Anti-Puppy Mill Effort Raises $3.2 Million

• Mr Lu Russa, it's a good thing you don't loose your job when one of your player's gets out of line, like drug use,or lying, under oath, a lot of hard working people are going to loose there way of life people because there are some people in this business that do a bad job, Do we completely shut this industry down because of that,whose next? your St Louis zoo,vote no have a little common sense,

• The issue is not HSUS - or cattle or pet ownership or any of the other smokescreens. The issue is commercial dog breeding in Missouri. It is not about unlicensed kennels - it is *licensed* kennels w repeat violations. It is about insufficient protections for dogs under current law. Under current law, the "exercise requirement" can be met without a dog ever being taken out of its cage. Prop B does not remove protections - it adds them. It's funny that opponents talk about money when puppy millers support multiple lobbyists and block all efforts to increase the inspection fee (capped at $500 per kennel, regardless of how many dogs are sold). So the non-breeders have been paying for inspections, and donations have been funding shelters. Thank goodness there are people willing to support Prop B financially. RFT snarkiness adds nothing to this issue.

• The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) is a �humane society� in name only, since it doesn�t operate a single pet shelter or pet adoption facility anywhere in the United States. HSUS operates sanctuaries for large animals only, not shelters within the commonly accepted definition of shelter. During 2006, HSUS contributed only 4.2 percent of its budget to organizations that operate hands-on dog and cat shelters. In reality, HSUS is a wealthy animal-rights lobbying organization (the largest and richest on earth) that agitates for the same goals as PETA and other radical groups. www.humanewatch.com

• Oh, and the Missouri Veterinary Medical Assn. (MVMA) does NOT ENDORSE PROP. B!!!!!!!!!

• Please stoned Barbara stop masquerading as "shelly"--its just embarassing. Prop. B does EVERYTHING Danielle reports and more! Its a "Kill Dogs" bill. It penalizes only the lawful, legal professional breeders and does NOTHING to or about the UNlawful. The four largest contributors to Yes on Prop. B spend NO MONEY on the actual care of animals! They are NOT MISSOURIANS! It is a matter of Public record! They euthanize 97% of all animals they come into contact with, if they cannot be dumped on private or city shelters-all without contributing any financial compensation. HSUS spends less than one HALF of one PERCENT of all funds collected on animals! FOLLOW THE MONEY! Best Friends of UTAH was founded by the Process Church of the Final Judgement founder (anyone remember Charles Manson?). ASPCA is following H$U$'s lead--again, their 'animal care' financials are a matter of Public Record--and it too is dismal at best. They do NOT spend money on animals. WAKE UP MISSOURIANS! This is NOT a Missouri conceived, supported or promoted bill--VOTE NO ON PROP. B. Sincere Voters! --Please do your research on this bill before voting. Check with the Missouri Ethics Commission on contributions. You're being duped on this one!

• NO licensed breeding kennels treat their dogs as AnneHSUS2010 claims. If you see kennels like that, they need to be turned into Operation Bark Alert to be shut down. They are illegal! Why haven't you done so, Anne? Where are you seeing small, filthy cages, no vet care, etc.?? In your mind, maybe? Currently ALL Missouri breeding kennels with over 3 females are required to be state licensed and inspected and follow 23 pages of regulations about food, water, vet care, housing, ventilation, exercise, sanitation, etc. There are enough regulations. Prop B attacks legitimate kennels and will shut down the legal dog breeding industry. The American Veterinary Medical Association OPPOSES Prop B, as do the VAST MAJORITY of veterinarians in Missouri. STOP THE RADICAL ANIMAL RIGHTS HSUS AND PETA AND VOTE NO ON PROP B.

• At puppy mills in Missouri, dogs are crammed into small and filthy cages, denied veterinary care, exposed to extremes of heat and cold, and given no exercise or human affection. These puppy mills are cruel and the way these dogs are treated is wrong. Prop B will stop puppy mill abuses by establishing common sense standards for the proper care of dogs. The Humane Society of Missouri and many Missouri veterinarians urge a �YES� vote on Prop B. To learn more about the conditions in Missouri puppy mills, you can view the HSUS's "Dirty Dozen" report at http://www.humanesociety.org/news/news/2010/10/missouri_dirty_dozen_100610.html. To learn more about Prop B, please visit http://yesonpropb.com/

• Sorry, the government does not take private funds to _hire_ inspectors.

• Dannielle is playing "look at my waving hand, not the facts". Why can't this money be used to fund investigators? Because the government does take private funds to high investigators. I can just see is now: BP funds oil well inspectors. What she doesn't mention is the fact that when proponents of animal care have tried to get bills passed through our state legislature that would raise licensing fees, and generate more inspection positions, they've all been shot down by the agribusiness interests in this state. As for the funding for the care of the dogs, considering that many of the organizations that will have to care for the dogs are also supporting this bill, why not ask them the same questions? Because it's easier to vilify an organization like HSUS than it is to refute what Proposition B provides: a better life for dogs. Lastly: exemption for shelters? There is no shelter in this state that wouldn't love to have less than 50 dogs. None. But when commercial dog breeders dump hundreds, even thousands, on the shelters, what are they supposed to do? Say no, we won't take them. The good, non-profit shelters in this state, such as the Humane Society of Missouri and so many others, don't profit from dogs. If anything, they have to beg for money just to keep running. They take in dogs no one else wants, and work to find homes for them. I resent that the anti-prop b people are actually attacking these good organizations because they don't want to face up to what commercial dog breeding really is: a way of profiting off the misery of dogs.

• wow, $3.2 million to try to promote this proposition that actually REDUCES standards of care for animals? where exactly are all these groups and people with money to help fund investigations and enforcement of MO's existing laws? laws that already address feedings (two per day in the current Act, only once a day in the new proposition), veterinary care (a contracted attending veterinarian with a written care plan in the current Act, a single annual visit in the new Proposition), temperatures (the current ACt provides for housing and care appropriate to age and weather, the new Proposition would subject newborn pups to maximum temperatures inadequate for survival). I'll tell you where. back behind their desks in Washington DC, raking in six figure salaries. look it up. the CEO of HSUS alone makes more than a quarter of a million a year- all from your donations. HSUS's current payroll? nearly FORTY MILLION annually. that $3.2 million could have been used for up to TEN YEARS of enforcement to shut help shut down unlicensed substandard operations. how much will the shelters get to handle the dogs surrendered due to the new limits? NOTHING. HSUS didn't give a single cent to a single shelter anywhere in MO in 2008 (last year avail for their tax returns) and have a long history of dumping dogs on local resources without any funding for their care. don't be fooled Missouri. talk to your legislators about finding adequate funding for enforcement of the existing laws instead of passing new ones that reduce care standards, reduce penalties and creates an EXEMPTION for shelters and rescue groups (guess its ok for them to have poor conditions, huh?)

TotalComments: 10