Missouri representative gives clueless radio interview on Prop B repeal

No Gravatar

I received a link this morning to a radio interview with Rep. Kurt Bahr of the Missouri House. The interview is described in the Fired Up Missouri blog as being a “train wreck.” And it truly is.

Bahr suggests the provision in Proposition B to limit the number of breeding dogs a breeders can possess to 50 is unconstitutional. Bahr and others who are clueless on the US Constitution, try to state these limits are a violation of property rights.

As at least one person commenting under the story correctly points out, the law does not limit how many dogs a person can “own.” It limits the number of breeding dogs a commercial breeder can house.

And if these elected officials feel these limits on breeders are unconstitutional, then I want them to go after the pet limits imposed by homeowners associations across the nation. But of course, we won’t see that happening, because most of them probably don’t want their neighbors to have more than two pets.

Bahr goes on to state his buddies in the Missouri House want Governor Nixon to sign Senate Bill 113, which guts Prop B and then sign a compromise bill, which scales back some of the provisions in SB113 but also does not meet the higher standards of care in Prop B.

If the compromise is supposed to be compromise between the two, why is the pro-puppy mill side calling for SB 113 to be signed too? Something stinks here, far worse than anything our dogs leave behind in our back yards.

Maybe the Prop B supporters should ask that Prop B get another signature too. Maybe the governor could turn this into a bigger circus sideshow and throw darts or flip a coin. I’ve seen more organization in the Little Rascals club meetings (short films from the 1930s).

And Bahr claims that this latest SB 113 only drops the 50-breeding dog limit. – WRONG again. As the blog writer points out, “SB113 also changes the rules regarding breeding cycles and weakens rules for veterinarian care and exercise.”

It can be stunning to witness the degree of misinformation some people will put out in defending special interest groups or big corporations (see the BP Oil Gusher).

4 thoughts on “Missouri representative gives clueless radio interview on Prop B repeal

  1. Just to point out before I make my statement I am all for the Gov signing SB113 in to law. That being said I listened to the debate on the house floor concerning SB113. Talk about Tom Loehner having his stuff together. Also it was blatantly obvious the majority of the St. Louis reps had not even bothered to study Prop B and its effects. They just went in with the attitude I will vote with my constituency to save my butt. I do not know where you city people dug up the majority of your representatives but I must say I was actualy embarassed for them. They would quote HSUS/voters opinions as facts. Of course anyone who had bothered to take a couple hours and study the issue would be able to shoot them down. Shoot them down they did. There was alot of mumblings and I don’t knows going on. So sad that our tax dollars are paying their salaries. A high school senior could of done a better job! I must commen Kathie Conway I believe not real sure of the spelling. Not my rep but yours. I did not like that she voted no with her constituency because she knew the truth of prop B. I was brought up to do the right thing. Even if that puts you in a rough spot you do it any way if you know it is right. To me voting no when in her heart she truly new better is like jumping off a bridge if her friends said to do it. But I commend her for speaking out on the dangers of Prop B and trying to educate her voters to please pay attention and study the matter because there is more to this than meets the eye. This has been the main issue debated in Mo for 15 months. What the heck have those others been doing this whole time?

  2. The standards of Prop B are minimal and reasonable. We would never want our pets to live below the standards of Prop B. So why force breeding dogs to live this way?

    Forcing dogs to live 24/7 trapped in tiny cages with wire flooring, to be nothing more than breeding machines, is morally wrong. These are horrors that Prop B will help prevent. It’s not perfect, as it did need the funding mechanism, but at least it addresses the horrors of puppy mills.

    Prop B will go after licensed and unlicensed breeders who don’t meet these minimum standards. The quality breeders already meet or exceed these standards.

    I’ve visited quality breeding facilities, where the dogs have play yards and get to enjoy the sunshine and the outdoors.
    This is extremely important for dogs, cats and other animals, as they possess self-awareness.

    As far as the 50-breeding dog limit – why is okay for HOAs and cities to place limits on the number of pets we can have in our homes, but it’s not okay to limit the number of breeding dogs a breeder can have?

    We should have reasonable care and housing standards for families and breeders. I’ve suggested a possible handler-to-dog ratio for breeders, in place of caps. But the mass-production breeders won’t go along because that means hiring more people.

    EVERYTHING can’t be all about money and profit EVERY TIME. I’ll stand on the side of compassion for animals. It’s a great place to be.

  3. You just proved my point yet again. There you go believing HSUS and media. No wonder the St. Louis reps are so ill informed. They know they do not have to study a issue and the facts. The people who vote them in sure do not and could care less. IT IS ALL READY ILLEGAL BY MO LAWS THAT DOGS LIVE THEIR WHOLE LIVES 24/7 IN A TINY CAGE. I challenge all supporting prop B to contact the Mo department of animal agriculture and request a book that lays out the laws for you to see. Do not go online looking at what the AR sites have posted. They did not post all of the Prop B ballot initiative. They sure are not going to be honest about what is and is not all ready law in the state of Mo.

  4. The reason puppy mill operations love Missouri is because the laws there have been far too weak.
    If you take the time to read the provisions in Prop B you will see that it sets minimum guidelines for housing and care.
    If the current laws properly addressed the housing – 24/7 and cage sizes – the opponents would not have had so much to say against the those provisions in Prop B.
    You’re proving MY POINT.

    I ask again. Would you want your pets to live below the standards of Prop B? The answer is no.

    In addition, too few people are against better laws to protect pets don’t understand animal cognition and self-awareness. Caging dogs in mass-production facilities, where they receive little love and attention is cruel. There is not doubt about this.

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>