Missouri farmers group spits propaganda concerning Missouri’s Prop B

No Gravatar

A brand new Pack of Putrid Punditry Award goes to Missouri Farmers Care, described as “a coalition of leading Missouri agriculture advocacy groups” by a piece of warped propaganda posted on the website – DairyHerd.com.

The group falsely claims that the bill recorded as SB 113 – which guts the anti-puppy mill measure Proposition B – actually strengthens the enforcement of Missouri’s animal welfare laws and preserves the voters’ intent on Prop B.

Unbelievable!! We’ve got to come up with a phrase that best describes this practice of completely twisting the facts – blatantly suggesting something false is true. Gotta come up with a good name for this practice.

In celebrating SB 113’s passage in the Missouri legislature, veterinarian Dr. Alan Wessler, a member of Missouri Farmers Care, is quoted as saying – “This is a great day for everyone who truly cares about animal welfare.”

No Dr. Wessler. The legislature doing the bidding of breeder organizations to the deteriment of the dogs and voters is not something done to protect animals.

He went on to state those voting for SB113 took a “strong stand to ensure that our dogs and puppies receive the care they need.” In reality, the opponents of better anti-puppy mill legislation do not want breeders to be required to provide better housing and regular exercise and certainly don’t want anyone severely punished for severely neglecting their dogs.

How Dr. Wessler is that ensuring they receive the care they need?

And then Missouri Farmers Care suggests there is some mysterious section in Prop B that allows animal rights groups to interfere with animal agriculture in Missouri. But the text fails to offer a link to – or the wording – for this section.

I just hope Governor Nixon understands the facts in this case and vetoes this bill. Then, the legislature should go back and vote on the best component of the bill, which increases funding for enforcement.

2 thoughts on “Missouri farmers group spits propaganda concerning Missouri’s Prop B

  1. The facts are that there really is a “mysterious section” to Prop B that would allow animal rights groups to interfere with animal agriculture. According to Prop B: “(9) “Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof.” http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp According to Missouri law livestock are considered “domestic animals” and usually live near the household of the owner. SB113 redefines the term “pet” as “canine,” if this is truly about the welfare of dogs then why is this clarification a problem?
    Furthermore, Prop B never made any provisions to support itself and provide enforcement of any kind. Whereas, SB113 creates additional funds and resources to support Operation Bark Alert, to hire new inspectors, and to conduct the necessary inspections. SB113 also increases the annual inspections–performed by a licensed veterinarian–to twice a year.
    Another red flag to Prop B is that HSUS, PETA, and other animal rights radicals support this bill and are rejecting these necessary previsions. If this really is about the dogs then why fight against what would actually make this bill work? How will this state pay for more inspectors without extra previsions? Why is specifying “canines” a bad thing–that is if the dogs are truly of concern?
    Another key issue here is the removal of the 50-dog limit. The number of animals does not define animal care and it is unconstitutional to limit what a business can and cannot do within the bounds of the law. Missouri does not limit how many acres a farmer can plow, how many groceries Wal-Mart can sell, how many children a family can have, how many cats a single woman can own, and it should not limit how many dogs a business can own either.
    Learn more at:
    TheBaconBlogger.blogspot.com
    ChrisChinn.wordpress.com
    MoFB.org click on Animal Care Toolkit

  2. Jo,
    That’s a nice try, but it doesn’t work. For one thing, I’d need to see the reference to livestock being classified as “domestic animals” in the Missouri law. And also, even if the connection was true, what most people have a problem with are the factory farms, where the animals are certainly NOT living near the “household.”
    The additional funds for enforcement is an easy fix with a separate bill that doesn’t gut Prop B.
    I think inspections and veterinary care should be handled separately. The inspections should be conducted by an animal-welfare agency.
    The bill should cover the breeding of pets, not just dogs.
    As for the 50-dog limit, if this is dropped then there should be a minimum handler-to-dog ratio established.

    What everyone needs to understand is the fact that dog and cats – and other animals for that matter – should not be forced to live in cages 24/7 to be nothing more than breeding machines.
    I have visited breeders who allow their dogs time outside everyday in large play areas. The dogs were clean and happy.
    Why can’t all breeders operate this way? Why? – because for so many of these mass-production facilities, it’s about the bottom line, not the health and welfare of the dogs.

    Animals on the level of dogs and cats possess self-awareness and state of consciousness and therefore can suffer both physical and emotional pain and suffering.
    We must do what we can to prevent this level of suffering.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>