Saturday, March 12, 2011

Richard: We need to make sure we don't shut down dog breeders


Sen. Ron Richard, R-Joplin, in his weekly column, explains why he and his fellow senators decided not to listen to the vote of the people on Proposition B:

This past November, Proposition B was placed on the ballot in Missouri by a group of citizens through the initiative petition process. The measure made changes to Missouri’s laws regarding dog breeding in the state. Before the election was held, many raised concerns about the measure’s strict new regulations and their impact on legitimate dog breeders in the state as well as the possibility of other agricultural breeding operations being negatively affected. In Dade, Newton, and Jasper counties, 63 percent of voters voted against the measure, with voters in particularly rural areas like Dade County voting with 83 percent against the proposition. Statewide, however, the measure passed by a narrow margin of 51.6 percent.

This session, we have been working to make some changes to Proposition B. The goals behind our efforts are to protect dogs in the state, while still protecting the dog breeding industry in the state. Between 25 to 40 percent of dogs in the nation are bred and raised by dog breeders in the state, and we need to make sure we are not shutting down these legitimate businesses.

The legislation to accomplish these goals, Senate Bill 113, was given initial approval by the Senate this week. The bill changes the name of Proposition B from the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act” to the “Canine Cruelty Prevention Act,” to more accurately reflect the goal of the legislation. The bill also removes a provision that was in the original proposition limiting the number of breeding dogs an individual can own to 50. The state does not regulate any other private industry this way, so it is not fair to only go after large dog breeding operations.

Since the goal of the legislation is to better protect dogs and puppies, the legislation does contain increased penalties for those breeders breaking the law. If the state veterinarian or an animal welfare official finds that violations of state regulations are taking place and not corrected, the director of the Department of Agriculture could refer cases to the Attorney General or a local prosecutor, who could then seek a restraining order, injunction, or a remedial order to correct the violations. Civil penalties of up to $1,000 per violation are also allowed under the legislation.

Senate Bill 113 also creates the crime of canine cruelty, a Class C misdemeanor, when someone repeatedly violates the act or when someone violates an agreed-to remedial order involving the safety and welfare of the animals. A second, or subsequent, offense is a Class A misdemeanor.

The legislation we approved this week works to make sure that the Department of Agriculture has the tools they need to go after unlicensed breeders and that Missouri has common-sense regulations in place to protect dogs and puppies, while making sure not to put an unfair burden on the industry. We have worked hard in the Senate to compromise and come up with legislation that will accomplish all of these goals.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Senator Richard.

Anonymous said...

The citizens of Mo.are'nt smart enough to vote the way the gop want so they change the results of a 52% vote. Andrew Hunt's money had nothing to do with it..you remember this cause it's gonna come back to bite your Butt next election..pun intended.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your vote to fix this ill-conceived Prop B that would have put many small businessess out of operation. Our state needs more senators like you who are not afraid to act to protect Missouri citizens (sometimes even against themselves). Now if you could just throw HSUS out of Missouri, we would all be better off!

Anonymous said...

Thank you for giving the people of Mo an opportunity to own and operate a legitimate and well maintained business. We appreciate all of your efforts in changing this rediculous law to make sure we can catch the unlicensed breeders and allow the good breeders to continue to breed happiness..

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Senator.

Anonymous said...

I live in Rhode Island, and recently got a puppy from a very good breeder there.
My dog is healthy, and beautiful. I would highly recommend this breeder to anyone who is interested in a well bred, well taken care of dog.
Thank heavens people have come to their senses as far as this is concerned. I would sincerely hate to see a very reputable breeder go down because of unfair legislation. Thank you

Anonymous said...

Rhode Island you are very smart! Thank you for commenting! You made my day! We need more people in the world like you!

Anonymous said...

Thank You, Senator Richard for seeing that it would have only put good Breeders out of Business. The way the economy is right now, it would have been a shame to lose more jobs.

Anonymous said...

Mo. does regulate businesses in terms of number and volume -- talk to the casino people. But more importantly SB113 is nothing more than business as usual -- and that is what has gotten Mo. the "puppy mill capital of the country" label. Prop B applied to ALL who were breeding the requisite number of dogs, Licensed and Unlicensed. So, reputable breeders have a problem w/a once a year hands on vet exam? Reputable breeders have a problem w/cage sizes so that dogs can lie down and stretch out their limbs? Reputable breeders have a problem w/access to water at all times? (the cattle in the field have that!) Under ACFA the water, exercise and temperature requirements are very difficult to enforce as it almost requires a stake out to catch violations. Prop B made it readily discernable and would have empowered local law enforcement to act on the spot. If you can't view the breeder's place of business I'd be very suspicious about buying a puppy from them.

Anonymous said...

How much money does the Hunt Corp. donate to the Gop.,Hunt Corp.Goodman Mo. is the largest dealer of dogs in the world. If this law is overturned by the gop congressmen from 5 counties in southwest Mo.then we are slowly sliding into Fascism..no wonder Rhiebolt wants the right to carry a weapon in the capital.

Anonymous said...

Prop B says dogs must be fed once a day.... the MO regulations require dogs be fed no less than once every 12 hours. Prop B wants dogs to see the vet yearly... new regulations will require 2 vet visits per year. Even the old regulations require licensed and inspected dogs to get daily exercise. How will unlicensed breeders be forced to follow these rules? Why would they have to? They don't have inspectors. They answer to no one.

Anonymous said...

All dog breeder/sellers with more than one bitch, except between private parties, should require a yearly certification document proving their facilities have been inspected and passed the rigourous guidelines in the current law before their dogs can be sold to brokers or into the retail market, including all dogs originating in Missouri and crossing state lines.

Unknown said...

Missouri has PLENTY of dog breeders-so no worries there Senator Richard.
However, the Senator, like many of his chamber colleagues, relied on newly seated Senator Mike Parson to steer them on this vote.
Mr. Parson clearly (or conveniently) misunderstands Prop B, and the supposed "improvement" he offered to his fellow senators was nothing more than 1. a complete neutering of Prop B and,2. a "revote" on existing ACFA regulations. The senators did not even realize they were voting on regulations already on the books. Their votes reinforced Senator Parson's cocky belief that he is proud of Missouri being the puppy mill state. (yes, he said it at a meeting at Bolivar High School where Senator Richard was also a speaker.)
What was even more disturbing at that meeting was Senator Richard saying that most city folks do not realize where various foos stuffs originate. I realize he was catering to the heavily populated agriculture audience, but as a person who grew up in the city, I was insulted.
You know what saddens me? As a life long Republican, and a person who has even been seated at a table with Senator Richard and his lovely wife, I am terribly disappointed. Used to believe Senator Richard was a class act. Call me wrong.
He really is:
a politician who has not done his homework on Missouri's complex puppy mill problem;
willing to poke fun at fellow Missourians in a mean-spirited fashion;
not even considering that in the case of SB113, dogs will not have continuous access to water, a vet exam, or solid flooring.
Cows, chickens, horses and pigs residing in Senator Parson's district have better lives.
Why does he hate Missouri dogs?