Anybody Here Live in Missouri?

I think Missourians for the Protection of Dogs covers all the important points:

* Elected officials should respect the will of the people. Subverting the judgment of voters is not right, and it is anti-democratic. Our system is built on majority rule, and a majority of Missouri citizens—including majorities in most House and Senate legislative districts—favored Prop B. The voters acted precisely because the legislature has failed to stop puppy mill abuses. It is undemocratic, and would be wrong of lawmakers to usurp the power of the people and ignore their expressed will.
__
* Prop B was a simple measure, dealing only with setting standards for commercial dog breeding, and has no connection whatsoever to Missouri’s important agriculture and livestock economy. The opponents’ campaign was based entirely on falsehoods and misrepresentations in an attempt to confuse voters. The truth is, Prop B dealt only with dogs. It does not deal with cattle, chickens, or pigs.
__
* Some people who voted against the measure were wrongly told that existing regulations on dog breeding are adequate. They are not. Under pre-Prop B rules, a dog can be in a cage just six inches longer than her body, she can be confined in that cage and never let out, she need not ever see a veterinarian, and a dog can be huddled in a wire cage in the middle of winter—exposed to freezing temperatures. All of that is legal under existing rules, and that’s why we needed Prop B.
__
* The new regulations—requiring adequate and clean food and water, exercise, properly sized and sanitary cages, veterinary care, protection from extreme heat and cold and adequate time between breeding cycles—are very reasonable, as Missourians of good will—including responsible breeders—know. Prop B also provides a one-year phase-in so breeders have plenty of time to comply with these new standards.

There’s a rally at the Governor’s Mansion tomorrow afternoon, and you may still be able to sign up for a bus from St. Louis or Kansas City.






41 replies
  1. 1
    handy says:

    I anticipate several puns around this fine state’s motto forthcoming.

  2. 2
    Redshift says:

    Did the lawmakers offer any reason for so obviously going against the will of the people? Not that it matters that much; the real reason is obviously that “the right of the corporate citizen to make a profit shall not be infringed,” but did they pretend to believe the bogus arguments about agriculture, or just openly give the voters a middle finger?

    For some reason this reminds me of the teabaggers here in VA, who tried to get the governor to veto a mandate that insurance companies have to cover treatment for autism disorders, because it was a mandate and mandates are bad and it might lead to other mandates. Even though it was a mandate on insurance companies, not individuals, and therefore had absolutely nothing to do with the dreaded “individual mandate.”

    Oh, and I’d suggest that this post have the additional category of “Assholes”. It’s not just pet-related, it’s the intersection of the two.

  3. 3
    GregB says:

    it is not shocking or surprising to think that people who don’t give a shit about torture used on humans will give a shit about maltreating puppies?

  4. 4
    ShadeTail says:

    I can agree with most of that, but “going against the will of the people” is, and always has been, a ridiculous talking point. We live in a democratic republic. Elected officials are supposed to legislate. Listening to their constituents is important, but so is actually governing.

    If you don’t like what they’re doing, contact them and complain. Perhaps vote them out next time. Or even recall them now, if you can. But don’t gripe that they actually performed the duties of the office they were elected to.

  5. 5
    PeakVT says:

    In addition to vetoing it on the merits, I can’t see why Nixon would pass on what looks to be a great political opportunity. But moderate Democrats can be scared into doing just about anything these days, so MFD is wise in organizing a rally.

  6. 6
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    I hope a shitload of people show up for this. There is no excuse for overturning the clearly expressed will of the people. I know the wingers live by the ‘unless you are a Republican’ mantra but it’s about time people told them what heartless bastards they are.

    Over and over and over again. And again. Incessantly drive it home. And then do it again.

    Got a kitten? Better hide it before some Republican comes along to skullfuck it. Oh, puppies too! The safest way to look at it is that if it isn’t conservative then they are going to fuck it. Hell, they may still fuck it if they can get away with it!

    That’s just who they are.

    ETA: The Republicans in Montana recently tried to make medical marijuana illegal again, after the people of Montana voted otherwise. Same for mining with cyanide leaching, the public voted to ban it and the Repubs tried to overturn it.

    I bet Montana is happy they have a Democratic governor.

  7. 7
    Phoebe says:

    I’m from MO but can’t go. I don’t understand the opposition. I know what I heard when I was gathering signatures to put this on the ballot, that this was anti-farm, but that didn’t make sense and those people didn’t stick around to debate it.

    I am not sure, but I think it’s just more culture war stuff. City vs. country, and kneejerk anti-regulation stuff. Sarah Palin actually weighed in on this herself, though I don’t have a link or anything.

  8. 8
    Joseph Nobles says:

    A few people with lots of money versus a lot of people with little money. Who wins in the legislature?

    Sigh.

  9. 9
    Ronbo says:

    You can tell that few here actually are informed. Dog breeders are tiny business – usually between 10 and 15 dogs. So the idea that it is big money is crazy. Just plain crazy. Also, Missouri already has the most stringent breeding laws in the nation – passed within the decade. If you’ve ever been on an inspection, you’d know that it is very, VERY stringent (interstate transportation make compliance strict).

    The “animal rights” group who passed the law using false advertising, misleading and old, old, old footage of animal cruelity. The problems were resolve with recent legislation. The group pushing the legislation is a lobbying group, not an animal rights group. They’ve never resucued animals – never healed sick animals; they are a group of lawyers representing international clients with interests importing farm-raised foods.

    And that is the problem with the legislation – it is much, much too broad. It includes cows, pigs, chickens (which is still unregulated and actually needs to be addressed). Too bad the courts did not challenge the law first, it would have been the right route.

    Just know that the lawyers are working for big corporations that want increased sales in our markets. We don’t check how foreign meat is raised when it is brought into the US.

    Why did the KCMO halt light rail when it was passed (they hate Clay Chastain at the KC Star)? They law passed, they added the tax to the system; but, they just declined to actually DO what the law required – the light rail!

  10. 10
    nancydarling says:

    Anne, I suspect big factory farming interests are behind this in part. They fear they are next. Those of us who don’t live in MO can do our part by not buying pet shop puppies unless we know for sure they aren’t from puppy mills as many or most of them are. Of course, the best way to get a dog or cat is through rescue organizations or the pound. My Mijo and Max are both rescues.

    As for factory farms, we can stop buying meat, eggs, and dairy raised this way. This is easy for me since I live within thirty miles of 3 grass-fed beef operations, a buffalo ranch, a truly free range organic chicken producer, and eggs from a neighbor. It’s a little more expensive, but most of us eat more meat than we need anyway so one might make up the cost difference by smaller portions. I was really missing bacon, so I went in with a neighbor on a hog and now have lots of wonderful stuff in my freezer.

    Milk is more of a problem to solve. The large organic companies are still feed-lot operations, but are a step up because they don’t use hormones. Did you know that years ago the average dairy cow had a productive life of nineteen years? Now they are spent and off to the slaughter house in 5 years. I would get a little milk cow if they didn’t demand to be milked twice a day. It is still a possibility if I can get a neighbor to share milking duty.

  11. 11
    01jack says:

    Ronbo @ 9, regarding “cows, pigs and chickens:”

    It took about two seconds to find this:

    ”Covered dog” means any individual of the species of the domestic dog, Canis lupus familiaris, or resultant hybrids …”

    I don’t believe any other damn word of your post.

  12. 12
    numbskull says:

    @ShadeTail: Possibly I don’t you understand what a “Proposition” is in terms of state governance. My assumption is that direct vote propositions are possible in MO because the state legislature at some point legislated them into being. In terms of a Proposition, the point at which they were legislated into being is where the representative government aspect enters the discussion.

  13. 13
    comrade scott's agenda of rage says:

    Hi, I live in Misery and the author of the bill, the reprehensible Tom Loehner, is “my” state Rep. In fact, one of his bigger supporters has an office right here in our bumfuck little town.

    My wife met with him a few weeks back at the capitol (I work in Jeff City) and he truely is a tool. They look at this as animal production, nothing more. In fact, a lot of Misery dog breeders got into it quickly over the last 5 years or so when their hog farms were about to go tits up because of the drop in pork prices and their own ineptitude.

    Another big part of this is simply the rurl/urban divide here in the state. Urban voters drove the success of Prop B. The rurl, redneck wingnuts *hate* the fact that “outsiders” are telling them what to do, hence, rurl reps like that asshat Loehner wasted no time in crafting a bill to show “those people” who’s really in charge here.

    The thing is, the Repup dominated legislature here can pull this kind of crap because they is no electoral payback for it. Everybody’s in a comfy district, the Dems are a pathetic minority and lord knows our moderate Republican governor, that would be Democrat Jay Nixon, won’t veto the bill because he’s getting another million bucks out of the legislature for enforcement of an essentially worthless bill.

    Some links:
    http://www.fox2now.com/news/kt.....7176.story

    Nixon’s “compromise”:
    http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/20.....n-starter/

  14. 14
    Jamey: Bike Commuter of the Gods says:

    Today’s GOP: Objectively pro-dog torture.

  15. 15
    mafisto says:

    @Ronbo: Here’s the complete text of Prop B: http://www.sos.mo.gov/election.....10-085.asp

    Please tell me where it deals with cows, pigs and chickens, you retard troll? Maybe you can roll people in a face to face conversation with your ‘facts’, but on fucking BJ? Go home, rookie.

  16. 16
    JoePo says:

    @Ronbo Bullshit. I don’t know why you’d put “animal rights group” in scare quotes when you’re talking about the ASPCA and the Humane Society – and make no mistake, the proposition was added to the ballot after the intervention of the Humane Society of Missouri, Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Best Friends Animal Society and the Humane Society of the United States.

    You might call it a smattering of tiny businesses, but 1 in 3 puppies in America are born in MO; there are 1500 large scale breeding facilities and another 1500 unlicensed and unregulated mills.

    Here’s what Prop B required:

    Proposition B would require that females be given rest between breeding cycles. It would outlaw the use of stacked cages and wire flooring, rewrite the formula used to determine cage size, require that dogs have unfettered access to both indoor and outdoor areas and ensure regular veterinary care. It would also create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy-mill cruelty,” punishable with fines and the immediate confiscation of dogs.

    See how easy it is to find sources that mention these things? And here’s what noted “big corporations” like the ASPCA had to say about current legislation:

    Current Missouri laws have not been effective in stopping puppy mill cruelty. There have been three Missouri State Auditor reports, a Better Business Bureau report, and a U.S. Department of Agriculture report that have condemned enforcement efforts through the years—which is exactly why animal welfare groups and Missouri citizens launched the Prop B campaign. We do need better enforcement, and one element of that is stronger standards of animal care. Prop B provides that stronger animal care.

    If this was really about a potentially overly broad definition of “pet,” that would be the whole scope of the “fixes” (read: gutting). Instead:

    The bill would also remove all limits on the number of dog a breeder could own (Prop B capped the number of breeding dogs at 50); exempt any breeder with fewer than 100 female dogs from any of its rules; and remove provisions requiring that dogs have room to move in their cages, veterinary care, and rest between breeding cycles.

    And because I’m in a shitty mood, I will add that I have no earthly idea why the rural legislators – both Republicans and Democrats – would make this their big battle. Except to say that the region between Kansas City and St. Louis isn’t populated by the brightest bulbs, and they have a particularly cheap account of what constitutes liberty.

  17. 17
    01jack says:

    Thanks, mafisto, for saying it much better than I could. I get so I’m spitting nails and can’t express myself nearly so clearly.

  18. 18
    penstemon says:

    I was going to explain that Prop B opponents were blaming “outside agitators,” but I see Ronbo has done a much better job of articulating all of the opposition’s talking points. And what comrade scott said.

  19. 19
    Soprano2 says:

    old, old, old footage of animal cruelity

    Sure, Ronbo, I guess the stories I read in my local paper in the past couple of years, showing pictures of large numbers of dogs rescued from some of these absymal operations, show “old, old footage”. Give me a break, you uninformed troll. I doubt you even live in MO.

    It’s a rural-urban thing, pure and simple. I live in SWMO, the home of John Ashcroft and Assemblies of God, and down here many people are convinced that this bill is meant to regulate livestock even though it’s not. Ronbo regurgitated all of their talking points, which I heard ad nauseum during the election. I read in yesterday’s paper that the lege has come up with a compromise that would be better than the bill that they already passed. Here’s a link to it http://www.news-leader.com/art.....position-B The feeling I get is that what the breeders and opponents hate most is the 50-dog limit – they seem to believe they’ll go bankrupt if they can’t have more dogs that that.

    What concerns me the most about any law we have regarding this is the lack of money for enforcement. It’s all well and good to have a law on the books, but if there’s no enforcement you might as well not have the law at all.

  20. 20
    tom p says:

    And that is the problem with the legislation – it is much, much too broad. It includes cows, pigs, chickens (which is still unregulated and actually needs to be addressed).

    Ronbo, I heard and read those same lies before the election and when I walked into the booth I had every intention of voting against the prop. Then I actually read it (for the first time)and voted for it. Sometimes the bullshit is so thick but all you need is a hot knife to cut thru it like butter.

    Next time try actually reading what you are voting on. It helps.

  21. 21
    cmorenc says:

    @ShadeTail:

    I can agree with most of that, but “going against the will of the people” is, and always has been, a ridiculous talking point. We live in a democratic republic. Elected officials are supposed to legislate. Listening to their constituents is important, but so is actually governing.

    Except this is NOT true in states permitting laws to be passed by citizen-initiated referendums, in addition to those considered and passed (or not) by the state legislature. States with citizen-initiative processes in their state constitutions have explicitly departed from the pure democratic “republic” model.

    My state (North Carolina) is a quintessential example of the sort of democratic “republic” model you describe. While there is a process for putting proposed laws (or repeal thereof) up to a vote by the general electorate, a prerequisite is that the state legislature must first pass a measure that permits a particular measure to be put up for referendum, and it is the legislature that writes the wording of the proposition, not any citizen-proponents. As you could expect, this process is mostly used when a majority of the legislature wishes to punt responsibility for deciding some pressing, but controversially difficult issue they’re afraid of getting caught in a “dammed if I do, dammed if I don’t” dilemma with various key blocks of voters.

    California is the quintessential example of a state which is decidedly NOT a democratic “republic”, in that it has a relatively open citizen initiative/referendum process that is numerously used just about every election, and the results thereof DO hamstring the ability of the state legislature to undo it. Missouri seems to fall a bit in-between in that though the citizen referendum process is open, the results can be overridden by the state legislature. But clearly Missouri is NOT a democratic “republic” of the form that to you seems so ideal.

  22. 22
    nancydarling says:

    @comrade scott’s agenda of rage: You are absolutely correct about the urban/rural divide. I think of MO as a microcosm of the USA, with KC and St. Louis being the coasts and the rest of the state as fly over country. The idea that these are small businesses is crazy. I knew a puppy mill owner here in NW Arkansas (since gone out of business) who had 150 ‘breeders’. I personally think any operation that keeps dogs in cages for their entire lives should be illegal—it goes against the nature of dogs to live that way and is a stain on our humanity that we allow it.

  23. 23
    Benjamin Cisco says:

    And with that we can bid adieu to the tool troll dumbass grease spot on the floor formerly known as Ronbo.

  24. 24
    J says:

    Delurking to say: The legislature in MO exists to thwart the will of the people. They passed riverboat gambling, conceal/carry, killed renewable energy (or will soon) and now Prop B all against what voters asked for. It’s what they do.

    comrade scott’s agenda of rage: You work in Jeff City? Me too. Weird.

    Relurking

  25. 25
    Punchy says:

    Missouri (aka Misery) is a fucking cesspool of meth, inbreeding, and Branson. Don’t make any attempt to ascribe a rational reason for anything those unfrozen cavemen Reps do. The whole state is third-world-esque; be glad they’re not eating these canines.

  26. 26
    nancydarling says:

    @cmorenc: The proposition process can work against the citizenry of California because anyone with a million dollars can get a proposition on the ballot. Darrel Issa comes to mind. He spent about that much of his own money to recall Governor Gray Davis. I still treasure the video of Issa in tears after Arnold sucked all the oxygen out of the political sphere, thus thwarting Issa’s ambitions to be governor.

    @J: Sorry to say that our lege here in Arkansas is just as embarrassing as MO. They spent most of the legislative session on issues like Bible study classes in high school (to be taught from an academic viewpoint, of course), reproductive issues, blah, blah, blah, and then had to go into legislative overtime at significant cost to taxpayers to complete redistricting which had to be done.

  27. 27
    bystander says:

    fwiw…

    I don’t live in MO, but within the past year, I was involved in a coast-to-coast effort to place adoptable sighthounds from a breeder in MO. The operation had exceeded the owners resources to maintain it.

    The breeders were originally from CA, but left when they couldn’t meet CA’s inspection requirements. MO’s, apparently, were more accommodating to their style operation.

    The dogs my sighthound club agreed to take were transported across several states to one member’s garage, where we had set up a receiving area with crates and bedding / food and water / and veterinary intervention.

    The dogs arrived in terrible shape. Thin as rails. Flea infested, assumed to be wormy because of the condition of their coats (they were nearly hairless), and their feet had flattened because their toenails were so long. Some gave evidence of old orthopedic injuries, one possible head injury, and at least two had serious vision problems. All of the dogs we took are now in forever homes.

    Reports varied, but it seems this breeding operation had between 70 and 100 dogs. Efforts to place them all are still ongoing. And, no, they’re not greyhounds.

    I was recently banned from a sighthound message board for advocating on behalf of the PUPS bill which would seek to standardize kennel conditions and inspection criteria across states. The bill would assign commercial status to any breeder who produced more than 50 puppies for sale each year, regardless of the venue in which the puppies were to be sold. A lot of breeders participate in that message group and they hated this bill. They assumed that it was PETA in origin and would “kill the fancy.”

    I can get that they don’t want to be regulated, although 50 puppies a year smells like a commercial operation to me where there is an incentive to minimize costs so as to maximize revenue. Regulation might prompt the kind of choice set that would induce production strategies geared toward an optimization of revenue, which would be a different business model. Or, get their damned puppy production below 50 puppies a year.

    What prompted the arguments – and which got me banned – was when these breeders tried to co-opt small specialized breeders (who will never produce 50 puppies a year) to support their challenge, and went on at length as to how the PUPS bill would put rescue operations out of business. One could arrive at those conclusions only by the most creative and paranoid reading and interpretation of the proposed legislation. When I kept challenging that POV, the arguments became directed at me personally. They made the “generally understood” rule that you had to disclose your identity to post explicit, found me in violation, and booted me with the rule change.

    So it goes… I hope the folks who rally prevail. And, I hope the legislation is allowed to stand. One would only need to see pictures of these rescued hounds to understand the humanity of it.

  28. 28
    campionrules says:

    Puppy mills are terrible things and Missouri is rife with these ‘producers’. Although I live in Kansas(Slightly Better Than Missouri for 150 years!)I was glad when Missouri passed the law.

    However…..some laws are good, some are bad. Enough with this nonsense and pious moaning about the legislature overturning the ‘will of the people’. It’s bullshit, when Prop 8 passed in California what was the first reaction? Let’s get that damn thing overturned no matter how.

    We live in a democratic republic – sometimes the other branches of government, including out elected representatives, have to intervene due to the stupidity of the majority.

    This is case ISN’t an example of that kind of thing. Just tired of the canard about the will of the people when its a law we don’t like.

  29. 29
    Sophia says:

    Why did the KCMO halt light rail when it was passed (they hate Clay Chastain at the KC Star)? They law passed, they added the tax to the system; but, they just declined to actually DO what the law required – the light rail!

    Um, yeah. Anyone who pays attention in KCMO hates Clay Chastain at this point in time. He’s been poisoning the well of mass transit discussions for over a decade. Fucker moved to Virginia years ago and he’s still gadflying our asses. Off the top of my head, one of the many problems with the proposition that passed in 06 was that the light rail route actually passed through areas that were not in KC proper so you had KC voters mandating building a light rail through other cities. Also, gondolas and Ferris Wheels.

    The passage of Chastain’s proposition in 06 was a fluke brought about by high voter turnout efforts to elect McCaskill and low voter knowledge about anything other than the Senate election. It passed on a generic “I like public transit” mood from low information voters. If Chastain’s name was attached to it, I doubt it would’ve drawn 20% of the vote.

    As for the dog breeding bill, adding my voice to the chorus attributing it to the urban/rural divide. The rubes are still smarting because we told them to fuck off when KC and St Louis voters recently voted to retain our city earnings taxes by overwhelming margins.

  30. 30
    Left Coast Tom says:

    @cmorenc: Specifically, from the California Constitution:

    (c) The Legislature may amend or repeal referendum statutes. It may amend or repeal an initiative statute by another statute that becomes effective only when approved by the electors unless the initiative statute permits amendment or repeal without their approval.

    It actually seems odd to me to have legislators repealing an initiative without going back to the voters, it sort of defeats the purpose of the initiative.

  31. 31
    horse dave says:

    I’ve contacted my sister in Hermann, MO. I’ll also get my brother-in-law in Columbia, MO to contact their state reps. These are both rural-ish areas (at least by my standards) so these farmland reps hear from a few progressive constituents.

  32. 32
    Kathy in St. Louis says:

    Shade Tail @#4….Honey, the point of the matter is that Missourians did contact the Missouri legislature. There was a referendum on this matter. Missouri voted to strengthen the puppy mill regulations so that the animals would be better treated. We’re the BAD puppy mill capital of the United States. We wanted to change that. The legislature then ignored the will of the people and changed the law.

    Sometimes it’s best to have a little background on a subject.

    This wouldn’t be as bad if we hadn’t had a referendum on conceal and carry laws here in Missouri a few years ago. Conceal and carry was opposed by the majority of voters, so the legislature ignored us and passed a conceal and carry law. I’m think the people of Missouri actually deserve a voice in government. When we speak the rednecks from outstate who govern us are supposed to, at the least, pretend they are listening to us, and not the special interest groups.

  33. 33
    Left Coast Tom says:

    @campionrules:

    However…..some laws are good, some are bad. Enough with this nonsense and pious moaning about the legislature overturning the ‘will of the people’. It’s bullshit, when Prop 8 passed in California what was the first reaction? Let’s get that damn thing overturned no matter how.

    Overturning a initiative in the courts on Constitutional grounds is not the same thing as a legislature overturning an initiative because legislators don’t like it.

  34. 34
    Kathy in St. Louis says:

    Campionrules@ 28….Your will of the people statement has some merit, but the part that frosts me is that there is a real expense involved in these initiatives and referendum exercises. Someone is spending lots of money, both for and against them. If the legislatures are going to merely ignore them, then people need to be told up front that the effort is pointless and that the people we elected to our state legislatures are just going to go ahead and do what they damn well plan to do, whether we like it or not. There were lots of volunteers who worked for months to get these subjects on the ballot for a vote by the people of Missouri. The legislature should have just had one of its big GOP leaders tell them not to bother because the puppy mill lobby already had legislators firmly in pocket.

  35. 35
    Mark D says:

    @Ronbo: No offense, but you’re a fucking idiot.

    The bill does not cover anything other than dogs, as others have pointed out to you already.

    And this line:

    If you’ve ever been on an inspection, you’d know that it is very, VERY stringent (interstate transportation make compliance strict).

    … would is some damn fine doublespeak, since those inspections happens so rarely, and only with registered breeders—and most puppy mills aren’t registered.

    So double+1 to you for being the “Pro-Animal-Torture and Anti-Democracy Troll of the Day!”

    Now kindly piss off …

  36. 36
    Mark D says:

    @Punchy:

    Um, no. All of Missouri is not third-worldesque.

    We have two fine metro areas full of damn fine people … which and who are surrounded by a “fucking cesspool of meth, inbreeding, and Branson.”

    So, again: not the entire state …

    ;-)

  37. 37
    nancydarling says:

    @Mark D: I would add that their are damn fine people living in the small towns of Arkansas as well as Missouri. Don’t paint the entire state with such a broad brush. We may be in the minority out here but we are trying (and often do) make a difference in small ways.

  38. 38
    Halteclere says:

    I know of a breeder in Southern Missouri who takes so good care of her dogs that, sometimes, she will not sell a puppy to someone if she doesn’t get a good vibe from that person.

    Unfortunately I also know someone else in Southern Missouri who is a quick-buck kind of guy, and who at one time had several dogs packed into a barn. I would not be surprised if this guy didn’t bother to do much research into setting up and running a breeding program before getting into the business.

  39. 39
    Mark D says:

    @nancydarling:

    I keed, I keed! :-)

    IMHO, there are cool people and assholes everywhere — the size of the hamlet/city/town in which they live is irrelevant.

  40. 40
    Phoebe says:

    @Kathy in St. Louis: I know! I gathered over 1000 signatures to put that on the ballot. And now I’m sure most of the people who signed it — having voted on it and seen it passed — think everything’s just ducky. Low information.

    I’m really stunned. I really thought they wouldn’t have the nerve to overturn this. We only did this ballot thing because they stalled similar stuff year after year. But to actually overturn it? To come out publicly against helpless dogs? And it’s politically safe?

    This is more a reflection on our citizens and culture than it is on politicians. Politicians are greedy sociopaths who need oversight, by and large, always and forever. There is no oversight, is the problem.

  41. 41
    nancydarling says:

    @Halteclere: If the breeder who won’t sell to potential buyers who give her a bad vibe keeps her breeding dogs in cages for their whole life, she’s not taking good care of them. I don’t have a problem with people raising dogs for sale when they have two or three dogs that are part of the family as dogs were meant to be. This regulatory bill in MO is a step in the right direction, but the ideal goal should be to eliminate big breeders altogether. But that is an ideal world. Right now I would settle for the half loaf of stricter regulations.

Comments are closed.