Your Opinion: Response on Proposition B

Kristie Scheulen, Loose Creek

Friday, April 15, 2011

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.

More like this story

JMO 2 years, 1 month ago

I'm very tired of all the rhetoric about prop B. The proposition was perfectly clear if you bothered to read it and it was voted into law. The only questionable part of that law was the definition of "pet" as "any domesticated animal". Still, it was in a law about DOGS in a chapter of the statutes about Dogs and Cats. It was NEVER going to apply to cows and chickens people!

Overturn the will of the people? Well SURE! The people can't decide what's right or wrong, someone else has to tell them! We can’t have them making a choice. We can’t have the citizens saying what the law is. I’m sure it’s for their own good. They aren’t intelligent enough to decide for themselves.

annevoloshin 2 years, 1 month ago

I implore the legislators and Gov.Nixon not to change the bill "Missourians for the protection of dogs prop B". Although I live in Connecticut, I donated to their cause because I purchased a puppy from a pet store that was bred in Missouri. The veterinary bills exceeded $15000.00. Because my children became attached to the dog we suffered both emotionally and financially, using funds that were saved for my childrens education. This was the result of the irresponsible and greedy breeders and the pet store that sold us the dog. Please, I know how terrible this was for us, don't let this happen to another unsuspecting family. Thank you. Anne Voloshin

justaword 2 years, 1 month ago

Kristie Scheulen, Loose Creek says we can “…hash, trash and do it all over again.” I thought that was the purpose of voter referendums. Both side presented arguments and voters would decide. Scheulen whines, cries foul after the fact, and references “saturated air waves”…and “lies.” As a voter I thought it was a fair fight, unless of course for the anti-voter, anti- (their)regulation, Republican legislature.

Not only this referendum but there are at least two others, right? Now, tell me if I am wrong. But didn’t the majority of Missourians vote for no pre-billing on nuke electricity? For Inflation indexing the poorest of Missourian’s wages?

It would have been more becoming if Kristie would have referenced being out-spent. But a quote from a rural newspaper well indicates what the majority was up against. Support for puppy mills came from: “Missouri Pork Association, Missouri Cattlemen’s Association, Missouri Soybean Association, Missouri Corn Growers Association, Missouri Farm Bureau, MFA Incorporated, Missouri Beef Industry Council, Inc., Missouri Dairy Association, MO Federation of Animal Owners, Missouri Egg Council, Inc., Missouri Agribusiness Association, FCS Financial, Missouri Dairy Growth Council, Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, Cargill, Missouri Rural Electric Cooperatives, and Missouri Pet Breeders.”

Missouri Corn Growers…? Now, these are people that have, according to the Wall-Street Journal, 40-perecent of our corn crop going to dubious ethanol, making our food prices go up. Our repair bills on small engines, like lawn mowers, go up. Like the Missouri legislature, they don’t want to give us a choice, or abide by that choice.

The Wall-Street Journal also references a veto by Montana’s governor of a voter approved law, saying “it would have gone against the will of the people.” Now, I wouldn’t have voted for that particular law, but I would have respected the majority vote. I hope Jay Nixon is listening to Gov. Brian Schweitzer’s veto.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

News Tribune