Michael Markarian: Animals & Politics

Stepping Up Enforcement Against Puppy Mills

The dogs are finally getting their day. In recent weeks, there have been two major actions that will step up federal enforcement to crack down on the worst puppy mill abuses in the country.

First, the U.S. Department of Agriculture moved to permanently revoke the licenses of two of the worst known puppy mill operators in the country, Marsha Cox of Mar-Don Kennels in Missouri, and Kathy Jo Bauck of Puppies on Wheels in Minnesota. Both operators had amassed page after page of Animal Welfare Act violations for issues such as filthy conditions, dogs in below-freezing temperatures without adequate protection from the bitter cold, and sickly or underweight dogs who had not been treated by a veterinarian. Bauck had been told to stop performing botched surgeries on dogs without a veterinary license in 2006, and convicted of animal cruelty and torture in 2009. It’s a wonder why such facilities were permitted to operate for so many years when conditions were so terrible, and we are grateful to the USDA for taking meaningful action to revoke these licenses.

These critical enforcement efforts then got an additional boost from congressional leaders, as they finalized work on the bill that funds USDA for this fiscal year. House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Jack Kingston, R-Ga., and Ranking Member Sam Farr, D-Calif., announced that they will reprogram approximately $4 million for USDA to increase enforcement of problematic animal dealers, especially large-scale, commercial puppy mills. This funding prioritizes resources within the agency in the wake of problems revealed during a shocking internal audit last year.

The May 2010 audit by USDA’s Office of Inspector General revealed many deficiencies in APHIS’s Animal Care unit, which is charged with inspecting commercial puppy mills, kitten mills, and other large-scale animal dealers for compliance with the federal Animal Welfare Act. The audit revealed that “Animal Care’s enforcement process was ineffective against problematic dealers,” allowing serious repeat violators to continue to harm animals without significant penalties, that “Animal Care inspectors did not cite or document violations properly to support enforcement actions,” and that minimal, if any, penalties were applied. The report contained shocking photos taken by Animal Care’s inspectors, including a puppy mill dog whose leg was so badly damaged due to an untreated injury that the bones were fully exposed, and another with his face completely covered in ticks.

The report recommended numerous improvements to enhance enforcement and better protect dogs, but as always, funding is a key component to implementing significant changes. This new funding support from Congress will help the USDA to properly enforce violations, maintain a full staff of inspectors, better train and monitor inspectors, shut down some of the most problematic puppy mills, and help prevent future abuses of dogs.

“The Inspector General confirmed evidence of a growing problem with large-scale dog dealers or ‘puppy mills,” said Chairman Kingston. “We have come together on a bipartisan basis to give the USDA the necessary resources for enforcement without sacrificing any other area of plant or animal health. This is a temporary fix and we look forward to working with the USDA to establish a more structured and dedicated source of funding for this program.”

“For too long reckless dog breeders have taken advantage of a lack of proper oversight to increase their profits at the expense of the health of thousands of dogs,” said Ranking Member Farr. “Protecting the health and safety of young dogs has been a passion I have carried from my days in the California Legislature to the halls of Congress. It has been a long and hard effort to extend these protections to our most vulnerable pets. These funds will finally allow the USDA to properly enforce violations, shut down puppy mills, and prevent future abuses of dogs and unsuspecting consumers.” 

One of the most interesting aspects of the OIG audit report was its noting that public pressure helped drive the study: “In the last 2 years, there has been significant media coverage concerning large-scale dog dealers (i.e., breeders and brokers) that failed to provide humane treatment for the animals under their care. The breeders, negatively referred to as “puppy mills,” have stirred the interest of the public, Congress, animal rights groups, and others.” The public demand for stronger enforcement of puppy mill abuses continues, and an online petition asking the Obama administration to crack down on puppy mills selling directly to the public over the Internet now has more than 30,000 signatures, and is currently the most popular open petition on the White House web site. 

We are grateful to Chairman Kingston and Ranking Member Farr, as well as to Senate Chairman Herb Kohl, D-Wisc., and Ranking Member Roy Blunt, R-Mo., for taking action to address the OIG’s damning report and to step up enforcement at puppy mills. Thanks to their leadership, and to all the citizens who weighed in, hope may be on the horizon for many dogs suffering in puppy mills.

Protecting D.C.’s Consumers and Wildlife

The D.C. City Council last year unanimously passed an ordinance to protect consumers and wildlife by regulating private wildlife control operators. The new law brings transparency to an industry that often charges consumers hundreds or even thousands of dollars while failing to provide long-term solutions to urban wildlife problems, and it prohibits particularly inhumane methods of killing animals, such as using steel-jawed leghold traps, drowning, and injecting them with nail polish remover.

Lobbyists for the pest control companies are now trying to get Congress to intervene and defund the D.C. law. According to some news reports, the critics somehow believe the ordinance will result in a mass migration of wildlife crossing the border from D.C. to neighboring states, like herds of wildebeest crossing the Serengeti.

I had an op-ed in Sunday’s Washington Post responding to these charges. Here’s an excerpt:

The law does nothing to change where animals can be released; it has always been illegal to release animals on federal lands and to transport wildlife across state lines.

The D.C. law suggests relocating or releasing animals when possible, but it does not mandate those actions and does not prohibit lethal control. If there is no place or practical way to release the animal in the District, the animal would probably be killed, but the most inhumane and abusive methods would be disallowed and the animal’s suffering would be reduced. The D.C. law will, in fact, help prevent illegal transports, since trappers will now be licensed and no longer able to operate in the shadows.
 
The D.C. law provides modest parameters for regulating an industry that has a checkered history of overcharging consumers and using painful and indiscriminate killing methods. It establishes licensing and reporting requirements similar to those in 35 other states, including Maryland and Virginia.

You can read the full op-ed at the Post’s web site, and feel free to leave a comment.

Progress for Farm Animals in Ohio

The Ohio Department of Agriculture has denied a permit for an Iowa-based agribusiness company, Hi-Q Egg Products, to construct a new battery cage facility confining six million egg-laying hens, which would be in addition to the nearly 27 million already in cages in the state. It’s a proposal that was vehemently opposed by Union County citizen groups, animal welfare advocates, environmentalists and family farmers who didn’t want the industrial operation and its accompanying air and water pollution. It’s a positive development that the company has retreated on its request and said it won’t appeal the agency’s decision, although there is concern over a bill in the Ohio legislature, HB 229, that would make it easier for new factory farms to evade the need for local approval in the future.

The HSUS
Egg laying hens confined in a battery cage

One element of the carefully-crafted agreement on animal welfare issues reached last summer by The HSUS and Ohio agricultural leaders was an immediate moratorium on the construction of new battery cages, where hens are crammed into spaces so small they can barely move an inch for their entire lives. The Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board, in fact, has approved a package of farm animal welfare rules reflecting all of the agricultural elements of the agreement—a ban on new battery cage construction, a phase-out of all veal crates for calves and gestation crates for breeding pigs, a ban on transporting downed cattle too sick or injured to walk to slaughter, and standards for the humane euthanasia of sick animals on the farm—along with a phase-out for tail-docking of dairy cattle. During the process, there was concern that the veal rule would be weakened, and calves would be allowed to be confined in crates for the first half of their lives, but after hearing from more than 4,700 Ohio residents, the board voted unanimously to restore the original crate ban. This entire package of agency regulations is now awaiting final approval by a legislative committee.

The non-agricultural elements of the animal welfare agreement are not as far along in the process, but we hope they will be soon. We expect legislation to be introduced shortly in the Ohio legislature to strengthen the state’s anemic penalties for illegal cockfighting—among the weakest in the nation—and to set standards for the care of dogs in large-scale puppy mills. An emergency rule banning the private acquisition of dangerous wild animals as pets—big cats, bears, primates, wolves, alligators, crocodiles, and large constrictor and venomous snakes—has expired, but the Ohio Department of Natural Resources is working with stakeholders to develop new permanent regulations.

In short, nearly a year after the Ohio agreement, we’re well on our way toward seeing implementation on a wide range of animal welfare policies, and we’re on track to raise Ohio’s ranking from one of the worst states on animal welfare to one of the better ones. As Steve Hoffman wrote in the Akron Beacon Journal, “There is still work to do, but so far there has been give-and-take.” Working together to find solutions has elevated the political reputation of the animal welfare movement in Ohio, and has already resulted in victory for millions of animals.

State by State Roundup on Animal Protection

Nearly five months into 2011, many state legislatures have already adjourned for the year. There has been a tremendous amount of progress made on state policies to protect animals from cruelty and abuse, with most of the efforts led by HSLF and The HSUS, even while lawmakers’ attention is consumed with budget crises and other pressing social concerns.

So far, 40 new animal protection laws have been enacted in the states in 2011. Another 17 bills have passed both chambers, and either await a governor’s signature or further action in a conference committee, while 52 bills have passed one chamber, many of which have a chance of getting over the finish line if their state is still in session. Additionally, 56 bills that would have been harmful to animals have been defeated. Here’s a wrap-up on some of the big ticket items for animals in state capitols around the country.

ANIMAL CRUELTY: Mississippi became the 47th state to establish felony-level penalties for malicious acts of cruelty to animals. Only Idaho, North Dakota and South Dakota remain misdemeanor cruelty states. Maryland enacted a law allowing courts to prohibit people convicted of cruelty from owning animals during their probation, Florida approved a ban on bestiality, and a bill on the Hawaii governor’s desk will close a loophole in the cruelty statute that exempted “vermin” from humane protections. Colorado, Minnesota and West Virginia upgraded the penalties for killing or injuring public service dogs, and a bill awaiting the governor's signature in New Jersey will do the same. Arkansas, Maryland and Virginia passed laws allowing pets to be included in domestic violence protection orders, and similar bills, if signed by the governors of Oregon and Texas, will bring the total number of states with such protections up to 22.

ANIMAL FIGHTING: Bills awaiting gubernatorial signatures in Hawaii and Texas will close major loopholes in those states’ laws against animal fighting. Hawaii’s bill will upgrade the penalties for dogfighting and make it a felony to attend a dogfight or use “bait dogs”—often lost or stolen pets—to train dogs for fighting. Texas’ bill will ban the possession of cockfighting birds and weapons and attendance at cockfights. If signed into law, Hawaii will be the 49th state to ban attendance at dogfights, and Texas will be the 43rd state to ban attendance at cockfights, the 38th to ban possession of fighting birds, and the 17th to ban fighting implements such as razor-sharp knives and gaffs strapped to rooster’s legs to increase the bloodletting.

ANTIFREEZE POISONING: Georgia, Maryland and West Virginia passed laws requiring the addition of a bittering agent into antifreeze and engine coolant to prevent animals and children from being poisoned by the sweet-tasting liquid. A Texas bill is close to passing the legislature, and if it’s adopted and signed by the governor, 18 states will have laws to prevent antifreeze poisoning.

POACHING: Arizona, South Carolina, Vermont, Washington and Wyoming upgraded their state laws to protect wildlife from being illegally killed by poachers. With budget cuts and fewer state resources and law enforcement officers to patrol vast amounts of wilderness, it’s even more important to have strong penalties to deter “thrill killing” and other illegal hunting.

SHARK FINNING: Washington became the second state (after Hawaii) to ban the sale of shark fins, and similar bills in California and Oregon have each passed one chamber and are making their way through the legislative process. With the Pacific states drying up the demand for shark fin soup and other shark products, it will help stem the tide on the brutal “finning” of sharks at sea—cutting off their fins and throwing them back into the water to die painfully—and the rapid decline of many shark populations worldwide.

PUPPY MILLS: Although Missouri politicians substituted their judgment for the will of the people, and repealed most of the core elements of Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, other state lawmakers have made forward progress on the puppy mill issue. A bill enacted in Maryland and another on the governor’s desk in Texas will crack down on puppy mills in those states. Puppy mill bills passed one chamber in West Virginia and two chambers in Hawaii, but did not receive final action this year. An Oklahoma bill to repeal the state’s puppy mill law was defeated.

AG GAG: Legislation to punish whistleblowers and prevent videotaping and reporting on abuses at industrial factory farms was defeated in Florida and Minnesota. Similar bills to shield agribusiness and roll back free speech are still pending in Iowa and New York.

UNSPORTING HUNTS: A number of states considered bills to expand the captive shooting of tame animals trapped inside fenced enclosures, and some made the argument that canned hunting would provide economic development opportunities. Working with responsible hunters and pointing out that canned hunts could cost taxpayers billions of dollars when captive animals spread diseases to native wildlife populations, we defeated these bills in Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Tennessee and West Virginia. Colorado and Maine considered bills to allow bear hunting during the spring—when mother bears are nursing their dependent cubs—and those bills were defeated, too. 

FERAL CATS: The Utah legislature considered perhaps the most absurd bill of 2011, which would have allowed the shooting or bludgeoning of any stray cat believed to be feral. That bill was sent to the litter box, and instead, Utah enacted a positive measure that officially sanctions trap-neuter-return (TNR) as a humane method of managing feral cat populations.

Introducing the Animals & Politics Podcast

I'm pleased to introduce my new Animals & Politics podcast. Click on the player below to listen, or you can click here. I am grateful to my friend Patrick Ferrise for hosting the first podcast. From time to time in this forum, you’ll be hearing from me about proud accomplishments of our elected leaders and regulatory officials on behalf of animals. But today I want to draw your attention to a couple of stories about government’s abject failures.

Michael Markarian - Animals & Politics Podcast #1

20 Years of Advances for Animals

This morning I spoke to a group of animal welfare advocates from around the world gathered in Orlando, Fla., for The HSUS’s 20th anniversary Animal Care Expo, the largest trade show for animal care and sheltering professionals. Several leaders in the field looked back over two decades and reported on progress that has been made for animal welfare. I offered some observations on the advances for animal protection legislation over the past 20 years.

Throughout a large part of the twentieth century, few animal welfare groups focused on state policy, and fewer still on national policy. Nonetheless, there were several ballot initiatives dealing with vivisection, rodeo, moose hunting, steel-jawed leghold traps, and veal crates, with voters rejecting most of the measures. Only one of them passed—a 1972 measure in South Dakota to ban dove hunting—but voters reversed the dove hunting ban eight years later.

In 1988, the California Fish and Game Commission voted to institute a mountain lion hunting season. Animal protection advocates sued the state to delay the onset of the hunting. Concomitantly, they launched and qualified an initiative—with volunteers amassing in excess of 600,000 signatures—to ban any trophy hunting of lions. In June 1990, voters approved the measure, and its passage sparked renewed interest in the initiative process by animal protection advocates.

Since 1990, HSUS and its affiliates (The Fund for Animals, Doris Day Animal League, and HSLF) have been involved in 42 statewide ballot campaigns, and have won 30, for a 72% win rate, one of the highest of any social movement. During the past 20 years, when voters have been asked to weigh in on animal protection policies, time and time again they have sided with animals: five states have banned cruel traps, four states have banned hound hunting and bear baiting; three states have banned cockfighting; three states have banned the confinement of farm animals; and states have taken action on horse slaughter, greyhound racing, puppy mills, and other subjects.

With citizens directly voting in favor of animal protection reforms at the ballot box, it has sent a message to lawmakers that there is widespread and bipartisan support for these policies, and has helped to provide support for additional laws passed through representative government. Consider the dramatic changes in just 20 years:

• In 1991 only seven states had felony-level penalties for animal cruelty (California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin). Today, 47 states have felony animal cruelty laws, with Mississippi’s cruelty law enacted just last week and only North Dakota, South Dakota, and Idaho now remaining as outliers.
• In 1991 only 14 states considered dogfighting a felony offense. Today, all 50 states make it a felony, and we have a national policy on the issue.
• In 1991 five states allowed legal cockfighting (Arizona, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, and Oklahoma), and of the 45 that banned it, only 13 had felony penalties. Today, cockfighting is banned in all 50 states, and a felony in 39.
• In 1991 there were virtually no restrictions on standard agricultural practices. Today seven states have banned or are phasing out the extreme confinement of farm animals in crates or cages.
• In 1991 only 17 states had some licensing and regulation of large-scale commercial dog breeders. Today, the laws in many states have been strengthened, and 31 states now have laws in place to crack down on puppy mills.
• In 1991 virtually no state laws required disaster plans to include animals, yet post-Katrina 16 states passed laws to protect animals in disasters, and the Congress passed a national policy on the subject.

All in all, with an average of 50 new laws for animals passed in the states each year, we estimate there have been at least 1,000 new statutes for animal protection enacted since 1991. Add to that the federal laws on animal crush videos, fur labeling, shark finning, big cats as pets, chimpanzee sanctuaries, pet food safety, animal fighting, dog and cat fur, alternatives to animal testing, pets in air travel, military and law enforcement dogs, puppy mill imports, banning USDA inspections of horse slaughter, and so many other successes, and the past two decades have been an unprecedented era of lawmaking for animal protection.

With new innovations over the last 20 years, there have been new issues to confront. Who ever thought, for example, that the Internet would be used to allow people to shoot animals at canned hunts remotely with the click of a mouse or the stroke of a keyboard? Now, 40 states have taken action to ban Internet hunting. And with the progress made on animal protection issues around the country, our opponents are fighting back with new tactics of their own—such as the “Ag Gag” laws proposed in Florida, Iowa, and Minnesota to ban journalists and whistleblowers from reporting on factory farm abuses. 

Whatever the challenges of the coming decades, and whatever new issues emerge, we will be prepared to continue the fight for animal protection. But today we look back and celebrate the progress of the last 20 years and the public policies that have prevented so much cruelty and abuse.

Missouri House Votes Against Dogs, Democracy

This week the Missouri House of Representatives voted to repeal most of Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, just five months after Missouri voters approved common-sense standards for the care of dogs in large-scale commercial breeding facilities. These politicians decided to defy the will of the voters and dismantle Prop B piece by piece, stripping away the requirements such as clean water, veterinary exams, and space for exercise, and reverting to the weak law that allowed thousands of dogs to be crammed into rows of stacked, wire cages.

The vote was fairly close, with a margin of 85-71 (like the Senate vote, which was 20-14). Twenty-six Republicans and 45 Democrats in the House voted to stop the repeal and to keep Prop B intact. Several lawmakers spoke out against overturning the will of the people, such as Reps. Scott Sifton, D-96, Eileen McGeoghegan, D-77, Margo McNeil, D-78, and Jill Schupp, D-82, and offered amendments to restore some basic animal welfare standards, such as space requirements and making sure cages are cleaned once a day. Their amendments were voted down by legislators who essentially wanted complete deregulation for puppy mills, but we are grateful to these representatives who stood up and fought hard on the House floor for the will of the people to be upheld.

Not only did a narrow majority of lawmakers choose to overturn a statewide vote, but some of them even voted against their own districts. Thirteen representatives whose districts favored Prop B voted to repeal the ballot measure:

• Jamilah Nasheed, D-60, 80.8% for Prop B
• Jerry Nolte, R-33, 70% for Prop B
• Noel Torpey, R-52, 65.5% for Prop B
• John McCaherty, R-90, 62.8% for Prop B
• Kurt Bahr, R-19, 61.7% for Prop B
• Paul Wieland, R-102, 61.5% for Prop B
• John Diehl, R-87, 61.4% for Prop B
• Doug Funderburk, R-12, 60.5% for Prop B
• T.J. Berry, R-35, 57.1% for Prop B
• Terry Swinger, D-162, 56.3% for Prop B
• Paul Curtman, R-105, 54.7% for Prop B
• Bill White, R-129, 53.4% for Prop B
• Melissa Leach, R-137, 51.5% for Prop B

If you live in one of their districts, please call them at the House switchboard at (573) 751-3659 and let them know how disappointed you are that they went against their own constituents and decided to repeal your vote. You can see how your own representative voted—“aye” to repeal Prop B, or “no” to stop the repeal and keep Prop B intact—and call them through the House switchboard as well.

It’s outrageous that a handful of politicians can substitute their judgment for the wisdom of nearly one million Missouri voters who favored Prop B. It’s this type of arrogance that makes people lose faith in the political process, mistrust politicians, and question the value of even voting or participating in the first place. It’s one of the reasons a broad coalition of groups from across the political spectrum—such as The HSUS, ASPCA, Citizens in Charge, Americans for Tax Reform, and Americans for Limited Government—have filed the Voter Protection Act to amend the Missouri state constitution and require a higher threshold for legislators to repeal citizen initiatives, a protection that already exists in other states such as Arizona and Michigan. You can get involved with this effort by visiting protectvoters.com and help to qualify this constitutional amendment for the November 2012 ballot and provide greater protections for the citizen decision-making process.

The Voter Protection Act could protect citizen initiatives in the future, but Prop B is in jeopardy right now. It’s now up to Governor Jay Nixon to stop this assault on voting rights, and he has 15 days to sign or veto the repeal bill. It’s time for every person who cares about protecting dogs in substandard puppy mills and protecting the will of the people to contact Governor Nixon at (573) 751-3222, and ask him to veto SB 113.

If the repeal bill is enacted, we are prepared to immediately begin gathering signatures for a referendum to bring this issue back to Missouri voters in 2012 and allow the people to have the final say. Cracking down on puppy mills has never been easy, but the battle is far from over. Thank you for standing with us in this critical fight for the welfare of dogs.

State Animal Protection Bills on the Move

We are now two full months into 2011, and state legislatures around the country have been active on animal protection issues. We have many defensive battles, such as blocking Missouri politicians from defying the will of the voters and dismantling Proposition B, but we are also advancing our proactive agenda for animal welfare in many state capitols.

Already this year, Arkansas has enacted a bill making appropriations for animal rescue shelters in the state. The Texas House of Representatives adopted a resolution urging the adoption of shelter pets, and the California Assembly passed a measure commemorating Spay Day 2011.

Just today, by a vote of 83-14, the West Virginia House of Delegates passed a strong measure to crack down on puppy mill abuses in the state by establishing common-sense standards for the care of dogs. While Missouri politicians seek to undermine voters and roll back basic protections for dogs, lawmakers in other states are heeding the concerns of their constituents and moving forward to address these serious problems.

A number of animal welfare bills in other states have passed at least one chamber and await action in the other body this session, including legislation to stop antifreeze poisoning in Georgia, New Hampshire and West Virginia; to establish felony-level penalties for animal cruelty in Mississippi; to ban gambling at animal fights in West Virginia; to prohibit greyhound racing simulcasts in Pennsylvania; to promote spaying and neutering in New Jersey; to prevent Internet hunting in North Dakota; and to combat poaching in South Carolina and Wyoming. Several states are working to upgrade their anemic anti-cockfighting statutes, and bills to combat cockfighting have been introduced this year or are expected to be soon in Alabama, California, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas.

Find out what animal protection bills are pending in your state, and let your elected officials know that you support these public policy reforms for animals. You can also attend one of the upcoming Humane Lobby Days, and join other citizens who care about animals in making your voice heard at your state capitol.

They Got it Right: Vote Your District

A handful of Missouri politicians are feverishly trying to repeal or gut Proposition B, the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, which voters passed in November. The issue may come up for debate in the state Senate as early as next week, and two of the leaders of the repeal effort who are working hard to dismantle the will of the people are Senators Bill Stouffer, R-21, and Mike Parson, R-28.

You might think we don’t agree on much with Senators Stouffer and Parson. But we have to give credit where credit is due. There is one thing that both Stouffer and Parson got exactly right: that every Missouri lawmaker should vote their district.

Back in December, when the election was weeks old, Stouffer told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, “If you look at the Proposition B votes, if every legislator votes the way their district voted, it will repeal easily.” And Parson commented on the plans for repeal at a forum in Bolivar, “I think if the legislators will vote their districts, then we will be able to do that.”

In a flub worthy of “Dewey beats Truman,” they apparently forgot to check the votes. Prop B was favored in 18 of 34 Senate districts, and 88 of 163 House districts. When these bills come to the Senate and House floor for a vote, elected officials need to be reminded that the same constituents who placed them in their seats were responsible for passing Prop B in a majority vote. The districts that went “yes” on Prop B are listed below for their easy reference.

Elections matter. So today we ask Missouri legislators to listen to Senators Parson and Stouffer: Vote your district!

District	Representative	Yes %	No %
39	Jean Peters-Baker	81.5	18.5
60	Jamilah Nasheed	80.8	20.2
58	Penny Hubbard	80.5	20.6
63	Tishaura Jones	80.4	20.6
59	Jeanette Mott Oxford	78.8	21.2
61	Chris Carter	78.8	21.2
67	Mike Colona	78.8	21.2
64	Susan Carlson	78.5	21.5
44	Jason Kander	77.8	22.2
37	Mike Talboy	77.5	22.5
73	Stacey Newman	77	23
57	Karla May	76.7	23.3
66	Genise Montecillo	76.4	23.6
108	Jacob Hummel	76.2	23.8
72	Rory Ellinger	76.1	23.9
41	Shalonn Curls	75.8	24.2
65	Michele Kratky	75.5	24.2
50	Michael Brown	74.4	25.6
70	Sharon Pace	73.9	26.1
43	Gail McCann Beatty	73.2	26.8
69	Tommie Pierson	73	27
31	Jay Swearingen	72.6	26.4
71	Clem Smith	72.3	26.7
74	Steve Webb	72.2	26.8
75	Bert Atkins	72.2	26.8
40	John Joseph Rizzo	71.7	28.3
77	Eileen Grant McGeoghegan	71.2	28.8
76	Churie Spreng	71.1	28.9
42	Leonard Hughes	70.9	29
33	Jerry Nolte	70	30
78	Margo McNeil	69.6	31.4
32	Ronald Schieber	69	31
38	Ryan Silvey	68.9	31.1
51	Ira Anders	68.6	31.4
49	Tom McDonald	68.4	31.6
96	Scott Sifton	66.7	33.3
15	Sally Faith	66.5	33.5
45	Jason Holsman	66.5	33.5
46	Kevin McManus	66.2	33.8
34	Myron Neth	65.8	34.2
52	Noel Torpey	65.5	34.5
80	Sylvester Taylor	65.5	34.5
83	Jake Zimmerman	65.4	34.6
48	Gary Cross	65	35
101	Tim Meadows	65	35
79	Mary Nichols	64.7	35.3
18	Anne Zerr	64.5	35.5
16	Mark Parkinson	64	36
85	Cloria Brown	64	36
93	Dwight Scharnhorst	64	36
92	Sue Allen	63.6	36.4
88	Andrew Koenig	63.5	36.5
89	Timothy Jones	63.2	36.8
82	Jill Schupp	63	37
90	John McCaherty	62.8	37.2
81	Rochelle Walton Gray	62.6	37.4
14	Kathie Conway	62.5	37.5
84	Don Gosen	62.5	37.5
97	Gary Fuhr	62.3	27.7
30	Nick Marshall	61.9	38.1
86	Cole McNary	61.9	38.1
19	Kurt Bahr	61.7	38.3
17	Vickie Schneider	61.6	38.4
100	Marsha Haefner	61.5	38.5
102	Paul Wieland	61.5	38.5
54	Jeanie Lauer	61.4	38.6
87	John Diehl	61.4	38.6
53	Brent Lasater	61.2	38.8
91	Jeanne Kirkton	61.2	38.8
94	Rick Stream	61	39
123	Chris Molendorp	60.9	39.1
95	Mike Leara	60.8	39.2
12	Doug Funderburk	60.5	39.5
47	Jeff Grisamore	60.2	39.8
56	Mike Cierpiot	59.5	40.5
103	Ron Casey	58.7	41.3
107	Linda Black	58.7	41.3
35	TJ Berry	57.1	42.9
55	Sheila Solon	56.6	43.4
162	Terry Swinger	56.3	43.7
138	Sara Lampe	56	44
27	Pat Conway	55.2	44.5
105	Paul Curtman	54.7	45.3
13	Chuck Gatschenberger	54	46
129	Bill White	53.4	46.6
23	Stephen Webber	53	47
137	Melissa Leach	51.5	48.5
25	Mary Wynne Stlil	50.2	49.8

     

District	Senator	Yes %	No %
1	Jim Lembke	70.4	29.6
2	Scott Rupp	53.5	46.5
4	Joe Keaveny	78.0	22.0
5	Robin Wright-Jones	79.4	20.6
7	Jane Cunningham	65.4	34.6
8	Will Kraus	60.4	39.6
9	Kiki Curls	72.8	27.2
10	Jolie Justus	75.9	24.1
11	Victor Callahan	67.7	32.3
13	Timothy Green	73.3	26.7
14	Maria Chappelle Nadal	70.5	29.5
15	Eric Schmitt	70.1	29.9
17	Luann Ridgeway	67.7	32.3
22	Ryan McKenna	60.7	39.3
23	Tom Dempsey	64.8	35.2
24	John Lamping	69.0	31.0
30	Bob Dixon	50.9	49.1
34	Rob Schaaf	58.8	41.2

Leading Voices Speak Out in Defense of Missouri's Prop B

A few Missouri politicians are busy trying to repeal or dismantle Proposition B, the voter-approved Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, which sets humane standards for large-scale dog breeding operations. Prop B passed in a statewide vote—and won majorities in most state Senate and state House districts—but a handful of legislators want to substitute their own judgment for the wisdom of 997,870 Missouri voters who favored the new law. While this attempted power grab is coming from the state capitol building, more reasonable voices around the state are calling on lawmakers to respect the will of the people.

Editorial cartoon from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 28, 2011
(Click image to view full size)

State Rep. Sally Faith, R-St. Charles, had signed on as cosponsor of two repeal bills, even though more than 65 percent of voters in her district favored Prop B. She told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that she got more than 200 phone calls and e-mails from constituents who questioned her on the issue. She has rightly changed her mind, after hearing from her district, and said she will now oppose efforts to repeal Prop B. “I’m not perfect, but I’m human,” Rep. Faith told the St. Charles Suburban Journals. “When we’re in Jeff City the legislators that we know, you figure out who you can trust, and the first bill put in front of me (in 2011) was Prop B. I signed on it. That’s not something I normally do, but I trusted the bill handler. I could have said, ‘Let me look at this. Let’s talk about this.’ That's where I shot myself in the foot. I love animals.”

Editorial cartoon from the Columbia Tribune, Jan. 30, 2011
(Click image to view full size)

Let’s hope other state lawmakers get the message as well, and take the time to find out how their own districts voted on Prop B. If every senator and representative votes with his or her own district, the measures to roll back dog protection standards will fail in both chambers. Newspaper editorials, cartoonists, and columnists, even some that opposed Prop B during the election campaign, are weighing in and saying the people’s vote should stand. Here’s a rundown of what some across the state are saying:

Our legislators cannot have it both ways. In any number of areas, they have chosen not to govern, leaving it to special interests—the gambling industry, animal lovers, gun enthusiasts, clean-energy advocates just to name recent examples—to use the initiative process to put policy questions directly to the voters. It’s costly and cumbersome, and it’s not terribly easy to go back to the voters to change policies when facts or public sentiment change. But that’s the way it is. Having chosen not to act in the first place, it’s outrageous for legislators to substitute their judgment for that of the voters after the fact.—Editorial, Independence Examiner, Feb. 3, 2011

Let’s start with Proposition B, the 2010 doggy mill initiative. It was approved by the voters, requiring dog breeders in Missouri to treat their animals more humanely. I did not support this in 2010, but the majority of the state did. I care about that. Yet it seems the Republican-heavy legislature does not. They think you were foolish to pass such a law and they want to gut it or kill it.—David Rosman, Columbia Missourian, Feb. 2, 2011

A basic issue is whether the legislature should so quickly amend the will of the voters. It’s legal for lawmakers to second-guess initiative voters, but usually after a decent interval when the paucity of their decision is clear. Perhaps a case can be made for changing Prop B, but only after we know more about the efficacy of the existing law.—Henry J. Waters III, Columbia Tribune, Feb. 1, 2011

With the coveted title of Puppy Mill Capital of America at stake, a House committee this week has been considering ways to cancel the election results. One proposal simply would repeal the law. Another would exempt existing breeders. A third course, warmly received by many committee members on Tuesday, would eliminate such pesky provisions of the law as prohibiting dangerous overcrowding in cages, protecting dogs from bad weather and providing them veterinary care when needed… [T]he Missouri Legislature prefers to defy the will of the people, trash duly enacted voter initiatives and bow to the will of special interests more to their liking.—Editorial, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 27, 2011

Rural lawmakers want to either repeal outright or substantially amend the statute that was Proposition B on the November statewide ballot. It requires dog breeders to treat their animals humanely. One of the bills, sponsored by Rep. Stanley Cox, a Sedalia Republican, would modify the ballot measure by:

• Removing the provisions requiring owners to provide adequate shelter from the elements, sufficient housing, sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, necessary veterinary care and adequate rest between breeding cycles.
• Removing the provisions requiring water for dogs to be free of debris, feces, algae and other contaminants.

With his proposed changes, Cox has soundly validated the wisdom of voters in passing the puppy mill cruelty act.—Editorial, Kansas City Star, Jan. 29, 2011

Proposition B passed by a narrow margin, but pass it did. Animal welfare groups sought the public vote because the legislature for years shirked its responsibility to require decent treatment of dogs. Lawmakers who have filed bills seeking to overturn Proposition B are demonstrating their contempt for the wishes of the people. They would be far wiser to help breeders comply with the new law.—Editorial, Kansas City Star, Dec. 29, 2010

Before the election, we took a strong stance against passage of the ballot proposition pitched as a protective measure for puppies. Here, we take a strong stance to try to protect the main tenets of the proposition. Contradictory? No. Voters have made the call on this one. We accept that. We support the process that allows a voter initiative to create law in Missouri. Those who are now trying to repeal Proposition B should back off.—Editorial, Springfield News-Leader, Dec. 19, 2010

Proposition B was among the most discussed and debated issues on the November ballot. To contend the voters were misled undermines their intelligence. It doesn’t matter whether we—or other newspapers—opposed it, whether a vast majority of counties rejected it or whether legislators are happy with the outcome. The initiative petition process, used to launch Proposition B, empowers people to propose public policy when their elected representatives fail to do so. The proposition exemplifies the phrase “of the people and by the people.” And our state motto reminds us to respect the welfare and the people, including their ability to determine what that is. With regard to Proposition B, let it be.—Editorial, Jefferson City News Tribune, Dec. 4, 2010

Here in Missouri, voters have decided to let voters decide. Unless, of course, we decide we want to curb abuses in puppy mills, something a number of our state lawmakers have decided we didn’t have the right to decide. They’re talking about amending or throwing out the statute that passed at the polls on Nov. 2.—Barbara Shelly, Kansas City Star, Nov. 12, 2010

This would never have gone to the ballot at all if state legislators at some point could have bestirred themselves to enact at least some of these reforms, but, as with other issues, they took a pass. They’ve had their chances. It’s a little late now to suddenly show concern because an election went the wrong way.—Editorial, Independence Examiner, Nov. 10, 2010

Missouri lawmakers should respect the will of the voters on puppy mills, even if they disagree with what voters had to say. Anything less damages democracy and insults voters.—Editorial, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Nov. 8, 2010

During the campaign, a preposterous story line took hold that the move to regulate dog breeding operations was the first step in a calculated attempt to drive animal agriculture out of Missouri. Legislators would be very deceitful to use such unfounded fears as a basis to repeal Proposition B.—Editorial, Kansas City Star, Nov. 6, 2010