TIMELINE
May 2, 2010: Over 190,000 signatures delivered to Secretary of State’s Office with the help of the coalition, Missourians for the Protection of Dogs. The coalition included Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, Humane Society of Missouri, Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA), and individuals.
Aug. 3, 2010: Secretary of State’s office announced certification of the “puppy mill” initiative, which appeared as Proposition B on the November statewide ballot.
Aug. 13, 2010: Circuit judge in Cole County upheld the language of petition summary for the puppy mill proposition. The lawsuit, filed by President Karen Strange of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (MoFed) and a lobbyist for commercial dog breeders, challenged the language of the petition summary, which Secretary of State Robin Carnahan drafted.
Feb. 15, 2011: House Agricultural Policy Committee voted unanimously to approve a bill that repealed key provisions in Prop B.
March 10, 2011: Senate voted on its version (SB113) of a repeal and rewrite of Prop B. The bill is approved with a 20 to 14 vote.
April 13, 2011: House approved SB113 with a vote of 85 to 71.
Before Prop B ever made it to the ballot in November 2010, the initiative was the center of debate for organizations and constituents. Now that 51.6 percent of Missouri voters have approved the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, Missouri lawmakers have invited themselves to the controversy.
Robyn Bousum, vice-president for the Friends of Parkville Animal Shelter (FOPAS), voted in favor of Prop B. She has been an animal caretaker for years and has seen firsthand the damage that unscrupulous breeders cause.
“(FOPAS) ends up with dogs from puppy mills,” Bousum said. “They can’t walk right. Their gait is off because of living on a wire floor.”
One of the provisions in Prop B required that breeders keep dogs in cages large enough for them to stretch and move around, that are not stacked, and that are at floor level with wooden slats to protect the dogs’ feet from the wire cage.
The senate’s version of the bill, SB113, strips most of this provision. The exception is that dog cages can only be stacked if they have an impermeable barrier between them, except when cleaning.
Bousum said she can’t agree with dogs in a 29- or 30-inch crate without the ability to stretch or move around.
“I just think that’s cruel,” she said.
In addition, SB113 removes the penalty provisions in Prop B, which made it a Class C misdemeanor for each violation of the law. However the senate’s version, renamed the Canine Cruelty Prevention Act (CCPA), creates a new crime of canine cruelty.
Canine cruelty is defined as someone who repeatedly disobeys the ACFA or the CCPA by posing substantial risk to a dog. Canine Cruelty can result in a Class A misdemeanor, as well as anyone who is required to be licensed that stacks cages without a barrier, except when cleaning. The CCPA also added a civil penalty in which courts may assess violators up to $1,000.
According to a study conducted by the Better Business Bureau and released in March 2010, many puppies that come from Missouri breeders end up sick and costly for the purchaser. The statewide study on Missouri’s puppy mill industry was in response to the high number of reports received by the BBB from people and pet store owners who purchased puppies from commercial breeders. The BBB recommended that the state and federal Departments of Agriculture, which administer the puppy industry, pursue repeat offenders more aggressively.
Missouri resident Shane McCracken would agree with that recommendation. He said he was not in favor of Prop B due to a lack of enforcement. He also did not think Prop B, which created stricter regulations and made every violation a separate Class C misdemeanor, would stop people from breaking the law.
The BBB recommended that Missouri, which is home to 30 percent of all federally licensed puppy breeders, think about legislation to streamline prosecution of repeat offenders.
With only about 13 inspectors for the entire state, the CCPA may not do anymore to ensure enforcement than Prop B. In the CCPA, the director of the Department of Agriculture may refer a case to the attorney general or a prosecutor if violations go uncorrected. Then a prosecutor or the attorney general may bring an action, such as a restraining order, in an attempt for compliance.
“It can’t be left up to prosecutors because their hands area full,” Missouri resident Pat Reed said.
One more recommendation from the BBB was to increase license fees for commercial breeders, which has not been done in close to two decades. The current law imposes a maximum charge of $500 for licensing certain dog facilities, including dog breeding. The CCPA raises that amount to $2,500.
Another provision that the CCPA repeals is requiring breeders to have no more than 50 dogs for breeding. For both Bousum and Reed, this was a key provision in Prop B that they wanted to see made law.
The two bills also part ways where veterinarian requirements are concerned. Under the current law, veterinarians are required to make a visual inspection of dogs at a breeding facility twice per year. Prop B would have changed the requirement to a physical inspection of dogs at least once per year. The CCPA repeals this provision, reverting to current law.
Ire About More than Puppies
Missourians for the Protection of Dogs led a coalition of individuals and animal welfare organizations in a hard-fought campaign to land Prop B on the ballot. The coalition included the Humane Society of Missouri, the Humane Society of the United States, the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty of Animals.
Bousum, who volunteered much time to garnering signatures for Prop B, said she is angry with lawmakers who have forgotten how hard the battle was to get this initiative on the ballot due to the process involved. To Bousum, the repeal of some parts of Prop B and the modifications to others is a slap in the face of the democratic process.
Reed also said she was disappointed to learn about the changes to Proposition B.
“The will of constituents is being ignored,” Reed said. “The people have already voted.”
Reed believes the reason the changes to Proposition B were not put on a ballot for the voters is because legislators already know the people would reject it.
“They’re not modifying (Prop B),” Reed said. “They are gutting it.”
Even though McCracken was against Prop B, he is not happy that Missouri legislators took it upon themselves to rewrite the law without putting it before the voters. He said he has a real lack of confidence in Missouri legislators right now.
“They obviously don’t believe we are capable of choosing wisely,” McCracken said.
McCracken pointed out that with the other problems in the state, he thought legislators should be spending time on more important issues rather than revisiting something the voters have already spoken on.
Bousum echoed that thought with a question: “Do they have nothing else to do?”
Sen. Rob Schaaf (R)-34
Sen. Rob Schaaf (R), whose 34th district lies in Buchanan and Platte counties, voted for SB113, although 58.8 percent of his constituents voted in favor of Prop B. After repeated attempts to contact Schaaf, he did not return phone calls or answer emails.
However, during an interview in Jefferson City with stltoday.com, Schaaf told a reporter that his constituents did not understand the ramifications of passing Prop B. He said SB113 was a more balanced version of the law that will meet the voters’ goals.
The legislators must not be listening to Missourians like Reed, who has strong opinions about puppy breeders.
“Puppy mill people are not human,” Reed said. “They’re just after money.”
McCracken said the legislators are not listening to the people. According to a recent poll conducted by Lake Research Partners, McCracken might be dead-on.
The poll revealed that 59 percent of voters who have an opinion on the issue are against the Missouri Legislature repealing the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. Forty-one percent favor the repeal. And of those who had an opinion, 64 percent want Gov. Jay Nixon to veto any repeal by the legislature. Another 36 percent want the repeal passed into law.
“I think it’s despicable that the Legislature ignored their constituents,” Bousum said. “It will be my pleasure to get them out of office.”
Perhaps what is most disappointing to Reed is the state’s reputation if Prop B is repealed.
“(Missouri) will still be the puppy mill capital,” she said. “If we cannot be responsible enough to take care of our lowliest of animals, how can we be expected to take care of our fellow man? And if the state will allow this treatment, they can’t be serious about crime.”
The CCPA goes to Gov. Jay Nixon next for his signature or veto.