Fox 2 Confronts Prop B Opponent With Major Conflict of Interest

I'm glad to see Fox 2 asking some tough questions to one of the Missouri legislators trying to overturn the will of the people.
 

Daily Show Takes On Puppy Mill Supporters

It was amazing to see the crazy statements that the spokesperson for the so-called Alliance for Truth, the group formed to defend puppy mills, was willing to make to a national TV show. She said Prop B was "like ObamaCare" and would make the country more "communist." She argued that we should be allowed to stack dogs in cages where they can defecate and urinate on each other because "we stack humans" (as in, humans live in apartment buildings). She even criticized organizations that rescue dogs and give them away!

This is the kind of reasoning that was behind the primary organization pushing against Prop B. Their entire campaign was based on conspiracy theories and absolute gibberish. Yet they were almost able to block Prop B in Missouri. I think that says something about the pernicious influence of bad information in our society. We really need to figure out a way to fight back against the absurd misinformation that dominates Missouri politics.

Anyhow, with that depressing introduction, here's the Daily Show clip:

Betty White For Prop B

Thanks to Sean at FiredUp Missouri for catching this:



Seriously, who could argue with her?

Also Shelly Powers delivers a strong argument for Voting Yes on Prop B:

My support for Proposition B remains strong and unwavering. I have come to develop a sense of empathy, though, for those who will be impacted by Proposition B. Oh, not the bad breeders; they I could gleefully shut down with nary a backward glance. But there will be people impacted who have followed the existing rules and feel they are being treated unfairly. I do feel sympathy for their concerns.

However, Proposition B is not only the right thing to do for the dogs, in the end it is the right thing to do for Missouri. We cannot continue with the dubious titles of "Puppy Mill capital of the US" or "Dog Auction capital of the US". And we can't continue to pretend that dogs are nothing more than livestock; that as long as they get enough to eat, drink, room to stretch, and protection from elements, this is sufficient for them to be "happy". You can't breed an animal for 15,000 years to be our companions, helpers, and friends, and then suddenly isolate them in cages in big factory farms and say they're "happy".

The whole post is great: read it here.

More Evidence of Puppy Mill Cruelty

The Columbia Tribune reports on more evidence of puppy mill cruelty in Missouri, focusing on a new report by the Human Society. Among other things, the report found:

40 dogs allegedly found dumped in 2008 in an open site in the woods near Lebanon and suspected by Humane Society investigators to be connected to a local dog breeder with a history of poor practices.

Dead dogs strewn in piles of trash in 2009 during an inspection of the Doolittle Kennel near Rolla. Doolittle was unlicensed in September 2009 when state officials removed 100 sickly, malnourished dogs from the location.

As many as 10 dogs shot in the head by the boyfriend of a licensed breeder in 2008 in Mercer. The licensee had previously been cited by inspectors for dogs that died from extreme cold temperatures and dogs found severely emaciated. The breeder no longer is licensed by the state.

If you've got the stomach for it, read the whole story here.

Remember, you can do something about this: Vote Yes on Prop B to help end puppy mill cruelty!

Tony La Russa Supports Prop B

Like I said, this is not really a Big Government vs Small Government, Left vs Right issue. It's too bad the St. Louis tea party leadership has been coordinating with the pro-puppy mill folks. I still wonder what they are getting out of it.

Latest Conspiracy: Packs of Wild Dogs Will Eat Your Children if you Pass Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act

Readers of this blog know that I'm not a big fan of tea party blogger Jim Durbin of 24thstate.com. But I gotta give him one thing: he's got an amazing imagination! As far as I can tell, the main difference between Durbin and most people is that most people don't think that merely being able to imagine a story with plot twists, Noble Patriots, and Supervillains, thereby makes that story true. Durbin on the other hand seems to follow a simple rule: "If I can imagine it, it must have happened."

The latest in Durbin's free association ranting, or as he calls it, "investigative journalism," is a list of all of the apocalyptic catastrophes that will befall the state of Missouri if voters approve Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. One of the most mind-boggling parts of his recent theorizing is that he simultaneously claims that the new laws won't be enforced and that the new laws will cause all kinds of calamities. In fact, Durbin claims that these laws that "won't be enforced," will cause 86,000 dogs to be killed and Chihuahuas to be forced to freeze to death in the cold. Needless to say, these claims are idiotic. The breeders can sell many of the current dogs as they have done (i.e. they won't be forced to "put them down"); they just won't be allowed to continue keeping large, unmanageable numbers of breeding dogs. And Durbin's claim about Chihuahuas freezing to death simply proves that he didn't even bother to carefully read the ballot language since one of the things the new law would require is that dogs have:

unfettered access to an indoor enclosure that has a solid floor; is not stacked or otherwise placed on top of or below another animal's enclosure; is cleaned of waste at least once a day while the dog is outside the enclosure; and does not fall below 45 degrees Fahrenheit, or rise above 85 degrees Fahrenheit.

Some more absurd claims: Durbin says that this will cause "less people to buy dogs." Apparently no one ever informed him of the fact that animals shelters have huge numbers (3 - 4 million) of perfectly wonderful pets that have to be put down every year. Oh, but Durbin claims that shelter and pound dogs are scary and dangerous. The guy is seriously clueless.

Durbin also claims that the new law will prevent people from being able to buy dogs like Golden Retrievers. Actually, the new law limits how many breeding dogs there can be at a location; it doesn't eliminate breeders. Another fail.

But I think my favorite conspiracy of all is his claim that all of the dogs will have to be released into the wilderness, forming wild dog packs that will eat our children:

4) The wild dog population will increase
Dogs are beasts. Noble, but beasts. Like all animal populations, they will increase when left on their own, and in the backwoods of Missouri, when you let hundreds or thousands of dogs go free, you're going to see an explosion of their population in a way that is not at all controlled. Domesticating animals isn't something we solely do for joy.

Anyway, just goes to show you how far the tea party will go to fight against a bill that really should have nothing to do with whether you're "conservative" or "liberal." The decision to provide dogs with sufficient food and clean water, necessary veterinary care, sufficient housing, sufficient space, regular exercise, and adequate rest between breeding cycles should just be about basic compassion.

Vote Yes on Prop B.

New Humane Society Report On Missouri Puppy Mills

The Humane Society released a report about "Missouri's Dirty Dozen," the worst licensed puppy mills in the state. These are exactly the kinds of operations that would be forced to get their act together or go out of business if Proposition B passes in November. The report is not pretty, but worth reading if you care about animal welfare. Among the findings at the facilities:

• Thin-coated breeds shivering in the cold in temperatures as low as 9 degrees; others found trying to lick frozen water in their bowls or break it with their paws
• Animals “lethargic and reluctant to rise”
• Dogs with open, oozing or bleeding wounds who had not been treated by a vet
• Sick or dying puppies who had not been treated by a vet
• Filthy conditions, such as stacked cages that allow feces and urine to rain down on the dogs in lower tiers.

And remember how the tea partiers claimed that all the existing laws take care of this problem? Well, the report also found that many of the mills already had over 50 state or federal welfare violations over the last few years yet were still liscensed. In fact, one kennel, S & & Family Puppies, had "more than 500 pages of Animal Welfare Act violations and enforcement records on file with the USDA."

The report also contains an important summary of how Proposition B will help:

Approximately 200,000 dogs are confined for life in small wire cages in puppy mills in Missouri, many of them in conditions like those described above. This is simply unacceptable.

Under Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, conditions leading to distress and suffering in dogs, such as painful wire flooring, lack of proper vet care, overcrowded cages, and scant protection from the elements will be more clearly addressed under the law.

Proposition B’s requirements are extremely modest and, unlike the current regulatory scheme which is complex and difficult to understand, will provide clear and consistent guidance to inspectors. The measure requires access to nutritious food daily and continuous access to drinkable water, veterinary care for illness or injury, and adequate space and exercise.

Proposition B will increase enforcement in general, and specifically increase and facilitate local law enforcement as compared to the existing vague and highly technical puppy mill regulations.

The measure not only provides new, easily understandable criminal penalties for mistreatment, it does so without wiping out or eliminating the existing laws and penalties.

Proposition B will apply to all large-scale commercial dog dealers whether the owner is licensed or not, and ensures that dogs in such large-scale breeding facilities receive basic humane care.

Dogs in Missouri deserve no less than these basic protections.

You can also watch the KSDK story on the report here (note the brilliant response of the breeder front group was to "question the timing of the report"):

Remember: Vote Yes on Prop B!

Can't Help Themselves! Tea Party Again Floats Conspiracy Theories About Puppy Mill Cruelty Initiative

A recent blog post on the St. Louis Tea Party site repeated their conspiracy theory that Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, is all a secret plot to "eliminate pet ownership:"

A select group of the "intellectual elite," who don't believe dogs showed be owned, are behind Prop. B.

This is a repetition of talking points handed down from the dog breeder defending group "Alliance for Truth," which said the following:

the Humane Society of the United States wants to eliminate animal ownership in America....They believe that animals are enslaved by humans,"

But, as pointed out by journalist Terry Ganey, in a special to the Beacon, this talking point is nonsense:

But Proposition B doesn't eliminate animal ownership. In fact, hobby breeders and dog breeders with fewer than 10 breeding animals are exempt from its provisions. And Proposition B makes a point of saying that nothing in the law "shall be construed to limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise or sell hunting dogs."

A different tea party blog claimed that the new measure wouldn't actually provide any new protections, since there were some standards already existing. However, missed in this brilliant analysis is the fact that the new law creates a misdemeanor for violating the law where none previously existed. In other words, the current system does not provide any strong incentives to treat the dogs humanely: if you are caught breaking the rules enough times you might not get to keep your license, but you don't really lose anything. With the new law, people caught keeping the dogs in inhumane conditions can be fined and charged with a misdemeanor. You'd think the self-proclaimed economic geniuses of the tea party would be able to figure out how that would work.

Carnahan Chooses Puppies: Martin Chooses Profits (VIDEO)

Congressman Russ Carnahan and Ed Martin were asked about Proposition B, the ballot initiative to ban puppy mill cruelty, at both of the debates this past weekend.

Ed Martin came out against passing a law to make sure that the dogs are treated more humanely, claiming that Big Scary Outside Interests Will Control Your Life if you vote yes:



Just a reminder, here is what dogs will be provided with if the bill passes:

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

Carnahan, on the other hand, gave a rather confusing answer at the first debate, where he appeared to agree with Ed Martin (however, it should be noted, he never said that he opposed Prop B, and he did clearly state he was against puppy mills). Thankfully, he clarified at the second debate that he is definitely in favor of Proposition B and opposed to puppy mills.

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.

Latest Tea Party Conspiracy: Protecting Puppies Is A Secret Plan to Take Away Your Pets

Missouri has been dubbed the "puppy mill capitol of the U.S." by the Better Business Bureau. Currently, many puppy mills don't provide adequate food and water for their animals, and breeding dogs are exposed to extremes in the weather while trapped in small wire cages with no opportunity to exercise or interact with humans. If breeders are found to take terrible care of their puppies, they currently face virtually no repercussions.

So people who care about the way we treat animals worked hard to put Proposition B on the ballot for this November. A "Yes" on Prop B would ensure that dogs are provided 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

For the specific ballot language, click here. This is not an extreme request by most people's standards. In fact, most people would agree that it's a no-brainer that dogs should be provided with all of those basic necessities. Furthermore, the ballot would create a misdemeanor for people who violate these laws, since there currently are virtually no enforcement mechanisms to ensure that the dogs are treated well.

Now I know a lot of conservatives who disagree with me on virtually every issue who nevertheless are fully supportive of laws that prevent animal cruelty. This is not in any way a Left/Right, Liberal/Conservative, Small Government/Big Government issue. This is simply a matter of whether we think it's OK to abuse puppies for the sake of profit. There really is no reason why the St. Louis tea party leadership should be taking a stand on this issue (unless it was a supportive stand to show how they in fact are compassionate, caring individuals).

Nevertheless, they (or at least a couple of them) have decided to make it a pet issue. And because it is an issue where compassionate people of any political persuasion would naturally feel compelled to protect dogs, the tea party has decided to outright lie about the issue in order to trick caring people into voting against a law that would protect dogs from unnecessary suffering. Jim Durbin spreads the utter nonsense that Proposition B is actually a secret plan to eliminate pet ownership:

Proposition B will be on the November ballot in Missouri. It looks on the surface to be a great plan that will take care of the innocent dogs in terrible puppy-mill conditions...
However, the true purpose of this legislation is to ELIMINATE pet ownership through "regulation"...and then push the "regulation" on to force cattle, hog, and poultry farmers OUT OF BUSINESS!

I had heard rumors that Bill Hennessy's name was seen on anti-Prop B email chains, and that was confirmed recently as Hennessy started posting anti-puppy propaganda on the St. Louis tea party website yesterday. Of course, neither Hennessy nor Durbin linked to the actual ballot language when they discussed the issue.

Like I said, this is not a Left/Right issue. I'm sure there are a lot of tea party members planning on voting yes on Prop B. Furthermore, Hennessy has said repeatedly in the past that the tea party should focus on changing the federal government first. On May 15, he claimed The Tea Party's Focus Has Been Federal and wrote:

In spite of our work on state and local projects, the Tea Party movement didn’t come about to address Autism or state referenda. The Tea Party was born, according to my records and memory, to change the federal government, first by resistance, then by changing Congress.

In a different article, he was quoted as saying:

While many local tea party organizations involve themselves in local or state issues and races, the movement’s primary interest lies in Washington.

So why would they focus on this issue? It makes me wonder if some of the tea party leaders are being funded by dog breeders or by the large scale agri-businesses that also oppose this legislation based on the belief that opposing animal cruelty anywhere paves the way for making the food industry more humane. Furthermore, I wonder if this issue was ever put to a vote by the membership of the tea party. Shouldn't the people who attend these rallies have some say in how their names are being used?

Anyway, it's truly sad to see tea party leaders take such a despicable stand in favor of profits over puppies. Hopefully, they lose big and some of their followers start to realize that the St. Louis tea party leadership is not really looking out for the interests of anyone except themselves.

Update, in response to a comment: Someone in the comments suggested that I was unfairly characterizing the views of the St. Louis tea party based on the ravings of one person. I certainly don't think that everyone in the tea party agrees with this nonsense, which is why I have repeatedly emphasized that this issue should not be an issue the tea party leadership should get involved in. However, it's false to claim that the St. Louis tea party leadership doesn't endorse these extreme views. Bill Hennessy, the leader of the St. Louis tea party, specifically endorsed the conspiracy posts from Durbin: