More From Humane Society President Wayne Pacelle

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

Nixon Scorns Puppy Supporters and St. Louisans

Governor Jay Nixon is helping to ensure that Missouri remains the Puppy Mill Capitol of the world. Despite the fact that a majority of Missouri voters supported the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, and despite the fact that Nixon himself had brokered a compromise with legislators, he decided to project weakness by caving in to bad faith demands that he sign a full repeal before the compromise is considered. Now he has to sit back and twiddle his thumbs while waiting for Republicans to spontaneously decide that they are going to work to round up votes to pass a compromise that's further away from what they were originally advocating for. Or, more likely, Nixon is simply planning on acting "gee shucks" shocked when Republicans say "whoops, I guess we couldn't pass the compromise after all!"

I understood the initial politics behind this. Nixon has to veto a lot of stuff from this crazy legislature. He's expected to veto a Republican bill that would weaken anti-discrimination laws. He will likely veto attacks on the minimum wage and right-to-work-for-less legislation. I'm grateful that we have someone in office who can block these shameful attacks on workers. Yet Nixon also wants to be seen as a middle-of-the-road compromiser. So it's not surprising that he would throw dogs under the bus.

However, the politics changed once Republicans demanded that Nixon sign the full repeal before they would "think about" the compromise. Giving in to bad faith negotiators makes Nixon look weak and stupid, and if he thinks he can feign ignorance if it turns out that Republicans don't actually fulfill their end of the bargain, he is sorely mistaken. All Nixon would have had to say by vetoing SB113 is that he respects the will of Missouri voters. Missourians who couldn't take that as an explanation will never vote for him anyway. Now he's completely at the mercy of people who have never done anything to improve conditions for dogs and who have no incentive to do so now.

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.

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!

Nixon Should Veto The Prop B Repeal, For St. Louis and Missouri

I was thinking of writing a post pointing out that a lot of people in St. Louis have been frustrated with Governor Nixon and that a good way for him to show that he's committed to our city and not only to the rural parts of the state would be to veto the recent bill rolling back the voter approved Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, but it looks like the Post-Dispatch editorial board beat me to the punch:

Mr. Nixon should veto the bill....

Missouri’s rural lawmakers — mostly Republicans — do a disservice to the value of elections when they override the will of the voters and send a message that voters’ opinions don’t matter. It undermines their credibility when they say, as Rep. Tom Loehner, R-Koeltztown, and others have, that city voters didn’t know what they were passing and that they don’t understand agriculture.

Indeed, city voters understood the issue well. They understood that every time a rogue puppy mill was shut down, their shelters in the cities and suburbs took in scores, if not hundreds, of malnourished, abused puppies left to die by scofflaws who flouted the law with a lack of human decency. They also understood that the measure had nothing to do with farm animals.

I know that the desire to appease the rural parts of the state make this a tough political decision for Nixon's people, but there's really an simple idea to appeal to in order to defend a veto: respecting the will of the voters. The current legislature has been going nuts trying to roll back every voter approved initiative that clashes with their extreme views. But while people in rural areas might disagree with a Nixon decision to veto the bill, could they really have any serious argument against the simple idea of protecting a bill that state voters approved? Nixon should do the right thing and not throw St. Louis, puppies, and the majority of voters in the state under the bus for cynical political expediency.

For more on this issue, please read Shelley's excellent response to the the Post-Dispatch editorial. Also, you can contact Nixon's campaign about this here.

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:

Missouri Republicans Hate Liberty

Missouri Republicans are already trying to thwart the will of Missouri voters.

They don't want voters to be allowed to vote on agricultural issues:

Last May, seven months before voters had their say, rural legislators tried to preempt the vote by prohibiting citizen initiatives involving any aspect of agriculture. It was blatantly unconstitutional. But no fewer than five bills containing similar language were introduced.
Now that Proposition B, the so-called Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, has been approved, lawmakers are gearing up to override it.

“Voters who voted on Proposition B did not understand what it does,” said state Rep. Tom Loehner, R-Koeltztown, chairman of the House Agriculture Committee.

Mr. Loehner, a hog farmer, sponsored one of those five bills to prohibit citizen initiatives on agriculture.

They think citizens who take pictures of barns should be treated as terrorists:

In 2003, 2004 and 2005, former state Rep. Jim Guest, R-Kingdom City, went so far as to propose “anti-terrorist” legislation that would have made it a crime to stand on public land and take pictures of barns, fields and public land where animals graze.

And most of all, they think that they can ignore the will of the majority of state voters in helping to prevent puppy mill cruelty:

Just days after Missouri voters approved tough new restrictions on puppy mills, Missouri lawmakers are talking about amending or overturning them.

In most states, such contempt for voters would be shocking and surprising. In Missouri, it’s old hat.

Because true liberty is the ability to be pushed around by the agriculture industry.

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.

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!

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.