All Its Cracked Up To B?

All It’s Cracked Up To B?

Scott Mackey

Signage, letters to the editor, and television commercials abound; even on this blog, a solid article, all attempting to bring to light the many sided issues of Proposition B. The topic is so controversial because it’s both drastically good and devastatingly bad. No one likes the idea of mistreated animals, and few people like for the government to have much say in their business efforts.  Proposition B, also known as the “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act,” sounds great on paper and on the commercials; but how is it going to work, and who might it hurt the worst?

            The first order of business in a topic such as this would be to read the legislation! So often in situations like this voters and contributors are lead to the slaughter because they listen to the hearsay information spewed by biased parties from both sides. Propaganda works because it moves people without them being fully aware of where they’re being herded. Propaganda, as it is so defined by animal wellness advocates, is passion without science. So, is there passion behind Proposition B? You had better believe it; but is there science? Well, kind of.

             Proposition B intends to regulate the fair treatment of animals; meaning that they will have the basic rights which animals deserve: food, water, shelter and room to play. These are all well and good but the argument doesn’t end there. Proposition B would also relegate the number of dogs a breeder could own and house to fifty animals. A secondary measure of the bill provides specific measurements for the size of kennels and pens for specific sizes of dogs. Also, the bill adds that the exercise area of each dog must be twice the area of their pens. (Missouri)

On the basis that this is a piece of state legislation, it is therefore an extension of the regulations proposed by our federal government, in this case the United States Department of Agriculture. Even more specifically, the legislation which defines the best general treatment for animals is the Animal Wellness Act (AWA), which is enforced by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.  The Animal Welfare Act clearly defines and regulates such animal husbandry processes as grouping, primary enclosures, outdoor housing, feeding, watering, exercise, cleaning of pens and even employee standards.(Department) Finding these standards to be quite strict and with the backing of the USDA, a department whose business is specifically related to the topic of Proposition B, a person can’t help to wonder why an animal would need states’ rights which are already guaranteed by the federal government.

The science necessary to alter the opinions of those farmers, ranchers and breeders who ask for a “no” vote on Proposition B has yet to be presented, or even really hinted at. There has been plenty of publicity however; and this publicity is very limited in information, but chalked full of pity. So, the people pushing for the “yes” vote on Proposition B ask us to go farther than what’s deemed adequate by the Federal government, for no reason backed by science. A person might very well conclude that people who support Proposition B wish to make it more difficult for the breeders, rather than making it easier for the animals. Also it might be pointed out, that in no way will Proposition B sincerely affect those people who don’t already operate within the law.

Who will enforce the legislation? Will the law breakers stand up and identify themselves; of course not, it will be those breeders who operate within the bounds of current laws who are impeded and who will have the size of their businesses and profits cut. More important for some is the question who will pay for this new enforcement? Will it be deemed the duty of the overworked police departments, or will it perhaps create new jobs in an already stressed state budget?

A few alternatives to Proposition B might be mentioned which are already in practice in several other states. First it should be mentioned that, just as with Proposition B, these all go beyond the bounds of what the AWA states is necessary. However, these other laws seem to be comprehensive to the scale of breeders rather than impedimentary. In Indiana, a regulation allows for several different divisions of breeder classification based on number of dogs. Colorado on the other hand has inspections based on risk related to the operation. So kennels with a higher number of dogs have a significantly higher rate of inspection. With these two alternatives in place of the ones suggested in Proposition B, it would be possible for breeders within the law to raise and sell as many dogs as they wish, as long as they are efficiently kept and proper licensing fees are maintained. (State) This change in legislation would accommodate large scale breeders and make a non-licensed operation open to state criminal charges.

A bit of propaganda to consider, if both sides of the Proposition B table would’ve committed the resources and man hours spent on campaigning for and against useless legislation, how many noncompliant breeders and “puppy mills” could’ve actually been found and shut down.

Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Animal and Animal Products. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/downloads/awr/awr.pdf

Missouri Secretary of State (SOS). (2010). 2010 Initiative Petitions Approved for Circulation in Missouri-Statutory Amendment to Chapter 273, Relating to Dog Breeders , 1. Retrieved October 4, 2010, from Missouri Secretary of State (SOS): www.sos.mo.gov

"State Puppy Mill Laws." Humanesociety.org. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Oct. 2010. <http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/legislation/state_puppy_mill_laws.pdf>.