More From Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle

Humane Society of the United States President Wayne Pacelle holds his own against Mark Reardon:

Ira Glass and Wayne Pacelle on St. Louis On The Air

This American Life's Ira Glass and the Humane Society of the United States' Wayne Pacelle were the guests for a particularly interesting St. Louis On the Air. You can listen here:

Compromise on Puppy Mill Cruelty? Why?

It was announced earlier today that Governor Jay Nixon had brokered a "compromise" between some opponents and proponents of the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. The proponents who were said to have signed on included Kathy Warnick, President of the Humane Society of Missouri, and Bob Baker from the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, but I have not yet seen any formal statements from those organizations. However, I think Shelley at BurningBird.net presents a pretty solid argument that this "compromise" on reform amounts to anything but reform.

Basically, all of the changes included in the "compromise" include hedge words that allow everything to carry on the way it always has. The 50 dog limit is now gone. The requirement that feces shouldn't be in the water supply has now changed to a requirement that feces should "generally" not be in the water. Instead of treatment of injury and illness, we now have required treatment of "serious" injuries and illness. And on and on, gutting basically every single substantive change in the original Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, approved by a majority of Missourians in a year where rural voters were disproportionately motivated and urban voters disproportionately apathetic.

To be honest, it's hard for me to be too shocked at Jay Nixon's decision here. He's a politician, and as such motivated by the goal of being reelected. And it's pretty obvious that this compromise provides the best path for him to do that, considering that he can get by without offending either rural or urban voters. His choice was made particularly easy by the fact that HSMO and MAAL signed on to the compromise.

But that's where I get confused. Though I understand why Nixon took this path, I don't understand why MAAL and the HSMO sprinkled rose petals along it. National groups like the Humane Society of the United States, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and Best Friends Animal Society all announced their opposition to the "compromise." This strongly suggests that even if Nixon was cynical enough to sign the original bill revoking the will of the voters, or even if a Nixon veto was overruled by supermajorities, animal welfare groups could have run a new ballot initiative in 2012 that would be likely to win by an even larger margin than the 2010 Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. And though our legislature is pretty shameless, would they really be ridiculous enough to try to overturn the will of the voters a second time on the exact same issue? Or more to the point, would voters stand for them doing so?

Yet if this compromise goes through, approved by MAAL and HSMO, it's hard to see voters having any desire to revisit the issue in future elections.

Even with his Grand Bargain, however, Nixon is not completely off the hook. The leaders of the repeal movement are demanding that Nixon not veto their bill to gut the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act while waiting for the compromise to work its way through the legislature:

State Sen. Mike Parson, R-Bolivar, who sponsored SB 113, is listed as one of the compromise's backers.

"Growing Missouri agriculture and protecting dogs are both important priorities, and this agreement is a win on both fronts," Parson said in a release announcing the agreement.

But Parson said in an interview that he wanted the governor first to sign SB 113 into law -- and then sign the proposed alternative, should the legislature pass it.

Parson said the main differences between his bill and the new agreement are the types of veterinarian care required and the square footage of the cages confining the animals.

Parson said that the agreement would be "dead" if Nixon vetoed SB 113.

Parson continues:

"If we're truly going to get this done, we're going to know before this veto happens," Parson said. "I hope the compromise is worked out. I hope everyone at the table can get it done. You've got to get it through the [legislature] in a short-term period of time, which is a very difficult process to do. We're going to work for that, if that's what the coalition decides."

"But I think to say that we're going to veto [my bill] right off the bat to do this, I don't think we're going to want to use this as a political game," Parson added. "And I hope that nobody's doing that."

Needless to say, this is complete crap. Republicans (and the absurd Democrats who voted with them) are the ones with the most to lose here, and they should absolutely not be put in a position of power by allowing the repeal to pass and then patiently waiting to see if they fulfill their end of the bargain. With unhinged characters like Nieves and Lembke willing to hold the Senate hostage over things like allowing federal money to go to the unemployed, could there be any worse idea than trusting them with passing a bill that, at least in theory, strengthened protections on dogs? I think the answer is obviously "no."

In fact, in my opinion, Parson's ridiculous position gives Nixon an out. Nixon should veto the repeal bill, SB 113, immediately. If Parson then says that the deal is "dead," well Nixon can honestly say in good faith that he tried to find a compromise. And by completely accident, maybe the will of the voters would be respected after all.

Update: OK, here's a statement from Baker:

"The agriculture groups signed on to it, the dog breeders association signed on to it, and I think everybody's in agreement that this is the best," said Bob Baker, executive director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, one of the groups that signed the agreement.

" I think it significantly improves conditions for the dogs, and we're very very pleased with this agreement," Baker said.

Somehow, I don't quite see the value of being in agreement with the same people who said that Prop B was a secret communist plot to take over Missouri and force everyone to eat bean sprouts. I sure hope MAAL or HSMO offers a more detailed explanation than this!

Modern Day Hog Farms Are Horrible

I hate modern day hog farms because they're inhumane, have horrible working conditions, and are environmental disasters. But, of course, they also suck pretty bad just because of the smell:


h/t Missouri News Horizon.

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:

St. Louis Blog Posts for Progressives - May 27

In an effort to better connect the St. Louis blogosphere and to familiarize people with it, I'm sharing some of my favorite posts from locals for today. Please check out the sites and feel free to add your own recommendations in the comments.

Environment/Animal Welfare:
Ripper McCord at Talking Points Memo suggests we bring in the expertise of NASA for the BP oil spill catastrophe.
Chad Garrison at the RFT reports on the failure of St Louis City to provide adequate facilities for their animal shelter.
Eric Vieth at Dangerous Intersections explains how to use and save electricity.
Tom Shout, who was involved with Citizens for Modern Transit for 22 years, is leaving as a champion after St. Louis at long last has stable funding for public transportation.
Charles Jaco speaks with Rick Outzen about the oil spill.

St. Louis City:
Robin Wright Jones discussed the McEagle project with Sal Martinez on her Monday radio show.
Matt is fired up about the City to River project to connect downtown to the river at STL Dotage and so is Alex at Urban STL.

Health Care:
Polls are showing that people's opinions about the health care reform bill that was passed are getting more positive. So naturally Roy Blunt is trying to say, "wait, wait, don't you see how oppressed you secretly are?!"

State Politics:
Chad Garrison at the RFT reports on the FAILure of the right-wing effort to mess with Missouri's court system(although he didn't put it that way). By the way, did I mention HAHAHAHA!
The St. Louis American discusses the St. Louis/Missouri dynamic in the appointment of a new head of the board of police commissioners.
Speaking of that awkward dynamic, the Tour of Missouri has been officially cancelled.
As reported in the Beacon, NARAL announced it's primary endorsements for MO races today.
For more Missouri political news, go to FiredUp Missouri's MO Headlines.

Miscellaneous:
Miswestern Vegan discussed making Kale chips.
Gloria at Occasional Planet discusses how the federal government have changed their hiring processes.
Catch a podcast of Stephene Russell discussing her interview with local blogging standout Shark Fu.
Charles Jaco speaks with Chad Watson about the Wounded Warrior Program.
Patrick Powers offers 10 Tips on live tweeting an event.
In the Beacon, the Lewis and Clark tower gives bird's eye view of the Confluence.