Rumor has it that Governor Nixon will sign SB 113 based on a demand by the Tilley, Loehner, and Parson that they won't consider his "compromise" bill unless he does so.

Leaving aside this being a politically stupid move, the demand for a signature on SB 113 is nothing more than a way for the SB 113 supporters to gloat about their control—over the state, over the state leadership, and over the will of the people of Missouri.

If Governor Nixon vetoes SB 113, these same leaders would hustle their butts in order to ensure the "compromise" is passed. So the question is: is Nixon as politically astute as some people claim him to be? Not if Department of Agriculture's Jon Hagler's appearance at the pro-SB 113 rally is any indication.

Opinion on the "Compromise"

First, it's important to note that Governor Nixon has not vetoed SB 113. If he does nothing for 15 days, SB 113 becomes law by default. This "compromise" that he touts now is not accompanied by anything definitive, such as "If you don't vote for this compromise, Proposition B will go into effect". Even as mediocre as this "compromise" is, he still can't be seen to buck the Missouri agribusiness interests by doing a direct veto of SB 113.

Now, let's look at the "compromise" compared to Proposition B.

Proposition B set an upper limit of 50 adult dogs. The "compromise" removes this limit, so we can continue with large scale dog factory farms with 200, 400, even a 1,000 dogs.

"She just looked up at me and took a big breath and died"

Norton Kennels is still operating in Missouri, still selling puppies to pet stores. In 2009, this breeder had 453 adult dogs.

Where is the Love

A re-edit of Black Eyed Peas "Where is the Love", adapted for a pet store/puppy mill protest.

Meet the Reps who let you and the dogs down

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has a nice article listing the reps from the St. Louis area who voted against their district.

These people pretend that this was compromise, but what this really is, is politics as usual. They voted for SB 113 in order to get support for their pet project, or to curry favor with the Missouri Farm Bureau, or maybe they just don't like dogs or voters. You know, uppity voters daring to bring about law all by our lonesomes.

Meet one breeder Representative Loehner is Protecting

My plan, if Governor Nixon allows SB 113 to pass, is that beginning the day that Proposition B should have been allowed to take effect, I'll be covering breeders who would have been closed down under B's more rigorous standards but are allowed to continue under the lax laws and enforcement of SB 113 and ACFA. However, I thought I would start a little early with one breeder because of comments made during the SB 113 House floor debate this week.

During the debate on SB 113 in the House, Representative Loehner made a comment that the dog breeders in his district know their animals well—more so than those advocating for Proposition B. He said he'd visited breeders in his district and found many to be better than child care centers.

Allow me to introduce you to one breeder in his district. Note, I wouldn't recommend reading the rest of the article if you're eating.

A Compromise

Compromise is in the air about Proposition B/SB 113. Before now, the only parts of Proposition B I was willing to compromise on are associated with the sex of the breeding dog and breeding cycle, and the definition of "pet".

However, I am willing to make another compromise. I am willing to give up every last part of Proposition B—the 50 dog limit, the rest period, the vet visits, the space considerations, everything—for one thing: transparency.

We've heard from the defenders of SB 113 that most of the licensed breeders in the state have great places. Representative Loehner stated on the House Floor this week that most kennels are better than many childcare facilities. Well, then, showing these kennels to the world shouldn't cause any discomfort to the kennel owners. In fact, they should welcome this compromise, as it won't cost them a cent.

Here's how my compromise solution would work:

This Childish Fight

In 101 Damnations: Missouri Lawmakers choose politics over puppies. Veto the bill., the St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial board does recommend that Governor Nixon veto SB 113, which I appreciate. But they also suggest that Nixon send the bill back to the lawmakers and the Prop B supporters to find a compromise to end this "childish fight".

MOFED Campaign Contributions Ethics Violations

Interesting. The primary group against Proposition B, then and now, is MOFED: Missouri Federation of Pet Owners.

Evidently they violated Missouri Ethics laws regarding recording of campaign contributions. It does seem as if the group didn't report expenditures in a timely manner. Normally, this is something I wouldn't bring up except this violation touches on one of the major anti-Proposition B campaign arguments: that HSUS spent so much money and the other side spent hardly any at all.

Well, we now know the "other side" didn't include the $350,000 paid by Forrest Lucas directly on advertising. And the "other side" seems to have missed additional money spent on the campaign against Proposition B.

Thank you to those who tried

I wanted to send a thank you to State Senators and Representatives who tried to protect Proposition B:


Thank you to Senator Jolie Justus, not only for her spirited defense of Proposition B, and our vote, but also for attempting to add an amendment to send SB 113 to the people for a vote.

Thank you, also, to Senator Jane Cunningham, who asked a very relevant question during the Senate debate on SB 113: what about Proposition B was left unchanged? Senator Parsons could not answer this question.

A personal thank you to my own state senator, Senator Eric Schmitt—not only for supporting Proposition B, but also for kindly letting me know how the vote went as soon as it happened.


Subscribe to Puppies at Burningbird RSS