missouri

On Wednesday, April 13, the Missouri state legislature voted 85-71 to change the requirements set forth in Proposition B (also called the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, or PMCPA), the voter referendum that would have imposed stricter standards of care in the “puppy mills” of the state.

The new legislation, SB-113, removes many of the strongest new standards of care from the original bill, including provisions that require solid cage flooring, appropriate temperature regulation, and a cap of 50 breeding animals per facility.

In a “1984”-esque move, the name of the bill is also changed from the PMCPA to the “Canine Cruelty Prevention Act.”

“In spite of decades of urging by the animal welfare community, the Missouri General Assembly remained silent on the issue of puppy mills until after the voters spoke. The failure of the General Assembly to address the problem is why we finally took this straight to the people,” says Cori Menkin, ASPCA Senior Director of Legislative Initiatives. “And as evidenced by the passage of Proposition B, Missourians care deeply about puppy mill reform. That state legislators are discarding Prop B and ignoring the will of the people they are supposed to represent is appalling, insulting and disrespectful.”

In previous articles, the conditions in puppy mills and pet stores were described in detail; treatment ranges from neglectful to cruel. So, given the abhorrent current situation, why would the legislature have gone against the will of the voters, gutted the bill, and allowed the torture of hundreds of thousands of cats and dogs to continue unabated?

The history of Prop B goes something like this: The measure began as a petition circulated in MO by various animal-welfare groups, including the Humane Society of the United States. Even after the petition was certified with nearly 200, 000 signatures, certain organizations challenged it early and often, with a particularly rabid group, the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (I urge you to check out this link—it is a particularly good example of the kind of ignorance animal welfare groups go up against), filing a lawsuit in August against Secretary of State Robin Carnahan alleging that the term “puppy mill” was inflammatory and unfair and asking that the measure be removed from the ballot.

The lawsuit was dismissed as frivolous, but protests and anti-Prop B editorials continued, with organizations like the American Kennel Club stating their oppostion to the proposed legislation. However, Prop B passed on November 2, 2010, with a “yes” vote of 51.6%.

The reason it passed by such a narrow margin was largely due to a rural “whisper camapaign” by the agricultural lobby. Using the “slippery slope” argument, they were able to convince many farmers and livestock owners that the proposed legislation would be the first step towards requiring that cows be covered with cashmere blankets and allowed to sleep in owners’ beds at night.

Larry Miller, president of the Southeast Missouri Cattlemen’s Association said, “Down the road it’s going to affect everyone in the United States. They want to abolish all livestock production in the United States. They want to do away with hunting, killing animals for food, fishing. What are we going to eat—soybeans and corn?”

This sentiment has been the main obstacle in passing more stringent regulations in other states, such as Iowa and Indiana, which, not coincidentally, have strong agriculturally-based economies and consequently a large number of puppy mills as well.

This has also been a “Tea Party” Libertarian issue. Though these commercial breeders are already required to register with the state and with the USDA, many in Missouri argue that this is a case of the government forcing excessive regulation on the people.

Never mind that many of these breeders have been cited up to one hundred times by the USDA, which would certainly indicate a lack of effectual governance that could be strengthened by state legislation; since all animals are considered “property” from a legal standpoint, the opposition to Prop B were able to argue that people shouldn’t be mandated to do anything with their personal property.

Because Missouri has the largest number of USDA-registered “commercial” breeders, this would have set the tone for other states, and increased the pressure on legislatures to enact similar measures. Prop B became a dirty fight between the HSUS and the national agricultural lobbies because of this.

Besides lobbyist and “libertarian” opposition, the overall continued demand for purebred animals meant that dismantling the bill would have no effect on consumers. As long as people are willing to purchase pets, and as long as cities and municipalities elect not to enact bans on selling animals (San Franciso tried, but the measure was tabled), sick and mistreated animals will still make the mill owners money.

Ultimately, the governor of Missouri, Jay Nixon, still has to sign the new bill. It remains to be seen whether he will follow the will of the voters who supported this measure, or the will of the agriculture lobby and the cowed (pun absolutely intended) state legistature. Even people who oppose the measure on the grounds of being against more government regulation should be able to see that the voters did decide on this issue, and the measure should be enacted accordingly.

Here’s what you can do: contact the governor of Missouri directly if you are a resident and urge Gov. Nixon to veto SB-113. Please don’t call if you aren’t a resident of Missouri, but still consider sending an email to let him know that the will of the people and the future of animals in the United States are at stake.

If you live in a state where “puppy mill bills” are on the agenda, like Oklahoma, Texas, Nebraska and Hawaii, urge your representatives to work to pass them. Donate to the HSUS and the ASPCA. Work with your local government to stop the sale of animals- this is the best way, ultimately, to ensure that these commercial breeders’ demand dries up. Educate your friends and family about pet stores and puppy mills.

And keep this in mind: “We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.” – Immanuel Kant