RSS

Tag Archives: Proposition B

Proposition B – Reponse To Sarah At HSUS

Ah, the famous Sarah from HSUS joins in the discussion with her well-known talking points and an ad hominem attack.

This post is in response to the comment left by Sarah after my freedom of speech was attacked on Wednesday

It’s “cowardly” to make such an attack against me when I’ve obviously discussed the issues in a logical fashion throughout this process.  And pretending that you and your ilk aren’t liberal and this is bipartisan is simply ignoring reality.  You and I both know that this is a liberal cause, and a liberal attacked my freedom of speech.  I was simply venting after having been attacked.

So, Sarah would you really like to have a discussion w/o such attacks, name-calling, and non-sequiturs?

Let’s go down your list of talking-points:

“Prop B only covers dogs bred to produce puppies sold commercially as pets—no other species of animal—and includes a specific exemption for hunting dogs.”

It also includes specific exemptions for HSUS and all your friends.  That, interestingly, is not listed in your radio advertising.  I know… …time constraints.  Why are HSUS, veterinarians, pet stores, animal shelters, rescues and hunting dogs exempt?  Don’t they deserve the same treatment under those conditions?  Your goal, I can see, is to stop the breeding, but you don’t do anything if the hunting dogs are living in squalor?  That doesn’t make any sense.

“It could not be more clear that this measure has no impact on sportsmen or agriculture.”

The reasons that people are concerned are:

  • Your involvement in Pig farming in Florida, Arizona, Oregon
  • Your involvement in the destruction of the Egg industry in California
  • The fact that, in Prop B, “Pet” is defined as any domesticated animal and does not exclude agricultural animals

People understand the slippery slope and are wary of animal rights organizations such as yours that do not provide maximum funds for animal care but do massive expenditures on lobbying, fund-raising, legislative activism, salaries, benefits, and pensions.

“Fifteen states recently passed strong laws cracking down on abusive puppy mills, including major agricultural states”

That’s great!  Missouri has 28 pages of regulations based on Missouri Law that govern and regulate any breeder with three or more intact females (in contrast to Prop B 10 females).

“…giving dogs basic humane standards of care such as food, water, veterinary care, exercise and shelter.”

As I read Prop B, I wonder if your organization ever looked at Missouri’s 28 pages of regulations.  I highlight the fact that Prop B requires only one feeding per day and Missouri regulations already require two feedings.  It seems that a boilerplate law is being applied to Missouri without regard for existing law.

Missouri has requirements for the breeder (again of 3 or more intact females / not 10) to file and follow plans for feeding, watering, veterinary care, exercise and shelter.  Annual inspections are required.

Your ads and literature continue to infer the fallacy that Missouri doesn’t have laws and regulations covering all these items when the laws and regulations are clearly stated.

“Missouri is the largest puppy mill state, but is lagging behind on dog protection—that’s why Prop B is needed.”

Number one.  What is the legal definition of puppy mill?

Number two.  Prop B will do absolutely nothing about Puppy Mills (unlicensed / bad breeders).

Only ENFORCEMENT of laws will have an effect on such breeders.  There is no enforcement or funding language in Prop B, so you might as well pass a law that says we all get $1,000,000 every time a dog farts.  Again, Prop B will do nothing to stop bad breeders without funding and enforcement.

What Prop B will do is cause law-abiding breeders to go out of business because they are suddenly deemed criminals under the new draconian space requirements in this law or because they cannot afford to upsize their kennels to match the space requirements.

To me, this space requirement is the truly nefarious portion of Prop B.

  • No effect on bad breeders
  • Good law-abiding breeders go out of business
  • Missouri still a puppy mill state
  • Pets are unaffordable

Missouri law already has detailed space requirements based on USDA guidelines and regulations.

“It’s absurd to think that these new policies have any effect on policies related to livestock. In fact, our opponents made the same arguments in 1998 during the debate over the ballot initiative to ban cockfighting in Missouri, and 12 years later, there has been no attempt to impact livestock agriculture or sport hunting in the state through the Legislature or through the initiative process.”

I point the reader back to the links on sow-crating and egg-production.

“I would encourage you and others to read the full language of the bill, you can do that and also get answers to common questions asked at http://www.yesonpropb.com”

I would encourage you (and everyone else) to read the full language of the Missouri Department of Agriculture regulations.  Missouri law is already, in many ways, more restrictive than Proposition B.  However, it doesn’t put an arbitrary 50-dog limit on law-abiding breeders.  That, interestingly, is not listed in your radio advertising.  I know… …time constraints.

Please explain why 51 dogs are a HSUS puppy mill and 50 dogs are not!

And, I haven’t even got into this!

Again, I urge Missourians to vote “NO” on Prop B.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on October 28, 2010 in Activism

 

Tags: ,

Missouri Proposition B – Liberal Vandalism

As you know, the Rockin’ Conservative is against the legislation called the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act, for various reasons, but mostly because it will do nothing to stop Puppy Mills and WILL put licensed law-abiding caring breeders out of business.  No, psycho liberal, I don’t hate dogs.

You also know that the Rockin’ Conservative has not been ashamed about letting everyone know that he is against the Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act:

.

Well, on Wednesday 10/27/10, I positioned the truck in a very visible spot near the Anhueser-Busch Brewery in St. Louis, MO.  One of my Facebook friends even reported seeing the truck and the sign as he drove past — which also let me know it hadn’t been towed!

So, when I arrived to pick up my truck late in the evening on Wednesday 10/27/10, I found it had been, yes, vandalized.

.

A vile disgusting scum bag liberal decided to vandalize my expression of free speech by putting duct tape over the word ‘LIE’ on the sign.  It’s typical of you slime that are on the left to shut down debate, call names, make ad hominem attacks, steal yard signs, and attack Senate candidates, so I’m not the least bit surprised that you decided to deface my property.

So, I will use the words of one of your favorite MS-NBC liberal icons to respond to your attack on my belongings:  “Go To Hell” … “Bitch”

 
9 Comments

Posted by on October 28, 2010 in Freedom, Liberals

 

Tags: ,

Save The Puppies!

This Prop B cartoon is too funny:

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 20, 2010 in Activism, Election

 

Tags: ,

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 comment

Posted by on October 15, 2010 in Free Market, Liberals

 

Tags: ,

Tony Larussa On Proposition B

As you’ve read here, Missouri Proposition B on the Novermber 2, 2010 ballot is a nefarious piece of legislation which will do nothing to shut down puppy mills.

Well, now Tony Larussa, Cardinal’s Coach, decided to weigh in on the issue as a Proponent of Proposition B.

You’ll probably see the commercial before too long.

Ask yourself a couple questions:

  • How much is he being paid?
  • Has he read the 35 pages of existing Missouri Law and Agriculture Department regulations that are much more detailed than Proposition B?
  • Does he really think a new law (with no discussion of or funding for enforcement) will change anything?

Please be educated on this law before you vote!

 
Leave a comment

Posted by on October 14, 2010 in Activism

 

Tags: ,

“NO!” On Missouri Propostion B

============================================================

UPDATE:

I want you, the reader, to understand that I am absolutely against Puppy Mills and Cruelty To Animals.  I am here fighting against bad legislation (Proposition B) which will not stop Puppy Mills and Animal Cruelty in Missouri.  If this bill was about funding the current good law in Missouri and tweaking anything with issues, I’d be all for it.  After the election, I will contact my Missouri State Senator and Representative as well as others with whom I’m acquainted to ask that more funding be given to the prevention of Animal Cruelty.

============================================================

I strongly urge you to vote “NO” on Missouri Proposition B.

Proposition B can be viewed here.

While the text and title of the Proposition sound good to the average reader, further investigation proves that the Amendment is truly nefarious and is being advanced by a radical group bent on ending Pet Ownership and Hunting.  AND, NOTHING in the Amendment will truly do anything to address the puppy mill problem in Missouri.

The Amendment will require changes to the housing requirements for licensed and lawful pet breeders that will immediately criminalize existing legal behavior.  Again, the currently law abiding pet breeders will be made into criminals.

From 24thstate.com…

86,000 dogs will have to be put down, many of them healthy, happy and loved.

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.

More here.

Existing Laws, Rules, Regulations:

Missouri Revised Statutes – Dogs And Cats

Rules of Department of Agriculture – Division 30 Animal Health / Chapter 9 – Animal Care Facilities

Animal Care Facilities Act Program (ACFA)

Please read up on Wayne Pacelle here and here who is the CEO & President of HSUS.org and is advancing this Amendment in Missouri.  HSUS.org held a rally yesterday evening in St. Louis to kick-off the effort for Proposition B

Additionally, the Amendment does nothing to set out the requirements, guidelines and funding of the enforcement.

Here is some more good information from The Alliance For Truth

  • Proposition B specifically targets those who are already licensed and inspected by the Missouri Department of Agriculture and who are in compliance with state and federal laws. It does nothing to address those who collect animals living in horrible conditions as long as the animals are not being bred to produce puppies for sale as pets.  Proposition B is specifically aimed at eliminating the legal, licensed professional dog breeders in Missouri who produce healthy, happy puppies.
  • Prop B creates a class C misdemeanor crime of “cruelty” for ANY violation during an inspection of a kennel by the Missouri Department of Agriculture, including a drop of food in a water bowl, a cobweb in the corner of a building, a scratch on a painted surface, etc.
  • Stacked cage enclosures with trays below each for easy cleaning and sanitation would be a class C misdemeanor for a licensed breeder while veterinarians, shelters, humane societies and rescues could use the same enclosures and be totally exempt from the law. Show breeders with more than ten intact female dogs could not crate their dogs for any purpose while preparing for shows, grooming or keeping intact females separate from males.
  • Legal, licensed breeders could have NO MORE than 50 dogs, regardless of the excellent care they receive while anyone not breeding dogs could have unlimited numbers of dogs living in filthy conditions.  Prop B creates the first step in HSUS and other animal rights groups dictating the number of animals one may own.
  • Prompt treatment for ANY illness or injury would be required by a licensed veterinarian, including something as simple as an upset stomach, torn toenail, cut on the nose, or any minor issue often treated by the breeder. Costs for veterinary care for minor issues would skyrocket, resulting in fewer purebred dogs available for public demand.
  • Prop B requires constant and unfettered access to an outside exercise area which will be deadly to newborn and non-weaned puppies that may crawl outside to follow their mothers and cannot find their way back inside. Babies will die of heat exhaustion and dehydration in the summer and hypothermia in the winter. Drafts of air created by required indoor/outdoor runs for mothers will ensure upper respiratory stress and pneumonia for babies, resulting in the deaths of many newborn puppies.
  • Breeders of hunting dogs are exempt from licensing unless even one of their dogs or puppies is sold as a pet or lives inside the home of the purchaser.
  • There is no scientific basis for eliminating tenderfoot flooringwhich allows for easy cleaning and sterilizing of enclosures.
  • Proposition B interferes with the working relationship between a breeder and his or her veterinarian on the health of their dogs and the frequency of breeding. The Department of Agriculture would be charged with determining the breeding frequency of dogs in licensed facilities.
  • HSUS has introduced Prop B as a means of eliminating the legal, licensed professional dog breeders in Missouri. According to the Department of Agriculture, no current licensed breeder can comply with the regulations put forth in Prop B, no matter how clean and well run the facility. Cost prohibitive space requirements coupled with misdemeanor crimes for the most minor of issues will eliminate the legalindustry in our state.
  • Only unlicensed, substandard breeders will be left to produce puppies while continuing to hide from state laws.
  • If Prop. B passes, it will further harm the economy in Missouri.
 
11 Comments

Posted by on September 15, 2010 in Miscellaneous

 

Tags: , ,