The Cruelty of Missouri’s Prop. B Hypocrisy
Posted: March 16, 2011
A sad story in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch this morning tells how one of the area’s animal shelters was raided and 195 dogs and cats were rescued for the second time in their miserable lives. In today’s economy, donations are down at shelters and more pets are being abandoned and dropped off, creating a bad situation for people who want to help animals.
But at the same time here in Missouri, Proposition B, the so-called “Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act,” which passed by a narrow margin in last year’s election, is under review by a state legislature anxious to take a fresh look and lawmakers are being attacked in the local media. While animal rights activists are calling foul, they are ignoring a simple fact most voters were unaware of … shelters like the one raided are exempt from the new law.
If Proposition B was just simple language all about the welfare of dogs, why did those forces pushing for it last year exempt themselves? If the Missouri legislature cannot dilute or delete Proposition B, perhaps lawmakers should take the opposite approach — try to remove the exemptions and force the shelters to explain why they should not be held to the same scrutiny they impose on others.
Thanks to this morning’s paper, I can think of 195 silent witnesses for the prosecution.
Shelley Said,
March 16, 2011 @ 11:50 am
Because, as you didn’ t seem to notice, all 195 dogs and cats were taken to one shelter: HSMO in St. Louis. If it weren’t exempt from Prop B, where exactly do you think these animals should go?
Ken Said,
March 16, 2011 @ 12:05 pm
If the Humane Society of Missouri were not exempted, why could they not still have taken in the animals?
Shelley Said,
March 16, 2011 @ 5:31 pm
Did you see the count of dogs, Ken?
Ken Said,
March 16, 2011 @ 5:44 pm
Did you not read the law, Shelley? The law prohibits owning more than 50 dogs “for the purpose of breeding those animals and selling any offspring for use as a pet,” so it would automatically not apply to HSMO even without the exemption granted later in the law. Which seems to also demonstrate that it is possibly to house more than 50 dogs in a safe and healthy way, so that particular restriction is not really needed.
Shelley Said,
March 17, 2011 @ 9:01 pm
That is 195 dogs, followed on about 70 dogs a few weeks ago. HSMO has a lot of facilities, but right at the moment, it couldn’t meet all of the space requirements for these numbers of dogs.
But then, the dogs aren’t going to stay forever. A collie rescue is already working with the HSMO to help find foster homes for the collies from a few weeks ago. Others will also step up, and for the rest, HSMO will find homes. It finds homes for thousands of dogs and cats a year.
So no, chances are with these many dogs, right now, HSMO doesn’t meet Prop B standards. But it’s not because they want to keep the dogs this way forever. And it’s not because of greed.
So there’s a reason why shelters aren’t under the same requirements as the commercial dog breeders: because shelters focus is to find homes for the dogs, not keep them and breed them until they’re useless.