When will the opposition to Prop. B get their arms around the idea that dogs are companion animals and do nothing to supply the food chain in this country? It seems to me anyone owning an acre or two of land can start breeding dogs; thus becoming farmers as defined by Missouri. I think the "real" farmers out there should be offended by this comparison. How did it come about that companion animals would be labeled livestock?
So if we are led to believe Prop. B came to pass because "city people" were misled by animal activists, why is it so far-fetched to believe that perhaps city people are far enough away from the farm that they see the big picture; too many puppies, not enough homes, overwhelmed shelters and too much neglect. Now if I were a dog breeder with this knowledge I think I would find another line of work, (unless the mindset is it doesn't matter what happens to the critters after the money is in the pocket).
I don't know anyone who doesn't respect the family farm as Ms. Scheulen suggests. Family farms have been the backbone of our country, and sadly now on the short list, replaced with corporate farms.
There are more recalls of food products, more salmonella, more genetic alterations, more antibiotic abuse, and a less healthy society since the destruction of the family farm in favor of factory farming, (not to mention ethanol driving up the price of corn flakes).
So why would anyone favor mass production of any kind over quality? This applies to companion animals as well as anything and is being addressed with Prop B. Those of you who want to repeal Prop. B are doing so for any number of reasons known only to yourselves. I'm not in the city but I voted yes because I've experienced the heartache of puppy mass production; have you?