House moves on SB 113
Missourinet has a short story on the House plan to adopt SB 113 rather than pursue HB 131. Are the two bills similar? Yes, in that they both gut Proposition B, but no in the particulars of how they do it.
However, the faster the representatives can gut Proposition B, the happier the agribusiness interests will be.
Missourinet does have inaccuracies in its coverage of the story, though. One is that there are four inspections per year. There are not.
If the breeder is licensed by both the USDA and the Department of Agriculture, they may have two separate inspections, one from each. However, I have found both Dept. of Agriculture inspector names along with USDA inspector names on USDA inspection reports, which leads me to believe they are sharing some inspection responsibilities. The only way to verify this is to compare Dept. of Agriculture inspection records, side by side, with USDA inspection records. Unfortunately, the Dept. of Agriculture records are not easily accessible.
In addition, many Missouri breeders are not licensed by the USDA, which means they only have the one Department of Agriculture inspection.
Lastly, the two "veterinarian" site visits are not inspections. The vets are hired directly by the breeders. As we've seen at too many breeders, not all kennel veterinarians have the dogs welfare at heart. Point of fact, many of them seem to be more concerned about the breeders than the dogs.
This type of misinformation is common about Proposition B and SB 113. The misinformation is fostered by Senator Parson, and now Representative Cox seems to have taken on this rather dubious mantle in the House of Representatives.