Bigger Picture

A poem has been appearing on several puppy rescue and shelter sites and Facebook pages. According to one site, the poem was a "letter to a roadside vendor by Harriet Rankin".

No, I don't want to buy that puppy.
I am a rescuer.
I'll see him later.

After the fool you sold him to realizes how much work a puppy is.

After he digs out of the boring backyard he was banished to, for the heinous crime of being untrained.

After he roams blistering hot streets, hungry and lonely and confused.

After he picks up parasites and loses weight from throwing up garbage that he eats.

After he gets bitten for wandering into the wrong dog's territory (and it gets infected).

After a car clips him and breaks his leg, adding pain to the thirst, hunger and loneliness.

Then I'll find him.

Chris Koster, Missouri Attorney General, has published another press release about a court injunction against an unlicensed breeder. His office states that the breeder violates several ACFA regulations:

Inspired, in part, by the repeal of Proposition B (not to mention the modification and/or repeal of several other voter initiatives), the Voter Protection Act would modify the state Constitution to require a three-fourths majority vote to modify a citizen initiative.

Missouri is one of only ten states where the legislature can turn around and modify or even complete gut a voter initiative. And, as we saw in the recent legislative session, far too many of our elected officials are more interested in placating special interests than in actually implementing the will of the people.

The Secretary of State has vetted the language of the bill, which means the next step is gathering signatures. If you're interested in helping, you can volunteer at the Voter Protection Alliance web site.

Wayne Pacelle responded to the recent events with SB 161. Evidently the plan of the HSUS, Best Friends Society, and ASPCA is to focus on the Constitutional Amendment that protects citizen initiatives. The organizations also plan to monitor whether there is improvement for dogs in the puppy mills in Missouri. If there is no real improvement, the organizations plan to respond with another citizen initiative, but this time, one hopefully protected from legislative mucking about.

This confirms that there won't be a move to bring about a referendum to veto SB 161. Disappointing but understandable. With the burn out and apathy I'm seeing demonstrated by various pundits, it may be difficult to bring about a referendum, especially with the actions of HSMO and MAAL.

I see that Missouri Farmers Care has moved on from fighting for the puppy mills and is now fighting for genetically modified foods. I expect next we'll see an article about the healthful benefits of CAFO manure lagoons.

Governor Nixon signed SB 161. That's all that's happened. He signed a bill that gutted Proposition B. Oh, a few token provisions have been left, but you and I know that the breeders will find their way around these new provisions. I do not expect to see much change in the large scale commercial dog breeding operations in this state.

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.

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: