Debate Deleted: Missourians For The Protection Of Dogs

Ask yourself this… …why do the proponents of Proposition B run from debate?

I ran across the Facebook group/page called “Missourians for the Protection of Dogs” a few weeks ago and ‘liked’ the page.  I don’t really like the page, but that’s what you have to do to follow the activities of such a group.  Thus, the “Missourians for the Protection of Dogs” appears in my News Feed, and today, I decided to jump in.

I made my first comment and quickly printed the page to prove that I had been there:

The moderator of the page quickly replied with their own web site:

And soon after, replied with the statement:

  • Brian, it’s interesting that the “no” website doesn’t say mention or address the horrible conditions that dogs suffer in puppy mills. Worse, it deliberately tries to mislead voters into thinking Prop B has something to do with agriculture. The proposed statute is worded very clearly — it is about dogs and only dogs.

I was like, “Great!”  They are happy to hear all sides of the issue and debate.  So I continued and made several, of course, great points to refute the idea that Proposition B was good legislation.

But, sadly, the moderator for the “Missourians for the Protection of Dogs” page doesn’t want to debate the Ballot Initiative and wants to hide the truth from their sycophants that hear “Puppy Mill Cruelty Act” and say yes, yes, yes.  Here’s the image of the page AFTER the moderator deleted my posts.  At least they noted that they had deleted my posts.  Sad:

Yes, as usual, the proponents of liberal cause will not only shut off debate but will do their best to hide it from their followers.

  • Why doesn’t “Missourians for the Protection of Dogs” want their friends to see the fact that 140,000 dogs will need to be disposed?
  • Why doesn’t “Missourians for the Protection of Dogs” want their friends to see that the new law will do nothing about the real Puppy Mill problem?

Because they know the law is not about protecting puppies; it’s about control.  It’s about ending pet ownership.  It’s the camel-nose-under-the-tent to advance their progressive agenda, and they are just getting started.


Here are a couple of the points I made as best as I can recall:

  • Compliments of a reply to my previous Prob B blog post, I said:

If Proposition B’s only aim is to ensure adequate care then WHY are shelters, rescues, veterinary clinics, HSUS, and non breeding owners exempt? Don’t they all deserve the same treatment? If you answer yes to that question you’ve hopefully just realized the truth behind this oppressive illogical Proposition B.

  • Compliments of 24th State, I added:

The HSUS says there are over 200,000 dogs in Missouri that are kept by breeders.  There are some 1200 licensed breeders.  If you limit the number of dogs you can keep to 50, you have 60,000 dogs.  What is going to happen to the other 140,000 dogs?  There are some 350 shelters in Missouri.  To accomodate the overflow, 400 dogs per shelter would have to be offloaded before the year is out.  The vast majority of those dogs are currently healthy and cared for by dog-lovers. What will happen to them?

Some will be put up for adoption.  Those who are not rescued, will be killed, released into the wild, or moved into illegal puppy mills hidden away from the state.

The problem with broad regulation is it affects everyone. It’s not hard to say that 86,000 dogs will be killed if this measure passes. 64% of dogs that go into a shelter don’t come out.   But the HSUS and Prop B say nothing about this problem.

  • Then, as you can see, I was attacked by Jessica Wahler Matlock as a dog hater.  So my reply was somewhat like this:

I love dogs and am sitting here at the house with a dog name Ronnie.  We call him Ronbo; and when he does something silly, we call him Moe-Ron

Kari said…

“The argument that the current laws are enough & just aren’t being enforced because there is not enough law enforcement officers to do so & this will place additional burden for enforcement is also bogus”

“Everyone is talking about creating jobs, well here you go – create more opportunities for law enforcement officers – set up dedicated squads or patrols that focus on catching the puppy mill violators and close them down.”

The problem is that this legislation does nothing about enforcement.  Read the text and there’s nothing about more money for officials to ensure the laws are followed.  The same lack of enforcement now evident will still be the case after the law is passed.

  • And another point:

And where does the arbitrary number of legal pets come from?  Who says that 50 is the right number of pets and why is 51 illegal?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: