DEFENDING PROP B

By Michael Markarian

A few Missouri politicians, aligned with the puppy mill and agribusiness lobbies, are busy trying to repeal or dismantle Proposition B, the voter-approved Puppy Mill Cruelty Prevention Act. Prop B, which sets humane standards for large-scale dog breeding operations, passed in a statewide vote and won majorities in most state Senate and state House districts.

But a handful of legislators want to substitute their own judgment for the wisdom of 997,870 Missouri voters who favored the new law. While this attempted power grab is coming from the state capitol building, more reasonable voices around the state are calling on lawmakers to respect the will of the people.

State Rep. Sally Faith (R-St. Charles) had signed on as co-sponsor of two repeal bills, even though more than 65 percent of voters in her district favored Prop B. She told the St. Louis Post-Dispatch that she got more than 200 phone calls and e-mails from constituents who questioned her on the issue. She has rightly changed her mind, after hearing from her district, and said she will now oppose efforts to repeal Prop B.

Let’s hope other state lawmakers get the message as well and take the time to find out how their own districts voted on Prop B. If every senator and representative votes with his or her own district, the measures to roll back dog protection standards will fail in both chambers. Newspaper editorials, cartoonists and columnists — even some that opposed Prop B during the election campaign — are weighing in and saying the people’s vote should stand. Here’s a rundown of what some across the state are saying:

- Our legislators cannot have it both ways. In any number of areas, they have chosen not to govern, leaving it to special interests — the gambling industry, animal lovers, gun enthusiasts, clean-energy advocates just to name recent examples — to use the initiative process to put policy questions directly to the voters. It’s costly and cumbersome, and it’s not terribly easy to go back to the voters to change policies when facts or public sentiment change. But that’s the way it is. Having chosen not to act in the first place, it’s outrageous for legislators to substitute their judgment for that of the voters after the fact. — Editorial Board, The Examiner, Feb. 3, 2011

- Let’s start with Proposition B, the 2010 doggy mill initiative. It was approved by the voters, requiring dog breeders in Missouri to treat their animals more humanely. I did not support this in 2010, but the majority of the state did. I care about that. Yet it seems the Republican-heavy legislature does not. They think you were foolish to pass such a law and they want to gut it or kill it. — David Rosman, Columbia Missourian, Feb. 2, 2011

- A basic issue is whether the legislature should so quickly amend the will of the voters. It’s legal for lawmakers to second-guess initiative voters, but usually after a decent interval when the paucity of their decision is clear. Perhaps a case can be made for changing Prop B, but only after we know more about the efficacy of the existing law. — Henry J. Waters III, The Columbia Daily Tribune, Feb. 1, 2011

- Rural lawmakers want to either repeal outright or substantially amend the statute that was Proposition B on the November statewide ballot. It requires dog breeders to treat their animals humanely. One of the bills, sponsored by Rep. Stanley Cox, a Sedalia Republican, would modify the ballot measure by:
• Removing the provisions requiring owners to provide adequate shelter from the elements, sufficient housing, sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, necessary veterinary care and adequate rest between breeding cycles
• Removing the provisions requiring water for dogs to be free of debris, feces, algae and other contaminants.
With his proposed changes, Cox has soundly validated the wisdom of voters in passing the puppy mill cruelty act. — Editorial, The Kansas City Star, Jan. 29, 2011

- With the coveted title of Puppy Mill Capital of America at stake, a House committee this week has been considering ways to cancel the election results. One proposal simply would repeal the law. Another would exempt existing breeders. A third course, warmly received by many committee members on Tuesday, would eliminate such pesky provisions of the law as prohibiting dangerous overcrowding in cages, protecting dogs from bad weather and providing them veterinary care when needed.… [The Missouri Legislature prefers to defy the will of the people, trash duly enacted voter initiatives and bow to the will of special interests more to their liking. — The Editorial Board, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Jan. 27, 2011

Elected officials should respect the will of the people. Subverting the judgment of voters is wrong, and it’s anti-democratic. If you live in Missouri, please contact your state senator and representative and tell them to oppose any changes to Prop B. Visit www.missourifordogs.com to find out how you can help.

What is PROP B?

Proposition B requires that any commercial breeder with more than ten female breeding dogs provide each dog under its care with the following:
1. Sufficient food and clean water
2. Necessary veterinary care
3. Sufficient housing, including protection from the elements
4. Sufficient space to turn and stretch freely, lie down, and fully extend his or her limbs
5. Regular exercise
6. Adequate rest between breeding cycles

The Act also prohibits any breeder from having more than fifty breeding dogs for the purpose of selling their offspring as pets.

Michael Markarian is chief operating officer of The Humane Society of the United States, and president of the Humane Society Legislative Fund. He writes the blog “Animals & Politics” at www.michaelmarkarian.org.