Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation, Proposition B (2010)

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Voting on the
Treatment of Animals
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Missouri Constitution
Flag of Missouri.png

The Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation Act, also known as Proposition B, was on the November 2, 2010 ballot in Missouri as an initiated state statute, where it was approved.[1]

The initiative was supported by multiple animal welfare groups.[2][3] Missourians for the Protection of Dogs led the effort for the certified measure that proposed adopting new rules for dog-breeders, including capping the number of dogs that were used for breeding purposes, requiring resting periods between breeding and establishing other requirements. The measure required that dog-breeders only be able to have 50 breeding dogs and required them to feed those animals daily and regularly.[4][5]

On May 2, the state's petition drive deadline, supporters submitted an estimated 190,000 signatures. On August 3, 2010, the Missouri Secretary of State certified the measure for the ballot, designating the measure as Proposition B.[6][7]


See also: Legislative tampering in Missouri

Efforts for repeal

Following the approval of Proposition B lawmakers announced that they would support efforts to repeal or change the approved measure. Rep. Tom Loehner said, "We're in discussions with a few people and trying to get together with ag groups, representatives and senators and also our legal people on exactly what we can do and what our options are."[8][9] The measure was and continues to be opposed by licensed breeders and the agricultural community. According to Barbara Schmitz, spokesperson for the campaign in support of Prop B (Missourians for the Protection of Dogs), "If lawmakers do not respect the will of the people and do try to alter Prop B, we will fight to remind them that the voters have spoken."[10]

The legislative session begins January 5, 2011.

Supporters' response

In response to efforts to repeal or change Proposition B, Wayne Pacelle, president and chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, wrote an "open letter" to the Missouri Farm Bureau. The letter aimed to dispel fears about the voter-approved the measure and compared it to an earlier ban on cockfighting and bear wrestling in Missouri. "The Missouri Farm Bureau opposed that ballot measure, too, arguing that a ban on that barbaric practice would lead to an end to all hunting, fishing, rodeo and animal agriculture," said Pacelle. He went on to argue, "If you care about animal welfare, leave the dogs alone. If you care about democracy, let the law take effect and do not work to subvert it."[11][12]

In response to legislative proposals supporters of Proposition B posted billboards along major highways in Missouri leading into Jefferson City, according to news reports. The billboards read, "Missouri voters have spoken. Will you listen?"[13]

Senate bill

On December 1, 2010, the first day to file legislation for consideration in the 2011 session, Sen. Bill Stouffer officially filed a bill to repeal Proposition B. "It does nothing to solve the problem of dog abuse. It only targets licensed dealers, and people that are ignoring the law now are not affected by this," said Stouffer.[14][15]

Senate bill 4 to repeal Proposition B can be read here.

On March 10, 2011 the Missouri Senate voted 20-14 to approve SB 113. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Mike Parson, repeal some of the mandates included in Proposition B. Specifically, some of the amendments include eliminating the cap on owning 50 breeding dogs and recent changes to living conditions. The proposal would allow for civil penalties and misdemeanor charges for repeat offenses and implement a $25 annual fee (to finance state efforts against unlicensed dog breeders) and allow licensing costs of up to $2,500 (instead of $500).[16][17]

House bill

On January 3, 2011 Rep. Tony Dugger filed HB 94 to repeal Proposition B. On January 20 the bill was referred to the Agriculture Policy Committee.[18]

The House bill can be read here.

Approved revisions

On April 13, 2011 the Missouri House of Representatives passed SB 113 with a vote of 85-71. Just one month earlier, the Senate voted 20-14 in favor of the proposal.[19]

The approved bill:[16][19]

  • removes the cap on owning 50 breeding dogs
  • allows licensing costs of up to $2,500 (instead of $500)
  • requires breeders to be inspected twice a year by a veterinarian in order to maintain a license
  • requires that food be made available to dogs at least every twelve hours and water must be checked and provided
  • stacked cages must be have impermeable floors to solids and liquids
  • allows for civil penalties and misdemeanor charges for repeat offenses and implement a $25 annual fee
    • any violations must be corrected within 180 days

In addition to the changes, lawmakers reportedly changed the name of the law from "Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act" to "Canine Cruelty Prevention Act." The bill in full be read here.

The bill is pending the Governor of Missouri's signature.

In reaction to the approved bill, supporters of Proposition B said a referendum to repeal SB 113 is a possibility for 2012 should the governor enact the proposal.[20] Barbara Schmitz of the Missourians for the Protection of Dogs said, "We think that it's a travesty that the General Assembly is essentially overturning the will of the people and stripping away all of the provisions of Prop B."[21]

Supporters of the legislative bill, include breeders in the state. Barb York, president of the Missouri Pet Breeders Association, said, "We’re pleased, and hopefully now we can move on and take care of our animals." Others said the changes were necessary to keep legitimate breeders in business and preserve the industry. Rep. Tom Loehner said, "The fact of the matter is, if this thing goes into effect, thousands of people are out of work, they’re out of a job and they lose their investment."[22]

Compromise offered

Days following the legislature's approval of a revision of Proposition B, Gov. Jay Nixon offered a compromise between proposed revisions and the voter-approved Proposition B. "People with good minds and good will have come together to develop a Missouri solution to this Missouri issue, and together we have made significant progress. The agreement that was signed today upholds the intent of the voters, protects dogs and ensures that Missouri agriculture will continue to grow," said Nixon.[23] The new plan would require approval by the legislature and the governor's signature. The 2011 legislative session is scheduled to end May 13, 2011.

According to reports, the new plan would:[24]

  • repeal the maximum limit of 50 breeding dogs per business
  • repeal a provision to send first-time dog care violators to jail
  • double existing space requirements for current businesses by January 2012 and tripled by January 2016 (Any facilities constructed after April 15, 2011 would have to immediately comply with the tripled space requirements.)
  • require food and water access at least twice daily
  • require at least one yearly exam and prompt treatment for "serious illness or injury"

The new agreement was signed by the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation and by supporters of the proposed legislative bill SB 113. The state chapter of the Humane Society supports the new proposal. However, Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of national Humane Society, disagrees and said that the will of the voters should be respected and Proposition B should remain.[24]

Compromise signed

On April 27, 2011 Gov. Jay Nixon signed a revision of Proposition B after a proposed compromise was approved by the Missouri General Assembly.[25] In response to arguments that legislators ignored the state voters, Nixon said, "Their votes did matter. Their votes fundamentally changed a discussion on what’s on going with our state and played a vital role getting this to the finish line."[26]

The bill is SB 161. The House voted 108-42, while the Senate voted 24-10.[26][27]

The final revision included an emergency clause putting the measure into effect immediately. Reports indicate that the clause may prevent a referendum on the issue.[26]

Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States said, "You can be sure we won’t relent in our efforts to call out animal cruelty to dogs, cats, or animals raised for food. And we’ll remind consumers and voters about Big Ag’s efforts to subvert the protection of animals, the environment, food safety, and democratic rights."[26]

2012 legislation

A notable measure was pushed during 2012 state legislative session, primarily backed by the Humane Society of the United States, who were also backers of the dog breeding regulation measure. That measure, an initiated constitutional amendment, would prohibit the repeal or amendment of a citizen initiative by the Missouri General Assembly. Exceptions include a three-fourths vote in both the House and the Senate, by vote of the people via referendum, or if a statute specifically grants the General Assembly the authority to repeal the measure via majority vote. The measure was in response to the revisions made to the 2010 initiative, according to reports.[28]

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results
Proposition B (Dog Breeding Regulation)
Approveda Yes 997,870 51.59%

Election results via Missouri Secretary of State

Text of measure


The official ballot title read as follows:[29]

Shall Missouri law be amended to:
  • require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles;
  • prohibit any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets; and
  • create a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations?
It is estimated state governmental entities will incur costs of $654,768 (on-going costs of $521,356 and one-time costs of $133,412). Some local governmental entities may experience costs related to enforcement activities and savings related to reduced animal care activities.


Fair Ballot Language

A “yes” vote will amend Missouri law to require large-scale dog breeding operations to provide each dog under their care with sufficient food, clean water, housing and space; necessary veterinary care; regular exercise and adequate rest between breeding cycles. The amendment further prohibits any breeder from having more than 50 breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their puppies as pets. The amendment also creates a misdemeanor crime of “puppy mill cruelty” for any violations.

A “no” vote will not change the current Missouri law regarding dog breeders.

If passed, this measure will have no impact on taxes. [30]


Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Ballot Petition, 5/2/10

According to supporters they were "specifically focusing on large-scale breeding facilities." The main organization in support of the initiative was Missourians for the Protection of Dogs. It was a coalition made of the following groups: Humane Society of Missouri, Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation (dead link), American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and the Humane Society of the United States.[31]

On May 10, Missourians for the Protection of Dogs unveiled the support of Cardinals skipper Tony La Russa and Linda Bond, wife of U.S. Sen. Kit Bond.[32][33] The Jackson County Legislature also endorsed Proposition B.[34]


  • Barbara Schmitz, of the Missourians for the Protection of Dogs said, "The regulations on the books now...ensure that dogs in these facilities survive, but don’t do much more than that. We’re trying to insert animal-welfare provisions into the large-scale breeding equation."[35]
  • In response to opponents who argued that the initiative was a "backdoor attempt at targeting confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in Missouri" supporters said that that was a separate issue. Barbara Schmitz, of the Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, said, "There's absolutely no intent to come back and somehow reach in to animal agriculture."[36]
  • Cardinals skipper Tony La Russa said, "Missouri is known as ‘the puppy mill capital of America’ because of the large number of commercial dog breeding kennels found throughout the state. Tens of thousands of dogs suffer in these facilities from inadequate shelter, lack of veterinary care, and harsh breeding conditions."[32]
  • In response to opponents who argued that the measure would lead to future restrictions and regulations, Humane Society of the United States president and CEO Wayne Pacelle said, "The measure is what it is. It's just about dogs. There is no suggestion there is farm animal language in there. It's about dogs." He added, "Any future reform would have to go through the normal process of making new laws. In the legislature the farm bureau has great power. I don't think there is any risk on that front."[37]


As of September 2010 supporters raised an estimated $1.7 million. According to reports and campaign finance records, more than 90% of monetary and in-kind contributions were from outside the state of Missouri. Donations were reported to have come from Washington, D.C., California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York and Ohio. The Humane Society of the United States in Maryland and the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in New York also donated.[38]

In May, the campaign effort in support of the initiative received a total of about $500,000 in contributions. According to reports at the time, the majority of funds - $450,000 - came from the Humane Society of the United States.[39]

Tactics and strategies

  • On May 4, 2010 supporters launched a statewide radio advertising campaign. In particular the campaign aimed at legislative bills pending in the Missouri Legislature. According to the news release, supporters argued that HJR 86, HB 1747 and SB 795 "could undermine citizens' right to vote on animal cruelty issues." In response to the campaign legislators said, "They want to get rid of the industry." Initiative supporters argue those claims are "unfounded."[40][41]
  • On September 13, 2010, Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States spoke to a crowd at Cafe Berlin urging for support of Proposition B. Attendees included volunteers, members of the local Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and other supporters. "There has never — never — been a more important dog protection measure on any ballot or in any state legislature, ever in the history of this country," said Pacelle.[42][43]
  • In early October 2010 a new TV ad was released promoting Proposition B. St. Louis Cardinals manager Tony La Russa appears in the ad and is identified as a founder of a group called the Animal Rescue Foundation. His title as Cardinals manager is not mentioned.[46]


Opponents included the American Kennel Club, the Missouri Veterinary Medical Association, the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners, the Missouri Farm Family Agricultural Alliance, Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Pork Producers Association.

Joy Hicks, President of the Southeast chapter of the Missouri Pet Breeders Association, and Missouri breeders argued that they were concerned that the proposed legislation would lead to more stringent regulations. "We really don't need more regulations because this is just gonna be the tip of the iceberg to what they'd like to do," said John Schoen, who has a dairy operation in Missouri.[47]

Other opponents included: the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners, Humane Watch and the Alliance for Truth.[34] The Missouri Libertarian Party opposes Proposition B.[48]


  • Although the American Kennel Club (AKC) took a strong stance against animal cruelty and believed that all dogs should be raised in safe, healthy environments, the not-for-profit organization opposed Proposition B. According to the organization, they opposed it because as described it would "do absolutely nothing to improve the wellbeing of animals; instead, it would add excessive expenses to responsible breeders who strive to produce well-bred family pets." Additionally AKC argued that limiting the number of pets a person can own and confused the real issue of animal welfare. "Unfortunately, cruelty and negligence can occur regardless of the number of dogs a person has," said AKC. The organization instead recommended that existing laws be strongly enforced.[49] The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association also had similar reasons behind their opposition to the proposed measure.[50]
  • According to reports, the Missouri Farm Family Agricultural Alliance said, "The proposal is less about the welfare of animals and more about achieving their stated goals, which is dangerous for Missouri's agribusiness industry and poses an even bigger threat to the price and availability of food. In the next four decades, worldwide food needs will double while the land mass to produce that food will continue to shrink. Additionally, threats posed by groups such as HSUS [Humane Society], create another type of risk to that food supply."[51]
  • Cape Girardeau County Farm Bureau president Dale Steffens, an opponent of the measure, said there was concern about the measure's backer - the Humane Society of the United States. "Our biggest concern is that if this Proposition B passes in the state of Missouri, who's going to be on the agenda next? Who are they going after next? Are they going after cattle? Are they going after hogs?" he said.[37]
  • Larry Miller, president of the Southeast Missouri Cattlemen's Association, agreed with Cape Girardeau County Farm Bureau president Steffens. He said, "Down the road it's going to affect everyone in the United States. They want to abolish all livestock production in the United States. They want to do away with hunting, killing animals for food, fishing. What are we going to eat -- soybeans and corn?" The Missouri Cattleman's Association is also opposed to Proposition B.[37]

Tactics and strategies

  • On September 13, 2010, opponents protested outside of Cafe Berlin where Wayne Pacelle, president and CEO of the Humane Society of the United States spoke to a crowd urging for support of Proposition B. Opponents argued that the proposed regulations would require current licensed breeders to spend thousands of dollars in renovations. One protester said, "Whoever wrote this measure has never raised an animal." Hubert Lavy, who owned Tenderheart Kennels, said he estimated renovation costs under the proposed regulations at $50,000.[42][43]

Reports and analyses

In early October 2010 the Humane Society of Missouri, supporters of Proposition B, released a report on alleged puppy mills in Missouri. According to the report, twelve kennels were identified as keeping dogs in unsafe and unfit conditions. The report was called "Missouri's Dirty Dozen." According to officials, many of the listed kennels had had previous bad reports.[52]

The 12 kennels included: S&S Family Puppies (Milan); B&B Kennel (Galt); Windsong Kennels (Pattonsburg); Bar M Ranch (Spickard); Gingerich Farms (Bogard); Smith's Kennel (Salem); Mar-Don Kennel (Chillicothe); For Heaven's Sake Kennel (Reeds Spring); Tiny Tails (Edgar Springs); S K's Kennel (Brookfield); Hidden Valley Farms (Greencastle); Walnut Creek Kennel (La Monte).[52]

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Missouri ballot measures, 2010


  • St. Louis Post-Dispatch said, "For decades, Missouri has had a well-earned reputation as the nation’s puppy mill capital. It is home to about a third of the nation’s federally licensed dog breeders and the country’s largest wholesaler of puppies. Many more breeders operate here without state or federal licenses...Voters should vote Yes for Proposition B."[53]
  • Kansas City Star said, "Missouri will greatly benefit from a “yes” vote on Proposition B. Sadly, in recent decades the state has earned the reputation as a producer of many of the sick and dying puppies that are sold in pet stores around the United States. This reputation taints both those who work hard to make sure the puppies they raise for sale are healthy and those who don’t.."[54]


  • Southeast Missourian said, " Recommendation: Oppose. While the goal is worthy, the fine print of this measure is overly complicated."[55]
  • Hannibal Courier-Post said, "No one with any sense supports cruelty to animals, but existing guidelines and the punishments for violators are sufficient...The real fear among Proposition B opponents is that the measure will be the first step by radical activists to regulate other trades, such as the livestock industry. Proposition B supporters claim there’s no truth to the contention. But no matter how sincere backers are, you can bet that down the road some zealot would use the law as a basis to propose additional regulation of farms and meat producers."[56]
  • The Joplin Globe said, "Proposition B appeals to the animal lover in all of us to do the right thing, and there’s nothing wrong with that, except in this case we are creating more mandates that duplicate many of our current laws. So, even if you think you are voting to eliminate the problem of bad breeders, you aren’t."[57]


See also: Polls, 2010 ballot measures
  • An October 18-20, 2010poll for the Post-Dispatch and KMOV-TV (Channel 4) by Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. revealed that 69% of polled voters supported Proposition B, while 23% were opposed and 8% were undecided. The poll, of 625 registered Missouri voters, had a margin of error of 4 percentage points.[58][59]

     Position is ahead and at or over 50%     Position is ahead or tied, but under 50%

Date of Poll Pollster In favor Opposed Undecided Number polled
Oct. 18-20, 2010 Mason-Dixon Polling & Research Inc. 69% 23% 8% 625


See also: 2010 ballot measure litigation

Ballot language challenge

Karen Strange of the Missouri Federation of Animal Owners filed a lawsuit against Secretary of State Robin Carnahan that challenged the approved ballot language. The term "puppy mills" was at the center of the challenge.[60] "The Humane Society intentionally uses the term 'puppy mill' because they know it infuriates people," she said. However, Strange also questioned whether the language detailed the actual legislation being proposed. Chuck Hatfield, who represented Strange, argued that the language did not explain what the initiative might do to legitimate dog breeding facilities, for example.[61]

Barbara Schmitz, campaign manager of Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, said, "I think the average person understands what a puppy mill is. What we're trying to do is reduce the suffering. What we're trying to do is address the basic, humane care for these dogs."[61]

In addition to the lawsuit against the secretary of state, Strange sued Auditor Susan Montee because she argued that the cost estimated for implementing the measure was understated.[61]

As of early May 2010 Schmitz said the lawsuit remained pending but described the case as "frivolous" and "an attempt to keep voters of Missouri from being able to speak to this issue." However, breeder Jenny Thrasher said the lawsuit was not frivolous and added "This measure violates the constitution of the State of Missouri. It restricts the right to free enterprise."[62]

The case was heard August 9 by a Cole County judge.[63][64]

Court upholds language

On August 13, 2010 Cole County Circuit Judge Jon Beetem ruled to uphold the ballot language for Proposition B.[65] Specifically, the judge ruled that the ballot summary drafted by Secretary Carnahan was "neither insufficient nor unfair."[66]

In reaction to the court ruling, Secretary of State Robin Carnahan said she was "pleased the circuit court has found our ballot summary statement to be fair and accurate."[67] Barb Schmitz, state director for The Humane Society of the United States and campaign manager of Missourians for the Protection of Dogs, said, "The puppy mill industry has tried every trick in the book to prevent Missouri citizens from having the opportunity to vote 'yes' on an anti-puppy mill measure. Its leaders tried to undercut the measure first in the legislature and now in the courts. They've been rejected at every turn, and now voters will have the final say. We are confident that the people of Missouri will vote to provide more protections for dogs caught up in the puppy mill industry."[68]

Related legislation

Three legislative bills were filed in 2010 in regard to puppy mills: House Joint Resolution 86, House Bill 1747 and Senate Bill 795. All three bills, according to initiative supporters, "could prevent voters from having their say on the issue." HJR 86 was a proposed constitutional amendment filed in response to the ballot initiative targeting dog-breeders. The legislation proposed affirming the "right of citizens to raise domesticated animals and game birds in compliance with any applicable state laws or local regulation." It would have also limited the changes to laws regulating dog breeding. HB1747 and SB795 proposed similar changes but instead of amending the state constitution would have made statutory changes.[69][70]

Path to the ballot

See also: Missouri signature requirements and 2010 ballot measure petition signature costs

To qualify for the ballot, the initiative required signatures from registered voters equal to 8% of the total votes cast in the 2008 governor's election from six of the state's nine congressional districts - approximately 92,000 signatures.[71] On May 2, the state's petition drive deadline, supporters submitted an estimated 190,000 signatures.[6] The Secretary of State's office certified the measure for the General Election ballot on August 3.[7][72][73]

See also

Suggest a link


External links

Additional reading



  1. University of Missouri Institute for Public Policy, "Constitutional Amendments, Statutory Revision and Referenda Submitted to the Voters by the General Assembly or by Initiative Petition, 1910–2010," accessed May 20, 2014
  2. Kansas City.com, "Animal welfare groups propose ballot measure to tighten rules for Missouri dog breeders," December 28, 2009
  3. Examiner.com, "Missouri puppy mill initiative to appear on November ballot," August 3, 2010
  4. Columbia Missourian, "Missouri advocacy groups seek stiffer penalties for puppy mills," January 12, 2010
  5. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Humane Society unleashes puppy pals to fetch ballot signatures," February 8, 2010
  6. 6.0 6.1 Watchdog.org, "Four initiatives aim for the Missouri ballot," May 2, 2010
  7. 7.0 7.1 St. Louis Post-Dispatch,"“Puppy mill” opponents present enough signatures for ballot access," May 3, 2010
  8. Missouri Ruralist, "Lawmakers Support Repeal of Prop B," accessed November 8, 2010
  9. The Pitch, "Lawmakers already looking for ways to weaken puppy mill law ... just days after voters passed it," November 5, 2010
  10. Kansas City Star, "Breeders to push Missouri lawmakers to repeal new 'puppy mill' law," November 5, 2010
  11. The Capital Hill Blue, "Wayne Pacelle: An Open Letter to the Missouri Farm Bureau," November 10, 2010
  12. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Humane Society chief warns against overturning "puppy mill" measure," November 10, 2010
  13. Billboards press puppy mill issue in Missouri," December 31, 2010
  14. Riverfront Times, "Missouri Senator Bill Stouffer Files Bill to Repeal Puppy Mill Law," December 2, 2010
  15. Associated Press, "Missouri senator proposes repealing dog-breeding law," December 1, 2010
  16. 16.0 16.1 The Republic, "Mo. Senate approves legislation rolling back parts of voter-approved law on dog breeders," March 10, 2011
  17. Missouri State Senate, "SB 113," accessed March 11, 2011
  18. Associated Press, "Effort to repeal Missouri dog breeding law begins," January 25, 2011 (dead link)
  19. 19.0 19.1 OzarksFirst.com, "Lawmakers Send Dog Breeding Law Revisions to Governor," April 13, 2011 (dead link)
  20. Associated Press, "Animal advocates vow to give voters new proposal if governor okays change to Proposition B," April 14, 2011
  21. St. Louis Beacon, "Legislature passes bill weakening Prop B's limits on dog breeding; bill now goes to Nixon," April 13, 2011
  22. The Kansas City Star, "Bill to modify puppy-mill law goes to Missouri’s governor," April 13, 2011
  23. The Kansas City Star, "Nixon presents a compromise on dog-breeding," April 18, 2011
  24. 24.0 24.1 Associated Press, "Mo. agriculture, animal groups strike deal to rewrite voter-approved law on dog breeders," April 18, 2011
  25. Associated Press, "Mo. Gov. Nixon signs compromise dog-breeding bill," April 28, 2011
  26. 26.0 26.1 26.2 26.3 St. Louis Beacon, "Legislature passes Nixon's compromise on Prop B restrictions on dog breeding," April 27, 2011
  27. Associated Press, "Mo. Gov. Nixon signs compromise dog-breeding bill," May 4, 2011 (dead link)
  28. The Associated Press, "Mo. dog breeding vote 'wake-up call' for farmers," March 20, 2012
  29. Missouri Secretary of State, "2010 Ballot Measures," accessed September 27, 2010
  30. 30.0 30.1 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributed to the original source.
  31. KFVS12, "Puppy Mill Bill: Proponents speak about the bill," April 29, 2010
  32. 32.0 32.1 St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "La Russa, Kit Bond’s wife endorse anti-puppy mill measure," May 10, 2010
  33. KOMU.com, "Big Names Helping Ballot Initiative," May 11, 2010
  34. 34.0 34.1 The Examiner, "Prop B or not Prop B?," October 16, 2010
  35. The Kansas City Star, "Ballot issue breeds contempt between dog breeders, animal-rights activists," October 16, 2010
  36. 36.0 36.1 KOMU, "Missouri Agriculture Community Fears More Regulation," May 3, 2010 (dead link)
  37. 37.0 37.1 37.2 Southeast Missourian, "Puppy mill ballot measure worries farming supporters, animal rescuers," October 17, 2010
  38. Associated Press, "Money flows from outside Missouri to back dog measure," September 13, 2010 (dead link)
  39. The Kansas City Star, "Money, money, money fuels Missouri petition drives," May 4, 2010
  40. http://web.archive.org/web/20140526154737/http://www.news-leader.com/article/20100506/NEWS06/5060339/1015/Puppy-mill-group-fighting-legislation News-Leader, "Puppy mill group fighting legislation," May 6, 2010]
  41. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Legislation requires puppy mill foes to run radio ad early," May 7, 2010
  42. 42.0 42.1 Missourian, "Humane Society president urges passage of Proposition B," September 13, 2010
  43. 43.0 43.1 Columbia Daily Tribune, "Puppy mill measure debated," September 14, 2010
  44. News-Leader, "Art exhibit to raise awareness about Missouri's puppy mill industry," September 13, 2010
  45. News-Leader, "Exhibit puts spotlight on puppy mills," September 16, 2010
  46. Associated Press, "La Russa promotes Mo. measure on dog breeders," October 12, 2010
  47. KFVS12, "Puppy Mill Bill: Opponents speak about the bill," April 29, 2010
  48. St. Louis Beacon, "Mo Libertarian Party backs Prop A, opposes Prop B," October 18, 2010
  49. "AKC Opposes Missouri Proposition B," September 23, 2010
  50. "Choosing Your Puppy," Missouri Veterinary Medical Association
  51. The Pitch, "The Missouri Farm Family Agricultural Alliance's worst fears: Kindness to puppies," March 10, 2010
  52. 52.0 52.1 KSDK, "Humane Society releases puppy mill report weeks before Proposition B vote," October 6, 2010
  53. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Yes on Proposition B," October 21, 2010
  54. Kansas City Star, "A ballot rich in crucial issues," October 30, 2010
  55. Southeast Missourian, "Ballot initiatives," October 26, 2010
  56. Hannibal Courier-Post, "No on Proposition B," October 29, 2010
  57. The Joplin Globe, "In our view: Prop B won’t fix problem," October 21, 2010
  58. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Prop A and Prop B have strong support, poll finds," October 24, 2010
  59. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Missouri poll questions," October 22, 2010
  60. Riverfront Times, "Missouri Puppy Mills Protest: Don't Call Us Puppy Mills!," August 10, 2010
  61. 61.0 61.1 61.2 News-Leader, "Lawsuit calls the term 'puppy mill' into question," February 23, 2010
  62. KY3 News, "Lawsuit could halt puppy mill initiative for November ballot in Missouri," May 5, 2010 (dead link)
  63. Associated Press, "Dog breeders raise concerns over Prop B," August 10, 2010
  64. Columbia Daily Tribune, "Owners group fights dog-breeding ballot measure," August 11, 2010
  65. Associated Press, "Judge upholds ballot language on ‘puppy mill cruelty’ measure," August 13, 2010
  66. The Humane Society of the United States, "Anti-Puppy Mill Initiative Moves Ahead in Missouri," August 13, 2010
  67. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Judge says no need to revise wording on puppy mill ballot measure," August 14, 2010
  68. The Humane Society of the United States, "Statement in Response to Ruling Against Challenge to Ballot Title for Missouri's Prop B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act," August 17, 2010
  69. News-Leader,"'Puppy mill' campaign fights legislative efforts," May 4, 2010
  70. Examiner, "Battle looms over Missouri puppy mill initiative," May 4, 2010
  71. Associated Press, "Possible Missouri ballot issue over puppy mills," February 8, 2010
  72. Examiner, "Show me a ballot measure to protect Missouri's dogs," May 3, 2010
  73. Examiner, "Missouri puppy mill initiative to appear on November ballot," August 3, 2010