By RICK A. RICHARDS
Indiana Correspondent JEFFERSON CITY. Mo. — Agriculture officials in Missouri are wondering what’s next in the wake of the passage on Nov. 2 of a ballot initiative that drastically changes state law governing the operation of puppy mills.
While it’s hard to come out against the cruel conditions that exist on some of Missouri’s 3,000 puppy mills, Bob Peterson, executive director of the Agricultural Business Council in Kansas City, said the real impact of Proposition B – as the ballot initiative was known – may hit the state’s farms within a few years.
The initiative, which passed 51 to 49 percent out of nearly 2 million votes cast, would limit dog breeders to no more than 50 dogs. In addition, it would require that all dogs be examined by a veterinarian at least once a year, give dogs unfettered access indoors and outdoors, require pens be cleaned once a day, have enclosures with cement floors and no wire and have pen space of between 12-30 square feet, depending on the size of the dog.
The law also creates a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty.”
“We’re deeply concerned about it. We think it sets a precedent in modern agriculture,” said Peterson, adding it’s not just a precedent for Missouri but for other states in the Midwest where there are large confined feeding operations.
Peterson accused the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS, one of the major supporters of the bill, along with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) of having an agenda to do away with animal agriculture, and of using the puppy mill business as a way of opening the door to that.
“This is one of the biggest issues facing agriculture today,” said Peterson.
The Missouri Farm Bureau (MFB) issued a statement after the election that it was disappointed with the passage because it would put reputable dog breeders out of business. The MFB added that it was afraid farmers, ranchers and anyone else involved in animal agriculture would be affected in the future. They are the “next target of the radical animals rights agenda,” said the statement.
For its part, the HSUS said in a news release that its focus is solely on puppy mills.
“We’re grateful to the citizens of Missouri for voting to crack down on puppy mill abuses and to establish common-sense standards for the care of dogs,” said Barbara Schmitz, campaign director for Missourians for the Protection of Dogs/YES on Prop B.
“If we can do it here in the nation’s largest puppy mill state, we are more likely to carry the day with reforms enacted in other states, where this cruel industry is not nearly as strong and entrenched.”
Bob Baker, executive director of the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation, accused those opposed to Proposition B of “misinformation and outright lies.” Peterson, however, said the ballot initiative was unnecessary because there are already laws in Missouri to address puppy mills.
In fact, he said the 356 puppy mills put out of business in recent years by state inspectors proves the law was working. And, he said, the law would be more effective if Missouri would hire more inspectors for its agriculture department.
“One of the challenges we face today,” said Peterson, “is the changing demographics of the world we live in. I grew up on a ranch, but my kids grew up in the suburbs of a big city. As people move to the city, they’re losing contact with their farm roots.”
In fact, Proposition B was overwhelmingly rejected in nearly all counties in Missouri, except in the urban areas around St. Louis in the east and Kansas City in the west. Support for Proposition B in those areas was big enough to pass the measure statewide.
“Just 2 percent of the population is directly involved in agriculture,” said Peterson. “It’s the other 98 percent we need to communicate with more directly.”
Peterson described the puppy mill vote as “a wedge into a larger issue” of animal agriculture.
The vote also got Jeff Windett’s attention. The executive vice president of the Missouri Cattlemen’s Assoc. agreed with Peterson that while puppy mills were the target with this vote, he’s afraid the next target will be cattlemen or hog farmers.
“Who wouldn’t want to protect puppies? It’s tough to be against that,” said Windett. “But the law had no definition of a puppy mill. We raised the argument that the only ones affected would be the licensed puppy breeders, and that the ones operating outside the law wouldn’t obey any new requirements.”
Windett said 13 pages of regulations for puppy breeders already exist in Missouri. “We want to know why, if the Humane Society is so concerned about animals, they don’t put money into a fund to increase inspections,” he asked.
In spite of the vote, he said, “We’re claiming victory. In February, a poll by the Humane Society said Proposition B would pass with 91 percent of the vote. We reduced that by 40 percent once we got our message out. Another week, and we would have defeated it.”
Even though the vote is over and Proposition B passed, Windett said Missouri cattlemen are not stopping their efforts against it.
“My advice to farmers is to organize now. We need to start a public relations campaign on what animal agriculture is really all about,” said Windett, adding traditional animal agriculture could be next.
Peterson agreed. “As a practical matter, I thought we’d lose by a wider margin. If we needed a wake-up call, this is it.” |
