PROP "B" MISSOURI VOTERS

[matt c]

Just curious to see how everyone is voting on this one???????????

[hookset]

NO

There's more to this bill than meets the eye. Big Fat NO.

[matt c]

I agree.

Vote No on Prop B!!!!

[stavemillbeagles]

NO!!!!

[crossfire731]

NO!!!!! When your vet, the feed store and sale barns tell you to vote no, you know it's more than just about puppy cruelity. I'm reading this site on it now at http://www.lucascattlecompany.com. Something like that. USHS just want to get there foot in the door and they'll take everything from dogs to hunting away from us.

[hookset]

I agree. If you look at the whole proposition, and how this has worked before where they've done this, you will find that not only can the state, the humane society, and the police come and inspect you at anytime, but PETA can too. I keep my dogs well. I'm proud of them and do everything in my power to keep them happy and healthy. Most of us do. But- PETA and many in the humane society would see it as "cruel" by their definition. My pens would be 'jails', etc..... If this prop passes, we've given up the right of protection against unreasonable searches. Don't mind reasonable people looking at my kennels, but not PETA nuts. I love and care for my dogs, but the Libs would have me in the kennel and the dogs in my bed.

BTW - this propositon is expandable to livestock also, not just dogs. Cows, horses and so forth can be added to this.

[barnold1]

Here's the sample ballot language I found off my local liberal trashrag's website; the first bulletpoint sure seems to paint it as an easy choice to make:

PROPOSITION B
Proposed by Initiative Petition
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.
Yes [ ]
No [ ]

[hookset]

When I went to vote early, I about gagged on the language used on the ballot. Similar to what barnold1 posted, problably the same. "Do you want to be mean to puppies - yes or no?" That's not what this prop is about. There are laws already in place to punish puppy mills. This is about MORE government and special interest group intrusion into your private life.

[Panther Creek]

When I went to vote early, I about gagged on the language used on the ballot. Similar to what barnold1 posted, problably the same. "Do you want to be mean to puppies - yes or no?" That's not what this prop is about. There are laws already in place to punish puppy mills. This is about MORE government and special interest group intrusion into your private life.

AMEN!

[goodpickens]

The whole proposition is ludicrous. The government needs to enforce current laws before making new ones. If it passes, the humane society could take a person's dogs for something stupid and then put them in a shelter under worse conditions where they aren't cared for. The last time I went to a humane society, I saw the staff abusing the dogs. And they call themselves the good guys?

[Freeman Beagles]

A BIG NO ON PROP B! 95% of the Vets in Missouri is against this Prop B. This will also cross over to horses and cattle. This Porp. needs to be stopped now!!!

Ray Freeman

[Freeman Beagles]

Just received this from AKC:



Tuesday is Election Day! AKC Opposes Missouri Proposition B


October 29, 2010

This Tuesday November 2nd is Election Day and your vote is important. The American Kennel Club (AKC) stands with responsible owners and breeders in opposing Proposition B.

The AKC recognizes and shares concerns about substandard kennels. Our mission includes working to protect the rights of all dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership. We support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of dogs without restricting the rights of owners or breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.

The AKC strongly believes that ALL dogs – not just those who are part of a breeding program – deserve:

Sufficient food and clean water;
Necessary veterinary care;
Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements;
Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down and extend his or her limbs;
Regular exercise; and
Adequate rest between breeding cycles.
However, the way in which some of these terms are defined in Missouri Proposition B do absolutely nothing to improve the well-being of animals; instead, it would add excessive expenses to responsible breeders who strive to produce well-bred family pets.

The proposal also seeks to limit the number of dogs an individual may own. This confuses the real issue of animal welfare, which focuses on the quality of care given to animals, not the number of animals an individual owns. Responsible breeders are not defined by the number of dogs kept, or whether they make a profit in selling dogs. Rather, responsible breeders are characterized by the quality of care and conditions that they provide their dogs and the quality (including health, temperament and breed type) of the puppies they produce.

Cruelty and negligence can occur regardless of the number of dogs a person has. Furthermore, the AKC finds the term "puppy mill cruelty" used in Proposition B to be offensive to responsible breeders. Local responsible breeders should be viewed as assets to their communities. These breeders make serious commitments to their animals by raising healthy, well cared-for dogs and by working to ensure that puppies are placed with responsible owners. They are in a unique position to support new pet owners and exemplify responsible animal ownership.

Responsible dog breeders and owners are models for their communities and should not be penalized by being forced to comply with burdensome, unenforceable, expensive, and arbitrary regulations.

The American Kennel Club opposes Proposition B.

Click here for a printable version of this statement.

Click here for a handout to print and distribute.

For additional information, contact the AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720 or doglaw@akc.org.

[Panther Creek]

So far, the "NO" votes are close to double the YES votes!

[goodpickens]

Well, I'm disappointed that it passed. All it will do is put good breeders out of business and make bad breeders worse. At least it doesn't affect hunting dogs.

"Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit hunting or the ability to breed, raise, or sell hunting dogs." http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010pet ... 10-086.asp

[hookset]

If you look on the Missouri Secretary of State website, you can see how each county voted. It will astonish you that nearly all counties voted against this, and it was leading by 18 percent until East St. Louis came in. It will make you sick to your stomach how the 95 percent of the counties can vote against something, then a few cities come in and we're overturned.