A puppy mill is a substandard dog breeding facility. It doesn't matter whether they have 5 or 250 if they are bad breeders. The 80% pre-approval petitioning is no joke.... It's A FACT! Here's another BANNER FACT for you to digest.... OVER 190,000 Registered voters signed the petition to put prop B on the ballot. That's twice the amount neccessary!!! So even if you want to try to live in a state of denial regarding the pre-polling....you can't forget that 190,000 signature fact! (And BTW.... those signatures are not all from the cities. 6 out of nine congressional districts had to attain a minimum of 20,000-25,000 signatures per district). People that are good breeders should actually support this bill. If they really ARE good breeders.... they should already be going above & beyond what is called for in Prop B already! problem is, the greedy money hungry jerks that treat dogs like THINGS instead of living beings can't clear as much profit. Prop B won't shut down the resposible breeders in Missouri.... what it WILL DO is help get rid of all the bad apples! The ACFA (Animal Care Facilities Act) was a good start 18 years ago when there was NO legislation at all. But it is NOT ENOUGH and if it was working the way it should then there would not be the constant barrage of puppy mill raids & rescues on the news all the time. Missouri has over 1800 liscensed breeders. The next closet state is Oklahoma with just over 500. Only 10 states have more than 50 & most states have less than 25. Why so many commercial breeders in Missouri? It's because our laws are TERRIBLE & Bad Breeders can get away with cruelty beyond belief. THE NUMBERS DON"T LIE!!!! Prop B will also do the one thing that can help shut puppy mills down.... makes it a CRIME with some jail time for offenders. Right now mills get fined, pay the fines & go on with business as usual. The 'fines' are just a part of doing business for them! And you kidding yourself if you think these mills are employing a huge workforce! Wow... 1 person to care for every 100+ dogs! What a joke! Take a look at the Schindler Puppy mIll in Mexico Missouri Over 1000 dogs & only 10 employees. That establishment has been fined year after year. They drive the media off their property cause they are ASHAMED to let the public see inside their establishment! Like I said before....This bills gonna pass on November 2, 2010. VOTE YES ON B!
2:20 p.m., Sept. 9, 2010
kara said:
I will not do this back and forth, it gets nowhere. The facts are out there for anyone to find, IF they want the truth. The fact is this Proposition has no provisions in place to find the puppy mills and shut them down. The puppy mills are already breaking the law, putting new ones in place will not make them change their ways. They just won't have anymore competition. It will only affect the responsible, licensed breeders that have spent thousands of dollars to build facilities that meet the current requirements. What this proposition does is make the size requirements for pens so ridiculous that all the current facilities will have to be gutted and re-done. This will cost breeders tens of thousands of dollars, that in this economy, will just be too devastating for most people. There are double deck buildings that cost thousands of dollars. These buildings are built to specific requirements and absolutely NOTHING FROM THE DOGS ABOVE FALL ON THE DOGS BELOW. THERE ARE DIVIDERS AND WASHDOWNS BETWEEN THE ANIMALS. But because of the wording in the Proposition, no dog could be stacked above the other. So technically, these buildings are breaking the law and have to be done away with. If it wanted to be fair and punish puppy mills it would outlaw "Stack Cages" which are small portable cages that do not protect the dogs below, which are what you see on tv when they raid these facilities. The wording is too broad and that is how it will hurt responsible breeders. It would limit breeders to only 50 dogs, who came up with that number? Who says that if you only have 10 you must be a good person, so we won't regulate you? We do have a regulation already that states you have to have 1 employee to every 50 dogs. If the Humane Society of the United States and it's affiliates were not trying to play on peoples emotions, they wouldn't put ridiculous clauses like "providing food and water" in the Proposition at all. People will sign a petition with that kind of wording, who wouldn't!!! My goodness, we should make them feed and water their dogs!! Of course, the fact that we already have a law that states that and resposible breeders follow it, was not on the petition anywhere. As far as 190,000 signatures on a petiton full of misleading facts, in a state with a population of near 6 million, I'm not sure I would claim victory just yet. We all have a voice and we all get a say. I would just ask that the citizens of Missouri take the time to read up on the facts and find out for themselves what the truth is. You can go to many websites, the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, The American Kennel Club, there are numerous state officials who have statements on their websites, go to the Missouri Dept of Ag and read the regulations we already have in place. Just please please be informed before you vote and don't be mislead by the ridiculous wording on the ballot.
2:27 p.m., Sept. 9, 2010
kara said:
We don't allow the media into our facilities because they are notorious for playing for ratings and not playing fair with breeders. They want to sensationalize the issue for viewers not show the truth. I don't personally know the facility that you are talking about, so I won't comment on them. But I will say you are completely false in your statements about the laws. Actually, Missouri has some of the toughest breeding laws in the country!! And if they weren't working, you wouldn't keep seeing all those dogs being confiscated on the news, that just proves it is working!!! Go read them, that's all I ask of the voters, be informed before you vote. The cost to the Missouri economy is going to be far reaching and devastating. The estimated cost to enforce these new regulations is an estimated $450,000-550,000.00 a year. Where is that money going to come from? The MO Dept of Ag is already struggling to pay inspectors to enforce the laws we already have. Now they will have to come up with more money for training and more enforcement. Besides the time spent trying to figure out the wording and all it applies to. In the words of the director of the ACFA, 'this is a train wreck waiting to happen!' These are just the facts not emotions, this is going to affect thousands of peoples lives and that should be taken into consideration, BEFORE you vote. Please just be informed and don't be mis-lead by the ridiculous wording on the ballot. Vote yes if you feel this is the right thing to do, but don't vote yes just because someone tells you you're a bad person and don't love dogs if you don't. A NO vote is not against dogs, it's just using a little common sense.
12:12 a.m., Sept. 14, 2010
DG said:
I've read quite a bit on here, Humane Society's page and many others over the years, I will say stacking more laws on top of the ones in place and essentially doubling them won't do any good unless we actually make an attempt to enforce the laws currently in affect. You see something on the news or in the paper about this facility was illegal or whatever, most that they make that claim of lately have been people gathering animals and "trying" to care for them beyond their means. A few others were what I would call a puppy mill, but the term puppy mill is A rather loose term anymore, when will we hear the term bunny mill??? I'll say this, as it stands I have a couple of dogs and several pet bunnies, notice I said pet, we don't do shows and I could never bring ones life to an end just for a different flavor of meat on the table. Point is if I read things correctly, under the current terminology used by some groups, mainly to cause shock and awe in people, if I were to breed my dogs under their definition I'm a puppy mill, well if that means refusing to bow down to certain groups while abiding by the law, I guess I am. So we get back to the original point, why have more laws and repeat ones we have and make them stiffer if we still aren't going to enforce them. I suggest we get the police to enforce them before we get to ahead of ourselves, notice I said police, in my home town it falls under the police to investigate and issue a citation or arrest someone for the Prosecuting Attorney to prosecute. Do They??? Nope, unless someone calls about a stray they don't bother, most are more interested in making the big bust to start their career or whatever. My thought on that, well if you have an employee who just picks and chooses what rules they wish to follow and enforce, get rid of them and get someone who will. So back at square one, get the current laws enforced properly then move on to making their job even more difficult, cause lets face it, if they don't want to be bothered with it now, I'm so sure they'll want to go and deal with it so much more once compiled into something more.
12:35 p.m., Sept. 14, 2010
Rachel said:
While I agree that there are definitely holes within the facts presented in this article, it, at its core, is dead on. If we look at the legislative goals and track record of HSUS in other states it is clear that going after an issue, such as "puppy mills" is simply an effort to get their foot in the door and the momentum rolling towards stricter legislation on animal agriculture. The real problem is a lack of enforcement and funding provided to enforce the legislation currently in place. How will this truly change with Prop B? PLEASE VOTE NO on PROP B ON NOVEMBER 2nd!!!
1 p.m., Sept. 14, 2010
EricG said:
Just my two cents here. Most of the breeding situations that would be classified a 'puppy mill' do not follow the current laws and legislation established by the government. Many dog breeders do follow these rules and care for there animals very well. I do not have a problem with people making money off breeding dogs, but I do have a problem with people breeding dogs in humanely. Proposition B will further regulate dog breeding in the state of Missouri and will possibly put many breeders out of business because of the swift increase in cost to maintain their operations. Do tell me though; will individuals that currently avoid laws and regulation pertaining to dog breeding follow the new legislation inacted by this proposition? It would only make sense for our state to start enforcing current laws before making new ones. Let me rephrase that; they need to better enforce these laws. This proposition will hurt the good guys more than the bad guys. It would be just like dropping the speed limit on the interstate to avoid accidents. Yes, some people will obey the new laws, but whats going to keep the idiot that always speeds from taking advantage of poor enforcement? Regardless of what falsifications this article might address, HSUS has many goals in our state. The reason many people are afraid of its effects are 1) the people who abide by current legislation and take care of their animals might be negatively impacted 2)HSUS wants momentum- they want every little thing on their side they can get so they can take further action in our state. I'm sure many people will dislike what I've written, not agree with something, etc. Thats perfectly fine. There will be a day when people look back and realize they made big mistakes in giving HSUS any leverage at all. I do know there are many people passionate about humane treatment of animals, but HSUS will not be satisfied with treating animals humanely. That leads to another question; what is considered treating an animal humanely? I'm not going to get into that though. Here's a great article about HSUS http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/o/136-humane-society-of-the-united-states
2:16 p.m., Sept. 16, 2010
Lea said:
First off, let me say I AM A BREEDER! I'm very proud of that fact, and the life my dogs lead! They are spoiled, loved, well cared for, and happy! They get lots of time with our family, are house trained, crate trained, and most even do tricks for treats! Evey puppy that leaves me goes to a wonderful family that I have carefully screened, and if something does happen where the family could not keep the dog, it will have a home with me... forever! I do not (and would not)have 50 dogs, even if you count puppies, males, females, retirees I can't stand to part with, and spayed/neutered pets! BUT I DO NOT SUPPORT PROP B!!! I would love to see ever person that abuses an animal prosecuted, jailed or worse! BUT Prop B has carefully worded "conditions" in it that will actually HARM the animals it claims to protect! Please read it for yourself before you decide! According to Prop B, no part of any dog's living area can be over 85 degrees - sounds good on the serfice, but with the way it is written, the do not mean the ambient temperature of the building/room. This would also make it illegal to give newborn puppies any added heat. Do you know what happens to a newborn at 85 degrees? THEY DIE!! Just like human babies, baby puppies cannot regulate their body temperature! That is why good breeders give them heated beds and warming lights! Prop B would turn my dedicated care of each baby into a crime! Open your eyes people, we all want to see the end to the puppy mills - but this is not the way to do it! I would vote for a new tax to fund better enforcement of the existing laws before I voted for this! Or better yet, how about letting the Vets and responsible breeders write a sensible bill that would truly benefit the animals? AND include a way to fund it!
3:57 p.m., Sept. 17, 2010
Mark said:
I have no problem with small breeders. 50 animals is a bit much. I still do not agree with Prop B. I promise you all that it will not reduce the number of inhumane puppy mills. Vote yes all you want. What people have to remember is that it is not always the breeders fault that dogs wind-up at kill shelters. Pet owners need to take responsibility for their beloved pets. Owner surrenders are extremely common in shelters. People are too quick to surrender their animal that they purchased from a breeder. I purchased my bloodhound from a breeder. Would it be the breeders fault if I surrendered him to the shelter and he was euthanized? Absolutely not. Even if he was sick, he is still my responsibility. Breeders are not the only one's who sell sick animals. I once adopted a seemingly healthy dog from Wayside Waifs that became deathly ill within 3 days of his adoption.
6:14 p.m., Sept. 17, 2010
Shea said:
Does anyone know where I can get yard signs to promote voting FOR PROP BB? . I wanna support it because I got one of those stupid computer-generated phone calls spouting all sorts of stuff against it. I don't like govt. intervention in my life, but I sure don't mind this idea. It's been a well documented fact that Missouri leads the country in "puppy mills" -- yep, it's a real word as clarified by many of those who commented here. I want some signs for my yard; where can I get them?
10:36 p.m., Sept. 17, 2010
daniel said:
I still say it is hypocritical that the animal rescue groups and shelters are exempt from this law, that among other things REQUIRES fresh water,protection from the elements, exercise,etc. NO ONE has said WHY they should be exempt from these provisions. Don't tell me about how clean,sanitary and well cared for dogs are at these types of facilities or I will be forced to provide you with many(and I can back up my claims) examples of horrible conditions found at animal shelters and rescues. If you don't believe me just do a simple websearch about them. Again, WHY do they not required to follow the MINIMUM standards that this bill provides?
10:42 p.m., Sept. 17, 2010
daniel said:
MEMPHIS, TN – There are new developments in the controversy surrounding the Memphis Animal Shelter. Two suspended employees have been arrested for animal cruelty. The October raid of the Memphis Animal Shelter and the investigation that followed exposed a world of problems at the city-run facility. At least three dogs starved to death, others were found in horrible condition. Animal advocates called for justice. The shelter was shut down. Web cameras were installed before it reopened so that the public can monitor what goes on inside. http://www.myeyewitnessnews.com/news/local/story/Suspended-Memphis-Animal-Shelter-Employees/o6OVRJnacECN0VzIlV6FpQ.cspx WHY ARE Animal shelters and rescue groups EXEMPT from this bill??????
9:04 a.m., Oct. 14, 2010
lacy said:
I think people dont know that this world is base on animals and ag and it should be the same way. Yea i hate seeing people being mean to animal it makes me sad. But people bussiness will go away and money will be lose. You are taking away a child best friend.
8:33 a.m., Aug. 31, 2010
lisab said:
Wow, this writer is off his rocker. Rick Berman's PR firm is attacking the HSUS at every turn -- and that PR is funded by the very people who want puppy mills to stay in business. This is exactly the kind of tactic the puppy mill lobby uses -- lies and lack of facts. And exactly why Prop B needs to be passed. The puppy factories can't be trusted to follow the law -- and there isn't funding to stay on top of them with inspections - so limiting their farms to 50 dogs is the best way to control them.