Barbara Schmitz on Prop B Compromise

Yesterday, Charlie Brennan interviewed Barbara Schmitz, the Missouri State Director of the Humane Society of the United States, to get her thoughts on the purported compromise on the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. You can listen here:

In other Prop B news, the Post-Dispatch had a well-written and thoughtful editorial praising Nixon for the compromise. I actually agree with quite a few of the points; however, I think it's worth noting that Nixon would have had pretty solid moral ground to stand on in vetoing the bill by simply saying, as he has in the past, "I think the will of the voters should be respected." And more importantly, as revealed after the Post-Dispatch editorial was published, it is now clear that puppy mill supporters have altered the conditions of the deal to where Nixon has to give them everything they want before they decide whether they will compromise or not. The Post-Dispatch editorial already recommended that Nixon veto SB113, the bill to repeal the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. Now that puppy mill supporters have shown their true colors, this is even more clearly the correct path of action.

Even With Sympathetic Host, Puppy Mill Supporters Look Ridiculous

Mark Reardon, usually an advocate of less government regulation and someone who has no love for the Humane Society of the U.S., had on guests from both sides to discuss Propsotion B, a ballot initiative to prevent Puppy Mill Cruelty. First up was Barb Schmitz, who spoke about the facts about puppy mills in Missouri (the "puppy mill capital of the U.S.") and explained why compassionate people should vote yes on Prop B:

While Schmitz spoke about the current horrible conditions of puppy mills, the oppositions is basically spending all their time focusing on conspiracy theories about the Humane Society of the United States (which Reardon, unfortunately, is susceptible to). It's pretty amazing to hear how Mindy Patterson, the leader of the Prop B opposition, does not even seem to have basic facts or statistics about puppy mills in Missouri. One can only imagine how badly she would have performed if Reardon had pushed her a little harder:

Reardon did point out an interesting contradiction in Patterson's testimony. On the one hand, she's claiming there are already strong welfare laws on the books. But on the other hand, she's claiming that the extremely minimal regulations suggested by Prop B will put all of the breeders out of business. But if the breeders are already treating the dogs well, why would such minimal restrictions cause them such distress? Just a reminder, here are the conditions proposed in Proposition B. If the law passes, breeders will be required to provide dogs with:

Sufficient food and clean water;
Necessary veterinary care;
Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;
Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs;
Regular exercise; and
Adequate rest between breeding cycles

If providing these basic necessities puts some breeders out of business, then they shouldn't have been in business in the first place. The breeders who take good care of their animals will have no trouble complying with the new law.

Vote YES on Prop B.