Missouri Dog Breeding Regulation, Proposition B (2010)

Voting on the Treatment of Animals Ballot Measures By state By year Not on ballot Missouri Constitution Preamble Articles I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X • XI • XII • XIII • XIV

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.

The initiative was supported by multiple animal welfare groups. 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.

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.

Aftermath

See also: Legislative alteration 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." 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."

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."

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?"

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.

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).

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.

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.

The approved bill:

• 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. 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."

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."

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. 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:

• 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.

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. 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."

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

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.

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."

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.

Election results

See also: 2010 ballot measure election results

Proposition B (Dog Breeding Regulation)
Result		Votes	Percentage
a Yes		997,870	51.59%
No		936,190	48.41%

Election results via Missouri Secretary of State

Text of measure

Title

The official ballot title read as follows:

“

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.

”

Support

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.

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. The Jackson County Legislature also endorsed Proposition B.

Arguments

• 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."

• 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."

• 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."

• 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."

Donors

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.

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.

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."

• 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.

• On October 1 the Missouri Alliance for Animal Legislation (dead link) sponsored an art exhibit called "Misery in Missouri: Dogs Can't Vote... You Can!" at Canvas Gallery at 315 South Avenue. It's main focus, according to reports, is to "raise awareness about Missouri's puppy mill industry."

• 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.

Opposition

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.

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

Arguments

• 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. The Missouri Veterinary Medical Association also had similar reasons behind their opposition to the proposed measure.

• 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."

• The Missouri Farm Bureau and the Missouri Pork Producers Association also argued that the initiative was a "backdoor attempt at targeting confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) in Missouri." However, supporters argued that it was a "completely separate issue."

• 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.

• 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.

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.

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.

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).

Media editorial positions

See also: Endorsements of Missouri ballot measures, 2010

Support

• 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."
• 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.."

Opposition

• Southeast Missourian said, " Recommendation: Oppose. While the goal is worthy, the fine print of this measure is overly complicated."

• 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."

• 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."

Polls

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.

Legend      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

Lawsuit

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. "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.

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."

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.

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."

The case was heard August 9 by a Cole County judge.

Court upholds language

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

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." 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."

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.

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. On May 2, the state's petition drive deadline, supporters submitted an estimated 190,000 signatures. The Secretary of State's office certified the measure for the General Election ballot on August 3.

See also

Suggest a link

• Missouri 2010 ballot measures
• 2010 ballot measures
• List of Missouri ballot measures
• History of Initiative & Referendum in Missouri

Articles

• Missouri Gov. Jay Nixon signs "puppy mill" revisions
• Missouri "puppy mill" compromise offered for consideration
• Lawmakers send revisions to Missouri's "puppy mill" measure to the governor's desk
• Missouri Senators move forward with efforts to amend voter-approved "puppy mill" measure
• Missouri senator files legislation to repeal "puppy mill" measure
• Missouri lawmakers seek to repeal or amend Proposition B
• Missouri measures successfully approved, one remains pending
• Missouri judge upholds "puppy mill" ballot language
• Missouri election officials certify 2 of 4 initiative petitions for November ballot
• Four initiatives aim for the Missouri ballot
• Lawsuit filed against Missouri's "puppy mill" initiative

External links

• Full text of Version 1
• Full text of Version 2
• Missouri 2010 ballot issues

Additional reading

• Associated Press, "Humane Society leader defends Mo. dog-breeding law," January 14, 2010
• KTVI-FOX2now.com, "Dogs Rescued, But Motives Are Being Questioned," September 21, 2010
• AVMA.org, "Missourians to vote on rules for large-scale dog breeders," September 20, 2010
• Missourinet, "From 100 to 23 to 4; initiative petitions are one step from Nov. ballot," May 18, 2010
• Kansas City Star, "Puppies and horse meat? Missouri has become a zoo," May 13, 2010
• Pet Product News International, "Animal Groups Push For Ballot Measures in Missouri," May 12, 2010
• Examiner, "Petitions to be reviewed by Missouri Secretary of State's office," May 3, 2010
• News-Leader, "Missouri farmers call for no government intrusion in livestock," March 25, 2010
• St. Louis Globe-Democrat, "BBB says lack of enforcement allows Missouri puppy mills to thrive," March 18, 2010
• Kansas City News, "Missouri Proposition B - Missouri called the "Capital of Puppy Mills" November 1st, 2010

Aftermath

• Associated Press, "Thousands write to Missouri governor about dog breeding," April 25, 2011
• The Joplin Globe, "Susan Redden: Governor pushes ‘solution’ to Prop B changes," April 24, 2011
• St. Louis Beacon, "Going to the dogs: Nixon's compromise on Prop B fraying," April 20, 2011
• St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "Dog breeding compromise is crumbling," April 20, 2011
• The Joplin Globe, "Our View: Ignoring voters," April 17, 2011
• St. Louis Public Radio, "Legislators may get last word on voter initiatives," March 23, 2011
• KSMU, "Lawmakers Consider Changing Voter-Approved Measure Related to Dog Breeders," March 21, 2011