"A bill proposed by the Missouri General Assembly earlier this month would change some regulations of Proposition B, which passed with 51 percent of voters in November, could occur as soon as next month.
The Missouri Senate passed the bill that amends Prop. B with a vote of 20 to 14 on March 10, according to the Missouri Senate website. When the House votes on the bill in April, the final decision will lie with Gov. Jay Nixon.
The new provisions in House Bill 131 renames Prop. B the Dog Breeders Cruelty Prevention Act and removes the provisions concerning living conditions and specific medical regulations for animals.
House Bill 131 states Prop. B is not applicable to breeders unless they own more than 100 female dogs, and breeders are permitted to own more than 50 dogs.
Other changes to Prop. B that would be omitted deal with scientific facts, such as specific dog cage temperatures, which would harm some puppy breeds, said Representative Zachary Wyatt, R-District 2, who supports the House bill.
The "domesticated animal" provision would be removed because it could mean any animal from a dog to a horse, cow or pig, he said. Therefore, under Prop B, all the regulations would also apply to farm animals, which would be detrimental to agriculture, he said."
There's been a good deal of discussion, most of it on the passionate side, about Prop B both before and after its passage last year in Missouri. Most of the yelling right now revolves around the legislature making changes to the bill after it was voted on by the people.
Prop B was a bill written by the Humane Society of the United States under the guidance of its CEO and President Wayne Pacelle to whom the following quotes have been attributed:
“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”
— Animal People News, May 1993
"We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state. ---Wayne Pacelle, Full Cry Magazine, October 1, 1990.
Can you blame those of us that voted against the bill for just a bit of concern about what the true intent of the legislation is? Section 9 of the act reads as follows:
"”Pet” means any domesticated animal normally maintained in or near the household of the owner thereof."
Those of us that have domesticated animals other than dogs and cats have quite a few reservations when it comes to the possibility of applying the regulations included in the act to our farm animals. My chickens are "domesticated animals" and they live about 50 feet from my house. Is that near enough for them to fall under the requirements of the act? If so, do I now need to heat and cool their coop and follow all kinds of other regulations that have nothing to do with the health and fitness of my birds? What about hogs, goats and cows? They're all domesticated, too. Do they fall under the regs in the act?
It seems to me, based on the known predilections of the leadership of HSUS that this bill is meant to be something more than just a way to prevent the abuse of dogs in large scale puppy mill operations. It is worded in ways that leave the legal door open for increasing government meddling in farming and private business/property issues, all with the intent of eventually creating legal protections for animals equivalent to those humans posses as a matter of the natural law. And those are the sorts of holes the legislature is trying to plug.
Further, if one reads the bill a glaring problem is found in its lack of establishing an enforcement mechanism or the funding for one. The Senate is trying to rectify that problem by increasing licensing fees for breeders to as much as $2500.00 to fund more inspectors. It seems that supporters of this bill would be happy with that.
"Missouri Humane Society president Kathy Warnick can't help but feel outraged by watching the Proposition (the Humane Society wrote) get overturned.
"A total miscarriage of justice has occured," Warnick said, "simply because Missouri's citizens voted for Proposition B. The measure passed, and we feel the Senators should have respected the will of the people of Missouri to provide better care and conditions for the animals in Missouri's breeding facilities. We feel very strongly that the Senators have absolutely gutted proposition B, and that they have stripped away the protection Missouri's animals so richly deserve."
I guess it's just because I'm a dumb country boy but I don't see this bill being overturned. I see it being tweaked, corrected or brought into line with other statutory law in Missouri but that's hardly being overturned.
You see, this is the problem with the way the left misuses democracy. Notice how they constantly characterize our form of government as democracy when thats not what we are? The reason for this is because they know that through direct vote an ignorant populace can be coerced into voting for something against their own interest or against the interest of a minority group.
After all, democracy is nothing more than two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner.
"The measure passed, and we feel the Senators should have respected the will of the people of Missouri...". If this is the case I wonder if Ms. Warnik would feel the same way if the people of Missouri had voted to allow dogs and cats to be served as food in our restaurants? Or what if we had voted to take away womens suffrage?
Democracy is nothing more than a tool used by the left to hijack the process in a republic. They know that they'll never get a bill like Prop B through the legislature so they do an end run by getting it put on the ballot, which is perfectly legal. However, it's also perfectly legal and normal for the legislature to amend statutes after they're passed; it happens all the time. Why should Prop B be sacrosanct?
Since the legislature doesn't seem to be looking to throw Prop B out I think that the outrage from the animal rights fringe is mostly for theatrical affect. They have an agenda far greater than the protection of dogs and they thought they had us fooled. Thankfully our reps are doing their jobs and now maybe we can get a law in place that protects both the dogs and the rights of animal owners, producers and breeders.
Isn't that really what most people want?