MO ballot proposal approved for circulation

The HSUS ballot initiative cracking down on dog breeders in Missouri, which is seen as a threat to all of animal agriculture in the state, has been approved for circulation by the Missouri Secretary of State’s office. While the Missouri Department of Agriculture is not able to take a stand on the proposal – which would limit operators to 50 or fewer female breeding dogs – Ag Director Jon Hagler tells Brownfield they’re well aware of the intentions behind it, “HSUS has made no secret about the fact that they’re not for ANY animal agriculture.”

Hagler says the department’s role is that of public education, “And we want to reach out and let folks know that there are no better stewards of animal welfare, no better stewards of the land than farmers and Missouri farmers have always been at the forefront of that.”

Hagler says the bad actors of dog breeding are unlicensed and that the department has and will continue to crack down on those operators, “They’re giving a bad name to not only the legitimate, professional, licensed breeders in Missouri but also to all of agriculture.”

Meanwhile, Missouri ag groups (Missouri Animal Ag Coalition) and lawmakers are coming up with strategies to meet the threat head-on. Just under 100-thousand certified signatures are needed on the so-called “Puppy Mill Cruelty Protection Act” proposal to put it before Missouri voters next November.  The group called Missouri for the Protection of Dogs – supported by both the Humane Society of the US (HSUS) and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) – has until May 2nd to collect signatures.  The state legislature has the power to overturn ballot proposals that are approved by voters.

  • Just remember, standards of care NOT numbers is what should define animal welfare. Do not let HSUS play the numbers game. In each state they have hit, they come up with a number they think they can get away with. It is arbitrary and they can give no “humane” reason why that number should be 50, 75, 25 or ???? (Those numbers are ones they have hit in other states. The fact that they are not consistent with the rhetoric is proof that it is arbitrary and capricious and all they want to do is fix a number so that they can begin lobbying to ratchet the number lower and lower, which they are already doing in those states where they have been able to force this down people’s throats.

    I still ask the question of how in the he– can the State allow a ballot measure that clearly violates the constitution by interfering in a persons right to run their business and by dictating “thou shalt not be able to own more than XX amount of legally available property??????” Someone PLEASE explain that to me! I could understand if the measure was that IF you have more than XX number of animals, you must have XX number of staff or somehow quantify what other resources you must have to be able to provide adequate care, but a law that flat out FORBIDS people to own a certain amount of legal property is so clearly out of bounds it isn’t even funny. Would you tell a gun store owner that he could only have 50 guns in his shop at a time because that 51st one might just fall in the wrong hands?? Or tell him that he can only sell so many guns a year because we don’t think you can responsibly sell more than that?? Or would you tell a restaurant owner that he can only feed 100 people a day because you don’t think that he can safely cook for any more people than that despite the fact that the restaurant has sufficient resources (seating, number of cooks and staff, etc.)? HELL NO you wouldn’t??? Why are breeders of animals (any animal, not just dogs) any different??? They should not be, and agriculture should be challenging the constitutionality/legality of even having a measure like this put forward. This is crazy!!!

  • OK, so I was just checking my Google alerts and I had received one regarding HSUS’s push into Missouri regarding “puppy mills”. In the process of reading their “info” I came across this blurb, “Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend their limbs;” interesting that they include language in that is almost verbatim from Prop 2 in California.

  • No Brent its not ‘interesting’ it’s a National EFFORT by the HSUS for every state in the union.
    1) The HSUS does not OWN, OPERATE or FINANCIALLY SUPPORT a single animal shelter in the U.S.
    2) The HSUS euthanizes 97% of all animals taken into their ‘care’
    3) They are a $150 MILLION per year, false non-profit organization that spends its ‘donations’ on lobbying to remove your rights to OWN pets, Breed pets, and Raise animals for human consumption and use, by lobbying against you in your states and in Washington, D.C. . They are a “Lobbying Machine”.

    My question to Missouri’s SOS Robin Carnihan is: How would she replace the $2 BILLION the pet industry brings into the state of Missouri? (not the AG industry, but PET alone!) The auto industry isn’t. Aeronautics isn’t. How will she replace this loss of Missouri revenues?
    As a cattle producer herself–she cannot imagine the day they will come for her 51st cow! But all livestock will follow suit if this passes for ‘pets’.

  • Excellent point Kathie. I was thinking the same. I read it last night and could not sleep. Not because the numbers will effect me. But because my constitutional rights will be forever gone. I already have under 50 dogs. But when I read.

    “8. If any provision of this section, or the application thereof to any person or circumstances, is held invalid or unconstitutional, that invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications of this section that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this section are severable.”

    I started to morn my country. It also made me ill that the Missouri Attorney General allowed this to go through written as such? Who is this guy? To challenge the United States Constitution. I am not sure I will be able to except this. And the sad thing is. The lynch mob has been called and they are itching to burn their witches.

    The other disturbing things are the fact that any violations are strike one you are a criminal.

    “6. A person is guilty of the crime of puppy mill cruelty when he or she knowingly violates any provision of this section. The crime of puppy mill cruelty is a class C misdemeanor, unless the defendant has previously pled guilty to or been found guilty of a violation of this section, in which case each such violation is a class A misdemeanor. Each violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense. If any violation of this section meets the definition of animal abuse in section 578.012, the defendant may be charged and penalized under that section instead. ”

    If a female dog got loose and got bred the breeder would then be considered a criminal. If a puppy did not sell and became 6 months old and the breeder

    “7) “Adequate rest between breeding cycles” means, at minimum, ensuring that dogs are not bred to produce more than two litters in any 18 month period.”

    New Studies prove that it is actually more beneficial to wait until a female dog is 2 years old. and breed her back to back pending the fact she is healthy. Then stop breeding her at 5 years old. This all to keep a healthy uterus and prevent Pyometra a very dangerous affliction that will cause death.

    The rest of it is already law for licensed breeders with the exception they are asking for bigger kennels.

    I did see the exempted shelters and rescues.

    I was told they avoided the hounds because I assume they are afraid of the well organized NRA. To the hound people. Do you really think if this passes they will leave you alone. Ask some of the hunters in Pennsylvania? It is time to wake up the public.

    We the People need to remember WE ARE THE PEOPLE. Not our elected officials. Not non profits collecting donations illegally run by a mafia to try and lobby your rights away. The HSUS is exactly like ACORN. Just as dirty. Lie the same and are only after power and greed. What money did they put into the study to prove their new laws will be beneficial to the Animals? Not a single dime. They make this up in their heads with no proof their ideas will benefit even the Animals. We know it will not benefit man kind.

  • I am not an animal rights activist. I beleive in fresh air, sunshine, and companionship for all animals. The animal rights activist have gone a little too far. I don’t beleive that anyone who has 50 dogs would be able to properly care for them, that is give them proper excersice (dogs don’t belong in cages all day every day), fresh air, and human contact daily. I am a small breeder with 15 dogs, and it takes a lot of time for me to make sure everyone is happy, healthy and comfortable. I don’t understand how anyone could devote enough time for 50 dogs and give them proper attention. I also sell all of my puppies privately and don’t understand how anyone with 50 dogs would be able to be sure of the home their puppy is going to, or with so many puppies, how could you make that much money or have time to spend it?! The poo market is great, it makes for a better dog most of the time, but when these big breeders have so many different breeds and oops and accident happens and some odd name is given to this “new” breed, that should be not be considered a responsible breeder. I beleive if we weed out some of these puppy mills that there will be a better market and people won’t have to worry about getting scammed when they want a family companion. I do beleive that animal rights activist need to focus their attention to the people out in the sticks who let their dogs run wild and form packs that terrorize the livestock farmers. These are the problem dogs that end up in the shelters. They are bored, hungry, poorly socialized, and over poplulated.

  • Being small does not automatically make you a good breeder and being large does not automatically make you a bad breeder. It is all about the management.

    I wish I made as much money as the people working for HSUS – WOW!

  • Thank you Rod! Care of any animal is directly related to management. It doesn’t matter if it is Pets or Livestock. For agriculture the number one limitation in crops, vegetables, fruit, or livestock the biggest limitation is land. The next limitations are in labor and management. With that said land is our biggest limitation in our cattle operation. We have by choosing a smaller more efficient breed we are able to stock anywhere from 1.5-2 more animals then our stocking rate for our area of Texas. We have shown local area ranchers in commercial production just how much excess grass we have as a result of breeding for the F1 cross and turning thinking to amount of pounds of beef produced per acre then number of head one sells every year.

    At least in Texas, this past legislative session we passed a law that allows Livestock producers to us Accepted Common Agriculture Practices. As Kathy said, try telling Texans one can not produce beef. At least in my state the beef producers would be up in arms, literally!

    I feel for states who must deal with issues like Prop 2 and Pet Legislation. I hope for Ohio, Michigan, North Carolina, and Missouri can head off what HSUS is trying to accomplish.

  • I think it is sad when a small breeder has to put down a large breeder. You are doing the same thing as the large breeder just with no help. There are many larger kennels (100 dogs) That the dogs are not raised on or in wire cages. They are happy and healthy. I am sick over the new laws they are trying to pass. If people would just take the time to understand what they are backing this would not have passed. They are trying to pass hard regs for the people that do not follow the ones we have. This will not change the PUPPYMILLS they will be the only ones left!!! We all need to band together and show up at Jeff City to rally against the stupid people we put there.

  • The way I am seeing this thing, they are going to put something on the ballet that will be written to sound like you are voting on something that is going to help protect the dogs from these so called terrible licensed and inspected breeders. When the problem should be put at the unlicensed uninspected breeders that can sell their animals at a fraction that a responsible licensed breeder can because of the expense the licensed inspected breeder has to raise these dogs and give the proper shots and keep their facilities up to par so they can pass their next unannounced inspection. Lots of your unispected non licensed breeders don’t do this as you tell by the pictures that keep popping up on the news media of nonlicensed kennels that are busted.
    If you notice everytime the hsus puts pictures out that make the news media it is of unlicensed Breeding facilities. I don’t see this problem being addressed. Instead they are trying to put new very costly regulations on the Breeders that are PLAYING BY THE RULES.
    Something to think about you put the Licensed Breeders out you are still going to have the Unlicensed Breeders out there just like you do now except they are making more money and still not taking care of their animals.

    Just my 2 cents worth as a person that feels that more of our rights are being taken from us daily. And with each inch of ground gained by animal rights against animal owners another inch will try to be taken.

Add Comment

Your email address will not be published.


Stay Up to Date

Subscribe for our newsletter today and receive relevant news straight to your inbox!