Dear Editor:
In response to Kathryn Warnick, president of the Humane Society of Missouri:
This issue of Prop. B has been hashed and trashed for over a year, but we can go all over it again if you wish, just in case someone missed all the arguments against Prop. B.
The provisions in Prop. B were never designed to enhance the welfare of dogs raised by large-scale breeders. Several of the provisions were already addressed in greater detail in the Animal Welfare Act and Regulations manual enforced by the USDA and the Missouri Department of Agriculture.
The provisions of Prop. B were designed to put not just the substandard breeders out of business but the good breeders also.
There is a lot to fix in Prop. B.
The real sham was last November's election. The voters in the large urban areas were only made aware of one side of the Prop. B issue and the Humane Society of the United States saturated the air waves with the most heart-wrenching ad campaign ever launched and presented it as the norm amongst large dog breeders. They lied to the public about what Prop. B would accomplish. They have hidden their agenda in hopes of sneaking into Missouri.
I am well aware of the rescues and care that shelters and rescue centers offer to the dogs that are seized from substandard breeders by the MDA and USDA. The point there being that the system in place to shut down the bad breeders is working and needs to be allowed to work without the emotional distractions of Prop. B.
It seems to be particularly hard for dog lovers to accept that all dogs are not fawned over and treated like children rather than animals. Truth is not all dogs need human affection to be happy.
No one wants to see any animal truly abused or neglected but as we well know abuse and neglect is not limited to large-scale dog breeders. Prop. B overreaches its intended target and is bad news for all of Missouri.
Our state Legislature should overturn the will of the people when everything about it is as wrong as Prop. B.