House panel backs changes in dog breeding law

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

A Missouri House committee advanced a bill Tuesday that would take away much of a dog-breeding law approved by voters in November.

The House Agriculture Policy Committee unanimously backed the bill, which would remove requirements that dogs be given clean water, time to rest between breeding cycles and a certain amount of space to move within their cages. The bill also would lift a provision that limited dog breeders from owning more than 50 dogs for breeding purposes.

Proposition B passed in November with 51.6 percent of the statewide vote, due largely to a strong showing in urban areas that overcame opposition across most of the rest of state.

At least 15 bills have been filed in the House and the Senate this year to repeal the law or change several of its provisions. A Senate committee last month also endorsed a bill to remove the 50-dog limit and give licensed dog breeders up to 180 days to correct serious violations before they are charged with any crime.

Animal rights supporters have urged lawmakers not to change the law, citing the majority of voters who backed Proposition B. Many showed up to testify at public hearings for the bills before the Agriculture Policy Committee and some have even taken out full-page newspaper advertisements in the Capital City to implore lawmakers not to change the law.

The bill approved by the House committee even would change the law’s name from the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act — as approved by voters — to the Dog Breeders Cruelty Prevention Act.

The House Committee also approved an amendment to the bill increasing the annual fees for licensed dog breeders by $25, which would raise about $34,000 that the state could use to investigate and shut down unlicensed breeding operations. Rep. Delus Johnson, R-St. Joseph, said he sponsored the amendment as a compromise with people who oppose changing the law. But Johnson said changes are, in fact, needed.

“We are going to have to probably take some heat for tweaking this thing,” Johnson said of the dog breeding law. “But we’ve got to re-word it (the law), there’s no doubt about it.”

Both the House and Senate bills would require that licensed veterinarians be in charge of caring for injured dogs or euthanizing them, if necessary.

Committee chairman Tom Loehner, R-Koeltztown, thanked committee members after they voted to pass the bill, which is sponsored by Rep. Stanley Cox, R-Sedalia, who is not a member of the committee. Loehner praised the committee members’ patience and questions for witnesses at public hearings on the issue.

Six of the seven bills currently assigned to the committee deal with repealing or changing the dog breeding law. The bill passed Tuesday now goes before the full House.

More like this story

shelleyp 2 years, 3 months ago

Wow, $34,000. I mean, increasing the fee a whole $25.00. Are the representatives sure they got permission from their agribusiness masters to raise the fee a whole $25.00? After all, the only reason these large scale commercial dog breeders are in business is so that they can make as much money as possible, while spending as little as they can.

I'm sure one whole new inspector will make all the difference in the world. So what if the Missouri Department of Agriculture has stated they need at least seven more inspectors to do their job properly.

Oh, and they just have to change the bill. Not because the bill wouldn't work, or wouldn't do it's job. No, the agribusiness community had a hissy fit, and jerked these representative's chains, told them to heel. After all, what right do Missouri voters have, to have a say in the Missouri farming industry? So what if farmers have no problems telling others businesses what to do --this is agribusiness, you know--it can do what it wants, when it wants. And they're darn well making it sure we understand our place in Missouri politics: we, the voters, just don't matter.

This bill completely guts Proposition B, while pretending to only be a "modification". The representatives' actions are not only disrespectful of the voters, they're deceitful, too.

Shame on them

shelleyp 2 years, 3 months ago

The reality of HB 13

puppies.burningbird.net/article/reality-hb-131

rodinman 2 years, 3 months ago

It is payback time for the puppets. To hell with what the voeters mandated; it is the same with the legislation to change the funding on nuclear popwer plant construction.

whatif 2 years, 3 months ago

These puppy mills can be put out of business if enough people refuse to buy from them. Do your homework. When purchasing a puppy, investigate the source before buying....and don't buy from anyone if they are unwilling to show you physical evidence of where the puppy comes from and the conditions it's parents live under... If we can't have laws to protect these poor dogs, then we can do even better and just not do business with anyone willing to inflict such cruelty..

tragopan 2 years, 3 months ago

Unfortunately, a lot of negative propaganda has been put forward by the anti-animal breeding folks, like HSUS. When urban folks see these stories, they believe them because they have no real experience with most breeding facilities of any kind of animal, whether it is dogs, cats or farm animals. This lack of animal husbandry experience leaves folks thinking the worst of animal breeders. While there are some people who do not act responsibly with their animals, the great majority do. Why is that the case? One main reason is that most people working with animals LIKE animals. They enjoy working with animals because animals are interesting and a lot more fun than working nine to five in an office! Now, speaking of the HSUS promoted amendment, whoever in their right mind would imagine that ANY regulation would state how many breeding dogs a person could own and work with? The point is that it is not the NUMBER of animals, it is the QUALITY of the husbandry practices. People who have a lot of animals often HIRE additional help as needed. Why do people imagine that someone breeding dogs doesn't have help? Are we still living in the USA or some other place...where you are going to be told how many animals you can own or breed. This amendment is NOT about animal cruelty, it is about CONTROL over animals by the ANTI-animal folks...those who want to eliminate animals from our lives. So, you urbanites, do a little research and find out the facts about animal husbandry, whether dogs, cats or farm animals, otherwise, YOU will be the ones not having pets available and not having meat for the table! If you are not aware of the animal rights agenda...see bewareanimalradicals.com for info.

Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting

Or login with:

OpenID

News Tribune