The effort to repeal many of the important provision in Missouri’s Prop B took a twisting turn today when Governor Jay Nixon announced a possible compromise – “between state-level animal-welfare groups and Missouri dog breeders.”
Agriculture groups in the state and the Humane Society of Missouri have reportedly signed off on the compromise. There are no details reported in a story I found on the Midwest Democracy Project website.
But writer Barb Shelly does offer some details on the Kansas City Star site – noting the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the Best Friends Animal Society also oppose the compromise.
“” Among their objections: Dogs can still be stacked in cages; no rest is required between breeding cycles; dogs still don’t have enough space; and the number of breeding dogs is unlimited, with no ratio of workers to dogs required. “”
In another piece published a little earlier today, Shelly reported the new proposal “requires a veterinarian to physically examine dogs annually, rather than just eyeballing them, as the legislature’s bill proposes.”
And ” … the new bill calls for more exercise space for dogs than the legislature had wanted, and it requires future <my bold type> enclosures to be three times as large as the space currently required by the Missouri Department of Agriculture.”
My first reaction is to side with the HSUS, the ASPCA and Best Friends. I don’t like the fact that dogs could still be stacked in cages, that breeding cycles will not be regulated and at minimum there are not standards for a ratio of dogs to handlers.
I’m little troubled that there is a mention of expanded exercise space, but it doesn’t mention outdoor space for the dogs.
I don’t think the people in the Missouri legislature who are pushing for a repeal of these key components of Prop B understand that quality breeders already meet or exceed the provision in Proposition B. They – and to a degree Gov. Nixon – are listening to people who don’t want to be forced to allow their dogs time for regular play outside or to offer them proper housing and don’t want to follow proper guidelines on rest between breeding cycles.
Quality breeders do all of these things.
If a breeder says offering their dogs time everyday outside for play will cut into their profits, that’s a red flag. If a breeder says housing their dogs in cages large enough to allow them space to move around will cost them too much money, that’s a red flag.
If a breeder does not want to be told to allow rest between breeding cycles, that’s a red flag.
And I will again bring up this point – would any of the people proposing a repeal of key components of Prop B ever suggest to friends that they never let their dogs outside to play or tell them to keep their dogs in stacked cages in the garage? No – they’d never publicly admit that. So why should breeding dogs have to endure this?