Lawmakers support repeal of MO Proposition B

belladulcinea · #21 11/13/10, 06:58 PM

Good for Missouri, way to go!

When Oklahomans supposedly joined the 21st century by outlawing cockfighting the fines and jail time were more than for first degree child sexual abuse. When did chickens become more important than children. The law gave no leeway. The legislature finally changed the penalties and fines down to a more appropriate level while finally uping the laws, fines and penalties for sexual abuse against children. Animals are just animals, I would rather resources be spent on investigating crimes against people.

fishhead · #22 11/13/10, 07:33 PM

So if we support shutting down puppy mills we're also against raising livestock?

That's just silly. One has NOTHING to do with the other.

tinknal · #23 11/13/10, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishhead

So if we support shutting down puppy mills we're also against raising livestock?

That's just silly. One has NOTHING to do with the other.

You really have to be a Pollyanna to believe that .

jacqueg · #24 11/13/10, 08:04 PM

Don't know what the electorate is like in Missouri, but out here, we tend to get cranky when legislators try to repeal an initiative. Sometimes, of course, an initiative is so poorly written that, to make it enforceable, quite a bit of reworking has to be done.

I have no idea what the Missouri proposition says, or whether the electorate understood all the ramifications of what it did. Just sayin' that I have heard many legislators fulminate about a citizen's initiative but grow strangely quiet when it comes to doing the heavy lifting required to get a repeal actually enacted.

ceresone · #25 11/14/10, 09:16 AM

Please, Don't let this posting get out of hand. I deeply regret ever making the first post on this subject, that had to be locked down.
I believe we should all agree we have differing opinions on this, and accept it.
I feel strongly on this because I WAS a breeder for years, I saw the business as many of you never will, I KNOW what "inspectors" do, I KNOW they wont touch "puppy mills"
I have a quarter of a million dollar building falling down, because I quit when I saw it from the "inside"! (the breeders, not the building). And this was well over 20 years ago.
So, lets just accept the fact we cant agree on this--and not resort to name calling and hard feelings.

Witterbound · #26 11/14/10, 09:58 AM

I'd just like to point out that there have many diverse amendments to various state constitutions approved by voters over the past decade. Most of those changes have been pushed by the right, on a cry of "states rights." Now that a change championed by the left has been approved, the right cries foul. I think amending a state's constitution for things like this, both left and right, are just wrong. For example, here in Arkansas, we just approved an amendment to the state constitution "guaranteeing" folks the right to hunt and fish. The one is MO, and the one in AR, are both just wrong. We don't need constitutional amendments on such relatively unimportant things.

Heritagefarm · #27 11/14/10, 10:16 AM

Perhaps fishing, but hunting is essential for the survival of the species.

fishhead · #28 11/14/10, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinknal

You really have to be a Pollyanna to believe that .

I DO support shutting down the puppy mills and I DO support raising livestock so there's no reason for your comment. I'm sure there are plenty of other people who feel the same. Most of the dog owners I know feel the same.

salmonslayer · #29 11/14/10, 11:39 AM

Quote:

I DO support shutting down the puppy mills

So do we but this poorly worded proposition does not even address shutting down puppy mills. Missouri has a big problem with unlicensed breeders (puppy mills) which this proposition ignores. This proposition is written to drive out licensed breeders by making it so expensive that they cant afford to do business. You are no doubt aware that this just drives business to the unlicensed puppy mills most of whom are not unhappy this proposition passed.

The proposal mandates AC for dogs when many of the folks in rural areas dont have AC in their homes, it actually lowers some existing standards and regulations, and provides zero for enforcement. The Constitutional challenge mostly resides with the fact that it limits breeders to 50 animals. I doubt it will be overturned but its a real concern to me and many others that government has the power to limit your livestock numbers in such an arbitrary way (rather than basing such decisions on your ability to handle a certain number of animals such as size of facilities, amount of land, number of employees etc.).

Calling it the puppy mill bill duped a lot of well meaning people and unfairly villified an entire group of farmers; and make no mistake dogs are livestock to a breeder. I would like to see unlicensed breeders shut down and licensed breeders who do not properly care for their animals put out of business; unfortunately this proposition wont do that.

Quote:

The one is MO, and the one in AR, are both just wrong. We don't need constitutional amendments on such relatively unimportant things.

Sadly, those ammendments were necessary to protect the hunting and fishing rights against assaults by the same groups that supported proposition B. You see hunting and fishing as unimportant; some of us see it as survival.

tinknal · #30 11/14/10, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishhead

I DO support shutting down the puppy mills and I DO support raising livestock so there's no reason for your comment. I'm sure there are plenty of other people who feel the same. Most of the dog owners I know feel the same.

Peta and HSUS are determined to end all use of animals. Coming down on their side of any issue plays right into their hands.

Patt · #31 11/14/10, 05:51 PM

I'm not even going to address the actual Proposition because as Ceresone mentioned we haggled this one out pretty thoroughly recently. But I will say that I disagree with repealing something the majority voted for and that goes for whether I agree with it or not. It seems rather pointless to vote for anything anymore as Americans because as soon as we do the opposition starts filing lawsuits. Might as well just quit voting. Sigh.....

Heritagefarm · #32 11/14/10, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patt

I'm not even going to address the actual Proposition because as Ceresone mentioned we haggled this one out pretty thoroughly recently. But I will say that I disagree with repealing something the majority voted for and that goes for whether I agree with it or not. It seems rather pointless to vote for anything anymore as Americans because as soon as we do the opposition starts filing lawsuits. Might as well just quit voting. Sigh.....

HSUS is also being sued for collecting fraudulent votes.

Patt · #33 11/14/10, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Heritagefarm

HSUS is also being sued for collecting fraudulent votes.

How did they do that?

Heritagefarm · #34 11/14/10, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patt

How did they do that?

I don't know, but there were instance(s) where there were more votes than registered voters.

RJMAcres · #35 11/14/10, 07:08 PM

For those of you are for this bill, How many have actually read it ?
For those that did read it, how much of it did you actually understand ?
Go back and read it closer.

nehimama · #36 11/14/10, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinknal

Peta and HSUS are determined to end all use of animals. Coming down on their side of any issue plays right into their hands.

You've got it right, Tink!

RJMAcres · #37 11/14/10, 07:44 PM

http://www.vidoosh.tv/play.php?vid=4360
http://petpac.net/news/headlines/sto...ad_transcript/

Lyra · #38 11/14/10, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinknal

Peta and HSUS are determined to end all use of animals. Coming down on their side of any issue plays right into their hands.

Come on. End all use of animals. That is ridiculous.

Heritagefarm · #39 11/14/10, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lyra

Come on. End all use of animals. That is ridiculous.

Well, we're abusing them. All of them. Simply by owning them. According to HSUS.

sunnyterrace · #40 11/14/10, 08:44 PM

In a nutshell Prop B makes you a criminal simply because you breed your animals, that anyone on this type of forum would agree with that is simply astounding.

As long as you are not breeding you can have any number of dogs keep them anyway you want under Prop B.

I could be behind a popular vote IF the rule applied to everyone equally.

This ONLY applies to people that have dogs that are being bred. I've yet to hear an answer about how keeping an animal in identical conditions can be fine for one person but criminal for someone else. There is a reason this was written in a way to exclude shelters, rescues, boarding facilites, etc and that was so that these people would vote for it, they never would have if it applied to them. Remember that shelters and rescues have a financial interest in less competition from breeders. They make their living on dogs too.
You will never convince me that this isn't a first step leading up to eliminating breeding of all animals and eventually ownership. The motive of this bill is not about "puppy mill cruelty" at all, quite honestly if you take the time to do some research you will find that Mo doesn't really have the "puppymill" problem that the public has been led to believe. Of course there are some bad breeders out there, and there always will be in any business. We live in the heart of so called "puppymill" country, my husband looked up the reports for the last three years for his county and you know what, not one animal cruelty report filed with the sheriff's dept was against a licensed breeder. They were all against individuals and a few hoarders. We have laws already in place for animal cruelty that are stricter and more easily enforced than Prop B, AND they apply to everyone, from your one dog owner to a large professional kennel. Our local Law Enforcement is against Prop B, one reason is because it is not written in a way that is prosecutable. Another is because it creates a standard of care for an animal that is higher than our current standard of care that is required for children.

I've heard all the excuses, overpopulation (it has been proven that breeders do not contribute to overpopulation in any significant number) poor care (Mo breeders already have more strict laws than most other states) current laws aren't harsh enough (have you checked with your local law enforcement about that?) etc. etc. Animal Rights groups are behind it and unfortunately there is a segment of our society that thinks its ok to take away the rights of others just because they don't like what they do and these people have been used as pawns.

How many people who live in Missouri would be for Prob B if it applied to EVERYONE who has a dog? It would never have passed if it had applied to everyone equally.