Missouri Senator Bill Stouffer Files Bill to Repeal Puppy Mill Law

• Is this the same Republican whos mother owns a puppy mill? People across America are proud that at least half of the people in MO find puppy mills a deplorable, hateful business. Perhaps if the owners would have to volunteer at the local animal shelters they would figure out how they contribute to over 4 million, again, 4 million of their dogs they bred are killed in shelters. Anyone who defends puppy mills are as morally corrupt at the breeders.

• Jenniegerlits, read the actual bill before you comment PLEASE. Your only aiding in the misconstrued statements about this prop. Section 7. This section shall not apply to any retail pet store; animal shelter as defined in section 273.325; hobby or show breeders who have custody of no more than ten female covered dogs. This bill is in ADDITION to not in lieu of our current laws.

• Just who greases your hand and supports you......puppy milll breeders? Shame on you, what would your grandchildren think if they knew their grandfather wants to repeal the puppy mill bill?????

• Do you people realize that not only does this bill effect the puppy mills, but any rescue organization? Does your rescue org have enough room for the dogs to exercise? Is it level? Think about it. They will shut you down too and then just kill all the dogs, because no one can care for them under the govt rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• Last I checked, in a democracy the MAJORITY RULES. This is not a rural vs urban vote. This issue was decided as a STATEWIDE vote, not a county by county vote. Missouri is known as the puppy mill capital of the country. Although Prop B won't eliminate animal abuse, it is a step toward humane treatment for animals. Missouri lawmakers should have taken care of this issue a long time ago. You were not elected to overturn the wishes of the people. The people have taken care of it.......the purpose of a democracy.

• All pet owners should have to obide by this law too. If your dog steps on a thorn/stick/rock/nail and puctures his foot, are you taking him to the vet immediately? If a breeder doesn't seek vet attention immediately,it will be a violation if Prop B is in tact. If a breeder doesn't provide shelter from all elements it will be a violation, yet I recently observed a pet owner keep his/her Golden Retriever on a deck, 20 feet in the air, with no cover for over an 8 hour span in 90 degree weather. Did I report it? You bet I did and NOTHING was done about it, the poor dog was still there the next week. How many keep their pets in a crate while at work, or in a pen in the back yard? These don't even come close on size requirements that yes voters passed on breeders. During our current cold stretch, are pet owners making sure your pets have a shelter that is above 55 degrees? Breeders are. Are pet owners making sure there is no ice or debri in their pets water? Breeders are. Shelters are overpopulated because of irresponsible pet owners-not breeders! Animal husbandry isn't rocket science-you can't produce any kind of healthy offspring if you don't take care of the parents. THAT PERTAINS TO ALL SPECIES!! Yes voters were played by a radical group that wants no more animals born on this planet. You can look up the quotes by HSUS for yourself. This is a bad bill, there definately is something broke in our entire government system but this does nothing to fix it!

• Can anyone tell me why Prop B takes away protection from all hunting dogs?? uNDER THE OLD LAW ALL DOGS WERE PROTECTED, Under Prop B all hunting dogs are exempt!! Don't Labs, Beagles, Goldens, Bassets, and Cocker deserve to be proteted too? If the bad guyhave 100 Goldens there is NOTHING Prop B can do for them!!

• Katerina.. you might notice that Prop B calls for feeding ONCE a day.. the "old" regulations called for feeding TWICE a day..but thas little thing aside.. this prop has NOTHING to do with animal care.. and everything to do with NUMBERS.. I notice someone mentioned that dog breeders have an "easy life" and are the cause of "homeless dogs" I suppose getting up in the middle of the night.. nursing puppies and mothers.. feeding watering cleaning checking etc is so much easier than sitting on your ass on a computer.. and homeeless dogs.. what about homeless PEOPLE.. I hope the bill is repealed..

• Those who peddle life for profit are a blight on this planet in any case. This isn't about humans losing their "rights," it's about respect for fellow sentient beings. That common decency should have to be legislated speaks volumes as to just how righteous we humans are.

• It is beyond sad that there would even be any opposition to a bill like this. For God's sake, that anyone would object to feeding an animal once a day and not confining it to a cage its entire life, bred until (in females' case) its uterus falls out? Even the most modest law like Prop B is painted as part of an extremist agenda to get rid of all breeders or all pets or force everyone to be vegetarian. If you are going to employ the "slippery slope" argument for every single piece of legislation or policy, then NOTHING would ever change. Stouffer is a disgrace for attempting to overthrow the will of the people and protect the puppy mill industry. They create a mess that the rest of us pay to clean up, whether in tax dollars for animal control, or rescue operations, adoption efforts, and the like.

• JustAnAverageJoe says: " the issue is that they are misrepresenting the cause". Regardless of the spin you are trying to put on your statement, your opinion remains clear... the 'elitist city-voters' are too ignorant and befuddled to understand Prop B even after four+ months of intense and expensive public debate. You are entitled to your opinion. But attempting make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and expecting it to fly is simply further proof of your belief in voter stupidity.

• JustAnAverageJoe says: " the issue is that they are misrepresenting the cause". Regardless of the spin you are trying to put on your statement, your opinion remains clear... the 'elitist city-voters' are too ignorant and befuddled to understand Prop B even after four+ months of intense and expensive public debate. You are entitled to your opinion. But attempting make a silk purse out of a sow's ear and expecting it to fly is simply further proof of your belief in voter stupidity.

• Owned by the HSUS, outside interests like the Center for Consumer Freedom, and David Martosko? http://www.news-leader.com/article/20101203/OPINIONS02/12030306/Martosko-Dogs-to-be-dumped-on-shelters-in-Missouri Speaking of being bought by corporate interests, let's see who is paying for HumaneWatch and the Center for Consumer Freedom? Not to mention David Martosko's salary? Big business, including agribusiness. Big agribusiness that doesn't like HSUS too much. This was never about HSUS, but it made a great scapegoat. All you're doing, though, is insulting the people of this state. You're saying we're too stupid to make up our own minds. As for your shelter crack, have you even read the State of Missouri audit reports on the Missouri Department of Ag? During one, the auditor asked why the state inspectors didn't inspect the animal shelters. The answer was because there was never any problems with the shelters, and the inspectors wanted to reserve their time for the commercial breeders--because unlike the shelters, the commercial breeders can be really bad in this state. Really bad. So not only did you insult the people of this state, you're also trying to push this on our overworked, overburdened animals shelters--run by people who actually care about animals. Organizations like the Humane Society of Missouri, which we're actually rather proud of. In the end, you and others from HumaneWatch have tried to deceive the people of this state about Proposition B, and we didn't buy it. As for this senator, what matters in the end is the vote by district, not by county. And the majority of state representatives come from districts that voted for Proposition B. House of Representatives districts: 86 for Proposition B, as compared to 77 against State Senate districts: 20 for Proposition B, as compared to 14 against

• IM WITH YOU ALL THE WAY ON THIS PUPPY MILL THING ITS A JOAK, WE HAE WHATS CALLED ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICERS THATS THERE DAM JOB TO START WITH MY GOD BLOW MORE MONEY WE DONT HAVE, ANIMAL CONTROL USE THEM LOL.....

• This guy voted no for autistic children being insured. THAT tells me what kind of person he is. He can't make any money insuring the kids, so who cares? He makes MUCH money from you puppy millers to support him. No money in insuring the poor kids. Nothing like twisting the truth around in the post above me. Anything to confuse the facts, right? All we are trying to do is give the dogs the humane treatment they deserve. God will punish you, trust me. And this farmer in the picture above is just about as ignorant as the millers. Oh, by the way I live in Missouri.

• Tell me just who the heck do you people think you are coming into Missouri bringing your dirty money and buying our elected officials. When you were behind in the election by 240,000 votes and all but 3 percent of the vote was in "260,000" votes show up (More than the total of any of the precincts not reporting in the Talley). Voter fraud.. And you claim victory... I say Pooh not so! The people spoke and you stole the election. I hope they find out the truth and put you people in jail where you belong. The "Wealthy" breeders only had about $ 100,000.00 compared to your roughly 5 million dollars. You pukes spent almost $5.00 a vote now thats a little crazy. The final total including the voter fraud was less than 65,000 but of those 260,000 were fake votes. The petition was a scam as well.. after seven weeks of the eight week program you reported to only have 45,000 signatures then in seven days you came up with a whooping 145,000 signatures.. Yes we all believe that too. I was wondering why the rest of the state had all of the votes in by nine PM except corrupt Acorn St Louis.. Simple answer you needed to figure out how many dead people needed to vote. Problem is there were not that many reg voters in the non reporting polls. We thought it was interesting how in some polling places more individual votes were cast for Proposition B than voted for all of the candidates in the election.. How does that happen? We the people of Missouri, citizens do not deserve to have the state bought and laws passed by some animal rights guy just because he has 5 million dollars. The law is a bad law and must be over turned. You Animal Rights people are lairs, your ads we all lies, Your Missouri Vet who actually is a vet that lives and does business in Texas is not a Missouri vet, The Breeders you presented were not breeders in the State of Missouri either you have been lucky so far. But the truth will always come out..like it is now. Who is that once said "You can fool some of the people some of the time , but not all of the people all of the time." I think you disgusting people need to pack it in and get out of town. Go back to the Home office of HSUS, that is who you work for anyway. So get outta here! So for now you have corrupted our State Government, we now have lots of work to fix all the damage you Animal Rights people have done to Missouri. Prior to the election it was reported the SOS was instructed to purge over 260,000 from the voter rolls due to fraud. She refused..Needed those dead people to vote one more time. She will probably leave office in disgrace. All this kind of makes you proud of our Missouri politics eh? The Prop B Is nothing more than the PETA HSUS agenda to destroy agriculture and to make sure you, your children and your grand children never have a pet of your own ever again. We are supposed to work hard to pass on this great country of ours to the next generations so they can enjoy the freedoms our country has to offer. Supporting this crooked agenda will not pass it on in good order for future generations. It is really about more that Breeding dogs.. It is about making Americans Vegans, It is about supporting non Christian view points. It is about taking your rights away from you and future American Generations. Most people who had voted for Prop B now are extremely upset because they now know they were tricked. If the election were held today and the voter fraud was eliminated The ARs would be thrown under the bus by the people. And rightfully so. Well I guess you guys "Showed Us" here in Missouri.. But it is not over.. We have many good honest people who are elected to serve and will serve the state properly and honestly. We have a very good staff of inspectors who have always served the state honestly with good hard work. The problems with complaince has always been with the 60.0 % of the non paying license holders, shelters, the Humane Society, ASPCA, Dog Pounds and Rescues, they have always taken most of the inspectors time and refused to comply with the AWA of Missouri, Proposition B even specifically excluded them from the law. If it (Prop B) is not good for them why is it good for everyone else? Could it be they don't really care for the animals they take your money so they can kill them by the thousands. When I was a little boy we all hated the Dog catcher. What has happened? These people have tricked America THEY ARE THE DOG CATCHER! Think about it. then call your elected officials and ask them to Repeal Prop B. Oh and please stop giving these people money every dollar you give allows them to kill two more animals.

• I'm confused - the bill is pretty straightforward and not unreasonable. Why would legitimate, humane breeders be opposed to the stipulations there-in? Why is anyone opposing (directly quoting from the bill itself, found here: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp ): "(1) Sufficient food and clean water; (2) Necessary veterinary care; (3) Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements; (4) Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs; (5) Regular exercise; and (6) Adequate rest between breeding cycles." How is this unfairly targeting anyone except people who aren't treating their animals well and don't want to be held accountable for it? The bills is SUPER short, VERY easy to read. If anything, after reading it, I wish it had more restrictions! As it is, it doesn't even apply to show or hobby breeders with 10 or less dogs, or dogs ostensibly raised for hunting! It isn't out to destroy vets, or pet food companies, or any animal related business. In fact, vets, pet shops, and research labs are also exempt. Yes, further laws that crack down on illegal breeding operations are needed. That doesn't mean that this one doesn't have a legitimate place on the books.

• "It only targets licensed dealers, and people that are ignoring the law now are not affected by this. -------- So we should only pass laws that will be followed by everyone? That's the point of law enforcement�when someone ignores a law, you arrest and convict them. What a pantload this guy is. And Digi is right, there is no such thing as a reputable puppy mill.

• Term Limits.

• "Michael says: Stouffer isn't far off the mark, actually. Disreputable puppy mills are going to operate with or without this law. It's just a shame that the highest profile person calling Prop B into question is also a champion of the right-wing causes mentioned above." There is no such thing as a reputable puppy mill!

• Typo: "These are significant, because this has _never_ existed before this point."

• ...Joe "The bill is crafted to limit breeding and establish guidelines for humane treatment of animals. The penalty for deviating from that is quite literally a little slap on the wrist � lowest class misdemeanor. Nothing about enforcement processes, nothing about inspections, nothing about licensure" Proposition B is an amendment to existing laws, which already define licensing, the enforcement process, and how inspections are made (and funded). Currently, the only way a person can be criminally charged is if they sell puppies without a license. There is no criminal penalty for violating regulations. Now, there is a criminal penalty that can be applied by any law enforcement personnel. There is a Class C misdemeanor for first offense, Class A for a repeat. These are significant, because has existed before this point. "Since you believe this is really ground breaking legislation, how do you expect a law that has absolutely zero provisions for tracking, for inspecting, for anything other than issuing a parking ticket level violation that will cost them $100 encourage someone that is already breaking the laws, not getting caught, and not treating their dogs humanely? " Again, this is an amendment to existing law, which provides provisions for funding inspectors and tracking offenses. A class C or class A misdemeanor is an appropriate charge. More importantly, this will also help close down the breeder, which is the important point on the charges. I also believe you should become more familiar with class A and C misdemeanors because these are a lot more serious than a parking ticket. You can't be jailed for a parking ticket.

• Think the senator going to reach into his own pocket for the hundreds of thousands of dollars a repeal will cost?

• Shelley, I'll try to cover your points separately... 1 a) No, when someone says they feel that something is misrepresented they are not indirectly calling everyone who believed it gullible or naive. It is just that� personally I felt that they are misrepresenting the situation. You do not. There we go. It isn�t any deeper than that but you obviously feel slighted that you fought for something that someone else feels is misrepresented. 1 b)) I wholeheartedly disagree that you "saw through the misrepresentations.� Actually, I don�t understand what you are trying to say� you clearly support the bill yet you believe it�s misrepresented? The reason I�m saying it�s misrepresented is this. The bill is crafted to limit breeding and establish guidelines for humane treatment of animals. The penalty for deviating from that is quite literally a little slap on the wrist � lowest class misdemeanor. Nothing about enforcement processes, nothing about inspections, nothing about licensure. And yes, I�ve read the bill extensively and repeatedly. But, the campaigns were all about ending the puppy-mill conveniently never mentioning that they are putting caps on the breeders regardless of their compliance with treatment or track records of treatment. Hence, my belief that it�s misrepresenting it. A true measure to end abuse would only center on the treatment, include requirements and provisions for inspecting facilities, and have real teeth to punish those that break the law. It is the fear of punishment that encourages compliance. 2) You may be confusing me with someone else� I made no mention, let alone repeated mentions, of impact to legal breeders� this will have an impact on legal breeders�. Legitimate breeders that consent to voluntary inspections will have limitations imposed on their business. Yep, they could have the most cushiony cozy pet paradise operations in the world, but they can no longer operate at the volume they would like to. It has no measure on cruelty or abuse, purely a volume limit. Wait, how is that targeting puppy-mills? Oh, wait� it�s not. 3) to a degree you are correct� I�m not trying to say if you can�t get it right to begin with don�t do it at all. I understand laws require revisions and process is painfully slow. But, I firmly believe you�d have a clear victory if the law really was all about humane treatment. It�s the fact that you are going after established businesses under the auspice of humane treatment. See point 2 if you don�t agree� no way you can honestly say that�s the case when there is no provision or stipulation on volumes with respect to wellbeing of the puppies. Do you ever park in a metered spot and not feed the meter because you�ll only be there for maybe 15 minutes? I�m guessing you do b/c and I�d venture to guess the majority of us do too. We do that b/c the ticket is cheap if we do get caught and our chances of getting caught are pretty slim� in and out, no way the meter maid will blow by in this 15 minute window� and if he does, no biggie. This law is IDENTICAL. Puppy-mills are a problem here b/c we have under-ground, un-registered ass-hats that are popping out puppies all over the place and not taking care of them. They are already breaking the law� more than likely animal cruelty laws. So my questions for you, Shelley, is this. Since you believe this is really ground breaking legislation, how do you expect a law that has absolutely zero provisions for tracking, for inspecting, for anything other than issuing a parking ticket level violation that will cost them $100 encourage someone that is already breaking the laws, not getting caught, and not treating their dogs humanely? Nothing will change with this law to reduce the number of true problems. It will help get the minority of breeders that we do know about get in line. That�s the minority. And, that other tiny caveat that was never mentioned and not necessary to humane treatment, will limit breeders to a finite number of dogs. So you see� if it is really and truly about humane treatment, how come the single guaranteed impacting item in the legislation doesn�t have anything to do with the health and well being of the animals? Why is that one item even necessary? And if it is all about the health and well being of the animals, why wouldn�t the limit be a stipulation for those that can�t do it properly? Lizza, I think many people will agree that breeding is a problem b/c of overpopulation but the bill, remember, was marketed as going after inhumane breeders.

• Dog breeding shouldn't even be a BUSINESS for crying out loud! There are many other ways to make a living other than dog breeding. There are way too many homeless animals, we do not need MORE! There are those who are crying "foul" on Proposition B are those people who want to make easy money because they don't want to get off they lazy ass to do REAL WORK!

• KittyLitterKing, don't confuse this bill with a civil rights issue. Even those against the bill have admitted there is no means by which it can be challenged in court. That's why people like Stouffer are trying to manipulate it in the state legislature.

• ...Joe, isn't that what you're saying though, when you say that someone misrepresented the issue? This also implies that we're too gullible to see this misrepresentation. In actuality, we saw through the misrepresentations. You keep saying that this has no impact on legal breeders, when I've pointed out in this thread a "legal" breeder who this bill would most definitely impact on. You're saying, oh well, we didn't get it right -- let's just strike it and we'll deal with the situation later. But later never comes, does it? How many years have organizations tried to get changes through the state legislature to close gaps in the existing laws? I've found attempt every year going back at least to 2000. So no, we came up with a bill, folks in Missouri collected the signatures, and we voted this bill in. This bill most definitely impacts on the bad breeders in this state, which is why they are pulling the strings on Senator Stouffer to get him to try to overthrow it. What matters if dogs leave a miserable cruel life--not as long as Senator Stouffer tells we'uns in the city to keep our noses out of _their_ business. After all, city people's votes (both Republican and Democrat) doesn't count in this state.

• There still seems to be some confusion about Prop B and who exactly it applies to. Prop B applies to ANY breeder with ten or more intact females. It does not change Missouri licensing requirements, but it does apply to breeders with or without a license. Most importantly, Prop B was passes by the voters of Missouri and state lawmakers should respect that vote.

• I'm not defending puppy mills, but if our society was based solely upon the will of the majority, blacks would still be drinking from separate water fountains and sodomy laws would still be on the books. just sayin'

• Shelley, please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say you didn't know what you were voting for. I clearly said that I personally felt that they were misrepresenting. So if you are offended, direct that toward those that offend you. Not at those that side with them. I agree, it had nothing to do with aggribusiness. I thought it was pretty cool that the bill clearly called out the taxonomy of the animal it was for. Either way, get it straight. I did not insult you.

• JustAnAverageJoe, we knew exactly what we were voting for, even though several Missouri organizations tried to misrepresent what it was about (no, this wasn't about chickens and cows). I am offended at the people making an assumption that if we disagree with them, or don't vote the way they wanted, well then we must be uninformed. Say you don't like the bill, or it's going to crimp your business, or you really like animal cruelty and how dare we stop it--but don't tell use we didn't know what we were voting for.

• Alexander, you are probably correct but the issue is that they are misreprenting the cause. Send up a bill to restrict breeding if that's your goal. Don't send up a bill saying it'll stop the Mills when it doesn't. Yep, it'll get votes b/c most everyone loves puppies and we all go awwww when we see a cute one. I personally voted no b/c principally I felt that they were trying to insult my intelligence. And out of curiosity... if I take your advice and go to the local shelter, will that show me how many people mishandle their pets or will it show me that breeding is an entire industry is to blame?

• Being on the front lines of dog rescue, I have no sympathy for breeders of any caliber. Any legislation to inhibit purposeful breeding for profit will get my vote. Visit your local shelter and tell me you don't see a problem.

• I believe in the will of the people and democracy, except when I disagree with it! The bill passed by a vote of the people in an election where conservatives did really well. GET OVER IT, STOUFFER!

• This has been a tough one. I read the bill and stayed clear of the pro and con websites. They�ll obviously be bent in on direction or the other but the bill is clear as day� it�s not a complicated piece of legislature. To me, it looks to be a veiled attempt to attack breeding as an industry � not puppy-mills. I'm not going to speak one way or another toward the debate on breeding b/c that�s not how they marketed the bill. But if that's the underlying intent, don't mask it and get votes by showing terrible puppy abuse pictures. I agree with the lawmakers. (did I really actually say that??) This law will not do anything to stop the problems. Take a look at it from a pragmatic perspective... you have a large group of people operating a 'breeding' business and mistreating animals (already illegal) and we expect a law that does nothing to require licensure and inspections to get them to all of the sudden decide to VOLUNTARILY start doing the right thing? Out of fear that they may get a Class C misdemeanor� you know, the rough equivalent of a parking ticket. Call me a skeptic, but if they are already breaking laws I don�t think the threat of a very low possibility of maybe getting a misdemeanor ticket is going to make them see the light. Again, it looks like it's really targeted at attacking the breeding industry rather than going after improper breeders. One of two things need to happen... submit a bill that challenges the breeding industry as a whole if that's what they want to take on. Or submit a bill that will really impact puppy-mills which would be licensing and inspection requirements with significant penalties for breaking the law. No one all polished up to look like the other one. I believe they�ll have a better chance of success, even in rural areas, if they strike this one down and structure a new law to properly attack the problem rather than trying to keep this and add another or amend it repeatedly. Just do it right from the start.

• If all of the legitimate dog-breeders were already in adherence with the standards set forth in prop b, then why why go completely nuts about the need for repeal? If they really gave a crap about the "illegals" in the biz that they know so much about and who are giving them a bad name, they should have done some of their own policing. The USDA has made public many of the offenses they have observed, and by golly...Most were licensed or recently had their license suspended/revoked (yes the USDA was trying to catch the illegal breeders). But above all, the people voted. This was a democratic process. Repealing a bill that received majority vote is an injustice.

• Thank God our elected officials are intelligent enough to recognize what most of the yes-voters do not. This is and has always been a BAD bill aimed at destroying the legitimate dog-breeding business (and affiliated businesses such as vets, dog food companies, vaccine and pet supply companies, etc) in Missouri. At the onset, approval rates were said by HSUSto be 90% FOR prop B. Once many of the voters were educated about the truth, by election day, just 51% of voters were still ignorantly supporting the bill. Of that 51%, many have since stated that they didn't know that the bill would not affect the unlicensed, illegal breeders who will STILL be raising dogs unchallenged and unchanged. SURPRISE!!

• Among some of the breeders that Senator Stouffer supports is Raymond and Sheryl Acton (USDA #16349). According to USDA inspection reports, this breeder has repeat violations for maintenance and cleanliness, with rusted wires and sticky grime coating self-feeders. Where the puppies are housed is a "strong ammonia odor", enough so to cause irritation to eyes and lungs. Imagine little puppies subjected to this? According to the PetshopPuppies report on these folks, puppies purchased through pet shops traced back to the breeder have been underweight, with eye discharges, had kennel cough, urinary tract infections, pneumonia, and various other health problems. And that's just one of this state representative's commercial breeders. It's nice to know our state reps are coming in support of animal cruelty, in addition to deciding that we don't have the right to vote.

• <quote>"people that are ignoring the law now are not affected by this."</quote> Isn't that an argument for repealing <i>all</i> legislation, then? What kind of argument is it to say that we shouldn't have a law if people aren't going to follow it? This one gives more teeth to go after the people who aren't following the law. And I spoke to a number of people who breed dogs (and I'm involved in the rescue community, through my wife), and everyone I spoke to agrees that the limits on breeding dogs in Prop B are way high, that any reputable breeder wouldn't have over 45 breeding dogs to begin with.

• Stouffer isn't far off the mark, actually. Disreputable puppy mills are going to operate with or without this law. It's just a shame that the highest profile person calling Prop B into question is also a champion of the right-wing causes mentioned above.

• Elected officials should respect the will of the people. Overturning the judgment of voters is anti-democratic. Our system is built on majority rule, and a majority of Missouri citizens supported Prop B. The voters acted precisely because the legislature has failed to stop puppy mill abuses. Some people who voted against the measure were wrongly told that existing regulations on dog breeding are adequate. They are not. Under pre-Prop B rules, a dog can be in a cage just six inches longer than her body, she can be confined in that cage and never let out, she does not ever have to see a veterinarian, and she can be huddled in a wire cage in the middle of winter �exposed to freezing temperatures. All of that is legal under existing rules, and that�s why we needed Prop B. The new regulations � requiring adequate and clean food and water, exercise, properly sized and sanitary cages, veterinary care, protection from extreme heat and cold, and adequate time between breeding cycles - are very reasonable. They're also long overdue. Missouri has been the puppy mill capital of the country for far too long. For details, go to yesonpropb.com. The full language of Prop B is at: http://www.yesonpropb.com/about/read-act.

• Full text of Prop B on MO SOS site: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2010petitions/2010-085.asp

• Granted, Prop B mostly only had what was already on the books but law enforcement has had no power to enforce them. In fact, there were laws *against* filming suspected puppy mills in MO, that tells you how deeply embedded they are into the politics here. Where is the full text of Prop B so we can review it and see if it's truly this "evil" thing that our *elected officials* are going against what the majority voted on. I personally am in favor of Prop B and don't want to see it repealed. I would love to see the power given to law enforcement to give harsher penalties for animal abuse.

• "It does nothing to solve the problem of dog abuse," Stouffer told the Associated Press. "It only targets licensed dealers, and people that are ignoring the law now are not affected by this." Is he wrong? I'm not saying one way or the other, but that was at the heart of many arguments against Prop B. 51.6% isn't exactly a landslide.

• Please include Stouffer in the Ass Clown of the Week vote.

TotalComments: 45